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, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Modun (t)	1 days, 14 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	16 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	6 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Thought 1915 (t)	6 hours
Hypnosis	Closed	Skalidrisalba (t)	5 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours
Talk:Karima Gouit	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	3 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	3 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 5 hours
Algeria	New	Monsieur Patillo (t)	2 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	Monsieur Patillo (t)	1 days, 19 hours
2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence	Closed	AmitKumarDatta180 (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours
Tuner (radio)	New	Andrevan (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Andrevan (t)	2 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 02:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh

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

Filed by RTPking on 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RTPking (talk · contribs)
• Vensatry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The mentioning of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as the Second largest Film industry in India is being disputed

RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please see the citations and proof presented by each side and decide who is right. RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Vensatry

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.

The claim is highly subjective. Second by what means? No. of films produced, revenue or distribution? There are a lot of contradicting sources which say Tamil as well as Telugu to the second biggest in India. I came across a few sources claiming Tamil to be the second largest in India [1], [2] and second in terms of revenue, distribution and star base. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh discussion

I can provide as many sources which state Telugu Cinema as Second,for instance

• www.georgetown.edu Paper Presented by S.V. Srinivas Ph.D in George Town University Washington D.C
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/ ------ Mentions Tamil third after Bollywood and Tollywood (Telugu cinema)

Most of these conclusions provided as citations which have been compiled by someone else's logic which may or may not be true, I suggest we disregard all these and each provide data backed by good Citations and based on which derive to logical conclusions. RTPking (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note (to DRN volunteers: I'm monitoring this matter as an admin, not an editor): Your suggestion is not allowed: we don't look at primary data and draw conclusions from it; rather, we go by what reliable sources say. As to the overall dispute, though, just because we have conflicting sources means we say nothing; rather, what we usually do is provide both sides of the story, with references, covering them fairly per WP:NPOV. Is there a way that the two of you could agree to this sort of set-up? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment about the two sources provided by User:RTPking: The first one is a paper presented by someone as a part of their research. I see no reputation of the person and he has never explained by what meas he claims the industry to be the second biggest. The BBC source is just a forum where many users have expressed their thoughts, lot of which were based on arguments from Wikipedia itself. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide as many good sources as you may need,

• http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telugu-industry-to-observe-shutdown-on-fri/112050-8-69.html
• http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/telugu-film-industry-mou-with-motion-pictures-association-of-america/article3205612.ece

I hope the above sources would suffice.

I agree with User:Qwyrxian ; RTPking (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Vensatry please mention whether or not you agree with Qwyrxian and mention your reasons. RTPking (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, i am a volunteer for the DRN. If I understood correctly the dispute is about mentioning Telugu Film Industry being the second largest in India? If so, let us understand that exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution (WP:NPOV) which means that we can have a statement like while such-and-such paper said in 2012 that the Telugu Film industry was number two in terms of revenue, in the same year so-and-so paper said that the tamil film industry was number one. So this discussion need not be about choosing this or that. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly I need to mention to you that it is already established that Bollywood has the first place, now this disagreement is about the second place whether Telugu or Tamil holds the second place.

Please see the above discussion as well as the Talk page of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh to find citations supporting Telugu Film industry as Second largest, and citations provided by Vensatry in this discussion stating that Tamil industry is second largest. My question is Vensatry has provided citations of the same news paper {The Hindu} for stating Tamil holding second position which also states Telugu as Second largest, but yet he want it mentioned in Tamil cinema but opposes being mentioned on Cinema of andhra Pradesh I suggest both articles mention this information and also the details that the other cine industry is also considered second simulateanously. I request Vensatry to comment whether he agrees to this solution, the same which User:Qwyrxian proposed. RTPking (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a contentious statement which can be proven either way with the help of reliable sorces we may do one of the following

1. Delete the material in question and say nothing.
2. Keep the material and place both poisitions in the article with reliable sources (as I have illustrated before). This can be done even with the hinkdu as a source as the newspaper ranked both film industries at different and hence, the statement about the telugu film industry being he second largest film industry can be qualified accordingly. -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online

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

Filed by Jenova20 on 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mail Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jenova20 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Dreamyshade (talk · contribs)
• Pscorp19 (talk · contribs)
• Christian1985 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the addition of 2-3 lines detailing a controversy of a newspaper accidentally publishing the wrong article. Readers noticed that not only was it the wrong verdict in a court case, but that the publisher had made fake quotes and a further claim of a suicide watch order being placed on one person. This is reliably cited and User:Collect keeps removing all mention to the actual controversy, leaving only a biased statement playing down the incident as something a few other publications did. Not only do i find this incredibly biased protectionism, but it also removes the controversy aimed at the Mail Online. Further he has accused me of BLP violations for restoring it once as "censorship" with no discussion before hand (even though there is one on the talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion going nowhere fast

How do you think we can help?

Deciding on appropriate wording of the section or clarifying if it should just state that there was a controversy, but nothing other rival publications didn't do (a biased and incorrect fact currently stated)

Opening comments by Collect

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.

This is a "misuse of sources dispute" on two claims.

First is a claim whcih implies that the MO "published" an article with falsehoods therein, and did not remove it - where the "article" was visible online for all of a half hour and appears to have been a routine "placeholder" whose significance is being overstated by the wording of the claim made. I sought to have the claim represent what the source actually states as fact.

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, based on a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. The articles remained online until the announcememt of the reversal of the guilty verdict is a reasonable statement of the facts as presented in the sources given.

The second is a complete misuse of a source "Poynter" where I went to what the original source states.

In March 2012, Poynter published an article saying the MailOnline did not always attribute stories from other sources. Martin Clarke, editor of MailOnline said "We will soon be introducing features that will allow us to link easily and prominently to other sites when further recognition of source material is needed is a reasonable and proper statement of what the source actually states.

This is thus a dispute over how far a Wikipedia claim may misstate what a source says, and should be at WP:RS/N if the proponent really feels that the claim as that editor worded it is supportable by the source. Collect (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: The wrong article was online for all of 90 seconds according to strong reliable sources. The sources cited make clear that this was true of several newspapers, making that cavil errant. I do not think that using what the sources say is "biased" nor did I "remove criticism" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online 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.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. A look at the talk page of the article suggests that there are a number of other editors involved in this dispute, most notably Dreamyshade, Pscorp19, and Christian1985 but there may be others as well. Is there some reason why they should not be included here and notified on their talk pages? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- but I suggest that the consensus on that article talk page makes this DRN moot. All editors but one agree on the wording I proposed as being neutral and BLP-compliant. Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was notified on my talk page, and it looks like those other two editors were notified as well. For context, I started looking at this article after seeing a request on WP:3O. I'm OK with Collect's changes. There's a larger disagreement on the talk page about how to cover critical material, but since the article now has attention from multiple editors, we can hopefully work it out via talk page discussion. If that doesn't seem to be working, it could be helpful to have a dispute resolution discussion about the larger disagreement, not just a couple details. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I posted to the talk page with a suggested revision to improve the clarity of the Knox sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The other editors were notified well before you posted TransportMan, i just didn't see them as essential to this as at the time it was a disagreement mainly between me and Collect over censorship of information and is now over protecting the Mail Online from any criticism at all, no matter how much coverage it gets or how significant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is evident - I try to maintain WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and get accused of "censorship" and "protecting the Mail OnLine from any criticism at all" which is a fatuous argument entirely. The "big issue" is how much weight to attach to a placeholder story accidentally released for 90 seconds online, and whether to say the MO "fabricated" the story in a lengthy paragraph. I suggest that a brief mention avoids UNDUE and POV issues. Jenova apparently feels that the claim of "fabrication" must be made in as lengthy manner a possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation, that's a crap argument from the Conservative wikiproject, which Lionelt used to use for the removal of information from Ex-gay articles, and which you are using to remove anything about a well sourced and reliably sourced criticism of the Mail Online making up a story in preparation and publishing it at the wrong verdict. This was caught and reported. Making your RS and BLP tags a smokescreen to remove the controversy, and instead wording the section to praise the Mail Online (That's the best one yet, while claiming the other wordings proposed are biased or undue weight).

The problem still persists between the me and Collect, but more opinions are welcome. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And i like your "lengthy paragraph" part, especially as my wording only adds 3 words to the one proposed by the third opinion (Dreamyshade) and your wording is longer than that!

My preferred wording:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".

Collect's:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers accidentally released placeholder articles based on a possible guilty verdict in the Amanda Knox case. The Mail Online article was viewable for about 90 seconds, before being replaced with the article prepared for a "not guilty" verdict. The Mail OnLine apologized, and was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. The PCC said 'It also welcomed the swiftness of the newspaper's response and its decision to examine its procedures in light of the events.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20's preferred version looks much more balanced, staying much truer to the source. Collect's version misdirects the reader toward a positive spin, misinterpreting the sources which are mainly negative. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to actually obey WP:NPOV and my "version" on the talk page quotes the PCC directly -- which I suggest is a good way to avoid POV wording. That you see NPOV as "positive spin" I find quite amazing, as I did Jenova's overt claim that I have a COI on the talk page. The PCC said that the actions taken to prevent any recurrence were commendable, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I posted to the talk page: The thing I'm seeing is that the MailOnline article was unusual enough for the PCC to go through the process of upholding a complaint about it, unlike the errors published by the other newspapers. If the MailOnline had published a brief prepared story reporting on the guilty verdict as if it had happened, this wouldn't have been particularly notable; the problem was that the MailOnline included "colourful" speculative details as well. I think these links show that reliable sources didn't consider it routine. The PCC complaint was not heavy though, balancing a reprimand for the story and details with an acknowledgement of removing it quickly and apologizing, so I want to include it but not overstate it.

Looking at Jenova20's modification of my proposal, I believe saying "fictional" quotes isn't supported by the sources, and the added "fictional quotes" phrase is somewhat redundant with saying "reactions that had not taken place".

Thanks to Collect for writing a proposal too, since it's easier to discuss this with specifics instead of abstractions. Here's what I said on the talk page explaining that I prefer my proposal: I believe saying "accidentally" and "possible guilty verdict" also isn't quite supported by the sources; according to the "quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened" above, the articles were published on purpose since the newspapers thought a guilty verdict had happened - they were just mistakes. Is the term "set and hold" familiar to most UK readers, or do we need to define that if we use it? (I'm in the US and hadn't heard the term before looking at these sources.) It's also important to be clear that this event was about the appeal's upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict, not the original guilty verdict. I think we should also briefly summarize the PCC complaint instead of quoting part of it, to help with due weight.

Here's another attempt that tries to include the PCC complaint's positive elements:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

It's getting a little long, but we do have eight secondary sources to support it: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, Collect and I agreed on this version, with changes from "temporarily" to "prematurely" and "prepared" to "standby":

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers prematurely published standby articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Jenova20, what do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and put that proposed version into the article. It's similar to the version Jenova20 preferred above, so hopefully this resolves the dispute. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any version which gives the excuse of the Mail Online but doesn't mention what the controversy was - creating fictional quotes and/or making up claims of Amanda on suicide watch. These are the issues people complained about, not that the wrong article was up for 90 seconds. What is the actual point of saying there was a complaint and the mail apologised when the reader can click the reference, see it, think "oh, that's quite bad", and wonder why Wikipedia instead reports on it as though it's a department of the Mail Online? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the 90 second part is an excuse from the Mail Online, not a definite fact. It is actually disputed by a few commentators and so its inclusion is controversial if not explained.Source 1Source 2Source 3

And for anyone who disputes the made up quotes still:

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that "justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"

There's some quotes. Did they happen or were they made up? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatculture also uses "personal blogs" per its solicitation for anyone to write for it. DigitalSpy says it was "swiftly deleted". WaPo says that an "Irish blogger" said it was online for some time - but bloggers != reliable sources. Thus you have precisely ZERO reliable sources for it being anything other than "swiftly deleted" (DigitalSpy). Thanks for showing the paucity of evidence that it was not removed swiftly. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's keep trying to figure out a compromise. Like I said on the talk page, the question is whether the quotes and suicide watch detail are remarkable/notable enough to qualify for weight in the article. The suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue.

The quotes part is disputed by the Mail, so we can't simply say "fictional quotes" - this Press Gazette article says "According to a Mail insider, the quotes from the prosecutor were obtained in advance", and this later Press Gazette article says "According to the PCC, in its defence the paper said that the quotes had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial 'to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected"".

That Washington Post source is helpful. How about "within minutes" instead of "within 90 seconds"? That's vague enough to cover both the Mail's claim and other people's claims. I also added "and quotes" since a number of the sources did comment specifically on the quotes:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within minutes and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions and quotes that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online's defence of 90 seconds is argued against by others. If we report their figure, then for balance we need that it is disputed. Here is the version as it currently stands after i added tro it and removed colourful defences of the Mail, which were just opinion, and not factual:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial prematurely. The articles reported an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge had finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources, and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of events and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error. The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which parts you considered not supported by the sources ("just opinion, and not factual")?

Your text of "MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources" is less concise than saying "MailOnline removed the article within minutes", and this text needs to be concise to maintain due weight.

Changing "prematurely published standby articles" to "published prepared articles" brings back the problems that Collect and I discussed on the talk page - see "All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another" and "use "prematurely" to indicate that the articles were released before the paper could actually know the verdict". Your edit summary said "less excuses for what it was", but the previous wording was more clear about what happened.

Changing "reporting of reactions" to "reporting of events and reactions" is confusing to me - my intent with saying "reactions" was to cover the reported events, quotes, and other details. Maybe that's not sufficiently clear? In any case, my suggestion above is to change this to "reporting of reactions and quotes" since the sources seem to agree that the quotes were important.

Adding "The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false." puts undue weight on that detail according to my review of the sources, as I've explained above.

Splitting the first sentence into two sentences is OK with me if other people think that makes it easier to read, although I liked the balance of having one sentence about the general situation and one sentence about the Mail-specific situation. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence seemed too big to comfortably read. It read like terms and conditions to me, which is why i tried to split it up and reword it. I like your "reporting of reactions and quotes" part though. Can you do a new wording below? And i considered the suicide claim significant enough to mention. It is mentioned in most sources, and even if only quoted in some, it is still one of the made up events of the case whch i included because it was part of the complaint. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IOW, you wish to present a POV article here and not abide by WP:NPOV? Sorry -- you would need far more than a mere consensus for that, and you do not have anywhere near a consensus for the edits you wish. Cheers. DRN can not negate WP:NPOV ever, and it will not do so now. Collect (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a new version to offer yet - I think my latest proposal above still balances the specific concerns I've seen and the sources I've read. I agree that the sentences are a little long, but I haven't yet figured out a way to split the first one without causing even more awkwardness. Collect, any comments on the proposal from 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) above? For the 90 second thing, here's the relevant part of the Washington Post column: "A spokesperson for the Daily Mail told the Press Gazette that the publication will look into the incorrect story, which they said was live for 90 seconds, though some commenters claimed it was available online for much longer." They take the other claims seriously enough to mention them, which may justify being a little vague. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC accepted the 90 second figure. That someone uses a cached system to view an article does not bring the 90 seconds into question. On AOL, the cache was sometimes updated only after some hours, and such events should not be imputed in any way to the Mail Online. "Available online" != "not removed at the 90 second mark" if you talk to anyone in the online communication area at all. In fact, it can take Wikipedia itself more than 20 minutes to update its own caches of articles! (technical load issues are a primary cause). In short, where the MO make a statement and the PCC acceots that statement, it is UNDUE for us to use unnamed "commentators" without identifying them specifically. Cheers. - I had thought was had an agreement on the language for sure. Collect (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online is not a reliable source Collect. It's not made clear if the PCC say 90 seconds, solely because that is the defense of the Mail, or if they actually investigated the time it was up. What is clear is that there are reliable sources disputing this time given by the Mail. That's controversial.

And your message on my talk page was not appropriate. Read the sources and you'll quickly see it's all there. No one is trying to challenge NPOV, it's just a fantasy you have created. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And since when can NPOV be used to remove half a debate? I notice Collect finds the Mail's claim of 90 seconds notable, but not that multiple other sources challenge that time...That's not NPOV at all...it's almost like it's a violation of NPOV...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try again -- YOU chose to use the PCC result as a source - and when one uses a source, one uses the entire source. And that particular source ... gives the 90 second claim. It is NPOV to use all of a source, it is POV to cherry-pick from the source. Do you see the difference? And I note that your "multiple sources" include one which says "swiftly" (DigitalSpy) and one which is a blog, and one which quotes an "Irish blogger". I would further note that GoogleNews etc. do not refresh their results every minute (heck, neither does Wikipedia!), and that the one DigitalSpy noted that the link from such a source led to a deadlink -- meaning that the 90 seconds used by the PCC is the only reliably sourced time we have at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. Read WP:Reliable and get back to us on that one Collect. It takes more than that to rule a source unreliable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jenova, the "within 90 seconds" is the claim made only by the MailOnline, and therefore it cannot be used as a fact. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you still want to claim there are no reliable sources? Another one. That's on top of the 3 from earlier. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And the PCC report still stands as the definitive report which you specifically wished to use - so we get to use all of it. That Googlenews or the like link to a story which has been removed != any value at all. They frequently take a half hour to update their links. And your prior three sources had only one RS source say a blogger reported the story was live for a short while, while DigitalSpy (RS) stated "swiftly." Your blog source of course fails WP:RS. Now is there any value at all to your tendentiousnes on this? I would note your sources make naught of the "suicide watch" claim you sought to insert, or the multitude of trivia now found in that section including In April 2012, Salon magazine reported that MailOnline overhyped a story about Egyptian necrophilia law which Al-Arabiya took from a newspaper opinion column written by a dedicated Hosni Mubarak supporter. where there is no accusation the MO did anything wrong at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC got the 90 second figure from the Mail Online using it as their defense, which is not a reliable source. To mention it, you would have to attribute it to the Mail Online directly, rather than claim it as fact. That's misrepresentation of the sources Collect. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at "within 90 seconds" vs. "within minutes" as a question of finding the version that will cause less of an edit war. :) Can we take a quick survey of whether people would tolerate the article saying "within minutes"? Collect, can you provide details from the sources supporting that people's claims of longer availability (as noted in the Washington Post column) were caused by the article getting cached on other websites, so we can look at that in more detail? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC examined just about everything - and accepted the 90 seconds figure. I can assure you that Googlenews shows links which are "dead" on a common basis, and one of the articles cited stated that they followed a link from another page and found the actual article had been removed, though not removed from the referring site. As the only sources that it was not removed are bloggers, and we do not give weight to blogger claims as a rule, I suggest we stick with the PCC findings (including the fact they praised the Mail for its quick response - which they would not have done if they thought it was less than swift action). Collect (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to say the Mail's defense of 90 seconds (making clear it's what they said and not a fact) but also making clear that others dispute this, including the Washington Post. Going with one side over the other wouldn't be fair and the 90 seconds alone is a violation of NPOV since Wikipedia would be siding with the Mail against the sources available and ignoring their argument. And Collect, i am free to change my opinion. If your only defense is that i said something before changing my mind then you need a better argument. We're trying to figure out a wording here and you're trying to be childish and create divisions and arguments. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of out of ideas here - "within minutes" seems like the best option to me, but it sounds like neither of you are willing to go with that compromise. Are any dispute resolution volunteers available to step in and help? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't try and place a specific time since both sides dispute it. We just need what the Mail said, and what the other side counter with. That's balanced, that's neutral. Picking a side isn't. Collect removes all reference to the controversy every time and so we're left with the highly POV piece we currently have which praises the Mail Online. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above belies your claims about my edits. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and decide on your own to abide thereon. And that you find WP:NPOV to be a problem with your edits, I suggest you have a cup of tea and abide by that policy as well. Your sources say only that blofggers said it was available for a half hour. The MO, and the PCC agree on the 90 seconds. I would point out that removing an article at the 90 second mark does not remove it from the Googlenews cache, or the AOL cache instantly. Heck, an edit changed in 90 seconds on Wikipedia may show up in caches for days if that is when the crawlers hit the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please highlight the personal attack as i can't see it. I can see comments on your edits, but nothing attacking you. Just another misleading claim to distract from the issue we're all here for. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• imediaethics.org "Seattle Weekly stated the article was up for about thirty minutes"
• Washington Post "live for 90 seconds, though some commenters claimed it was available online for much longer"
• Whatculture "The article, which appeared online at 8.50pm UK time and was still available 25 minutes later,"

That's what i pulled up on it, no blogs, no mention of bloggers. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And see [11] wherein it solicits folks to blog on any topic on that site. Currently all contributor positions on WhatCulture are unpaid, Your articles have the potential to be read by hundreds of thousands of people, Whether you are a brand new contributor with no previous articles published or someone who has published over 1,000 articles, you have the same chance of having your content featured on the homepage., In the Summer of 2011, after winning the Sky Movies Blog of the Year award, the site evolved into WhatCulture and now covers a huge range of topics. Now tell me it is not a blog when it was named Blog of the Year. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The actual Seattle Mail article is at [12] and is identified as a blog - which is ok for a fact-checked newspaper. Most news outlets had two versions of the same story ready to run - one if Knox was acquitted, and the other if her appeal was rejected. The Daily Mail ran both. And Jonathan Walczak produced all of two blog entries for all of 2012. Not a regular contributor to a newspaper which fact chacks his blog entries. Newspaper blogs are allowed as sources if and only if they represent material under regular editorial control of the newspaper (These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process). His own SPS site calls him an "award winning journalist" and lists no awards <g>. He has zero apparent notability as a "journalist" and I find zer awards, and the "Seattle Weekly" does not call him a staff member. What I do find is two blog posts in all of 2012. Sorry folks - the word "blog" is absolutely suited for his post. Clear enough? Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not found better sources so i'll drop that obstacle. We still need to do something about your version though, which i find highly POV for praising the Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC was the group that "praised" the Mail -- we do not remove praise from a governing agency because we think it unmerited. Nor is reporting an official opinion "POV" in such a case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, when you change a negative event for a news source, which was roundly criticised by many into a positive praising for that news source, then it is highly POV. That's exactly what it currently is and you urgently need to study WP:NPOV. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20, can you be more specific about which parts you still find problematically POV, ideally providing sources showing that the phrasing is unbalanced, so that we can inspect it more carefully and make progress? Dreamyshade (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kansas Bear on 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) Devanampriya (talk · contribs) Theman244 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The result of the battle is the topic of concern. I have presented multiple university sources that state three different results: Indecisive, Afghan victory and Sikh victory. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page(blatant sourcing, quoting)[13] Asking for advice on Project Military History[14] Taking suggestions from Project Military History and copy/pasted them to Battle of Jamrud talk page[15] How do you think we can help? We need a clarification to determine if we need to use what ALL university sources state about the result of a battle or to ignore specific university sources. Opening comments by Devanampriya 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. Hello, My position is that the military result for the Battle of Jamrud infobox should list this as a sikh victory for the following reasons: Jamrud fort guarded the strategic khyber pass, and was in Sikh possession The afghans attacked jamrud fort with the objective of retaking it The afghans failed to take jamrud fort--having been defeated by the sikh relief force The afghans retreated to afghan territory. The afghan casualties were disproportionate The military history sources that provide detailed accounts of this battle confirm this, as opposed to the passing mention in non-military history reliance offered by opposing party. My concern on this article is that the obfuscatory approach offered by opposing party will open a pandora's box of revisionism for clear results on other military history articles on wikipedia. It will also prevent layreaders from getting a quick snapshot of what happened—forcing them to read long relativist accounts which salve wounded national pride instead of clearly stated facts. By simply reviewing tactical military objectives and results, third parties can ascertain whether battles were victories, defeats, or stalemates/inconclusive. The results should be even more obvious when involving military fortifications like jamrud, where possession is 10/10ths the law. But here the results were conclusive: The afghans failed in their attempt to take jamrud fort, the fort remained in sikh hands, and as a result, afghans were unable to take and hold territory again in India. But in spite of good faith attempt at discussion, opposing party avoided answering the question and seeks to impose a minimization without good faith discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jamrud#Battle_of_Jamrud This battle was the culmination of a long war between sikhs and afghans, that consistently rolled back Afghan power in India as well deprived them of their winter capital at peshawar. Jamrud fort controlled the strategic khyber pass, making possession of it by the afghans necessary to retake territory in India. The sikhs decisively defeated this attempt to retake the fort, and the afghans retreated. Between the heavier casualties on the afghan side, as well as their failure to achieve the primary military objective of taking the fort, this should be a very clear sikh victory to any dispassionate third party. In sum, this dispute can be very easily resolved by answering the obvious questions: 1.what was the military objective? 2.was this objective achieved? Thank you for your time. Devanampriya (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Theman244 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. Hi, I agree with the position taken by the user Devanampriya due to stated points above by the user. My position on Battle of Jamrud is not very different from Devanampriya. First i think Kansas Bear taken this decision in hurry to refer this case to Dispute Resolution(here), but i am fyn with this. On the other hand, Takabeg claim that this was a Afghan victory because Hari Singh Nalwa was killed during or after(injured in the battle) battle is baseless. This was not first time that Military General was killed during or after(due to injuries) the battle. Jamrud Fort was in possession of Sikh Army before and after battle and also there was no territorial change in the boundary of Sikh Empire and at last not to forget Afghan retreat. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Battle of Jamrud discussion Unrelated to dispute 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. Hello. I see that no volunteer has - as of yet - decided to hear and decide on this dispute. I will therefore do so unless there is an objection voiced by any party to this proceeding. Preliminarily, I must state that I can do very little until all parties have posted opening statements and until I have read them. In order to keep this case moving swiftly, and to ensure that it does not clog up the dispute resolution noticeboard, I am going to ask the parties to post opening statements by Thursday 24 January 2013. I will not permit individual replies to individual posts. Rather, parties may write "consolidated" replies - i.e. the user "theman244" may write a reply to the opening statements of other parties as part of his reply post - individual replies to individual posts will make it difficult to keep track of this discussion. Should parties object to this suggestion, please inform me, and suggest a better method. --The Historian (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) If no one has made opening comments within 72 hours, I will be closing this DR/N and ask that it be refiled on the 24th if there is still a concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) As I understand this dispute, it is about what side won the battle? There can be only one winner or it is a draw. This needs to sorted out. Please begin by discussing what the relevant sources are claiming. Please be aware that all non RS sources will be dismissed as well as all non experts in this area. Note: historians will not be excluded for not being military experts. As a volunteer at DR/N, I request that every source discussed be directly linked or quoted in a text box using the parameters {{quotation|"The actual quote from the source"}} which will show as: "The actual quote from the source" You may link the source and use the quote box if you desire.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC) "At the battle of Jamrud neither side could honestly claim a victory, but the Sikhs suffered severely at the hands of the Afghan horsemen, and they lost one of their king's favorite generals, Hari Singh. -- James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Cambridge University Press, p109 "Although Dost Mohammad managed to mount an expedition against the Sikhs, winning a battle near Jamrud in 1836, he was simply unable to recover Peshawar." -- Robert Johnson, The Afghan Way of War:How and Why They Fight, Oxford University Press, p47 "1837 they fought a pitched battle at Jamrud in which the Afghan forces were victorious. -- Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison, p62 "A pitched battle was fought at Jamrud, in which Hari Singh Nalwa was killed, but the Afghans failed to dislodge the Sikhs from Jamrud..." -- Proceedings, Punjabi University, p129 "For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the ...." -- Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227 "In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not followup his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands." -- Jeffery J. Roberts, The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, Greenwood Publishing, p4 "He defeated the Sikhs at the battle of Jamrud(1837)...." -- Ludwig W. Adamec, Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan, p111. I had tentatively proposed placing Afghan victory(with the Gulzad, Adamec and Roberts sources), Sikh victory(with Docherty and Hasrat sources) and Stalemate(with the Norris source). Anymore sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable Sources could be used to add to either Afghan victory, Sikh victory or Stalemate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Let me be more specific. I said sources that are discussed. I did not mean for editors to just drop off sources with no discussion, but this may be clear enough. Also....could the editor that placed this here please sign the post.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) OK well, this is quickly going stale. I will be closing in 24 hrs unless further discussion is created. The above sources do little without discussion. It is the obligation of those editors invloved to discuss this dispute. Without any further input I feel this should be kicked back to the talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Response to Kansas Bear 1: I'd like to begin the discussion proper by noting that it might be important to consider that the weight due to books on military history (rather than military experts themselves) may deserve to be higher for the simple reason that they are concerned with military results, and how those results were achieved, especially since the dispute is focused on the military result of the battle (i.e. who won and why?). It's less a matter of privileging a set of experts than making sure the authors themselves actually analyzed what happened rather than verbatim reprint the official claim. It's a question of analysis vs. blind reprint. When historians or cultural biographers write on a country, they may simply regurgitate primary sources (i.e. Official Afghan Chronicle or Official Sikh Chronicle) instead of actually analyzing whether the sources were accurate. We know the countries/empires frequently like to declare victory even if it was a loss for propaganda purposes--The China-Vietnam war is an example. I would also advocate that weight be assigned on the basis of whether there was a mere passing mention of a battle vs. an extended description or analysis. I would also recommend that collective recency of sources be considered as well. Here is the breakdown of sources: Extended Account of Battle Result: Sikh Victory Paddy Docherty, The Khyber Pass, Page 186-87, 1st edition Year: 2007 Extended discussion of battle, with background, phase by phase recounting of battle, as well as the end result with implications. This is by far the most detailed account of the battle we have available, and spans over two pages (in comparison to a mere sentence or two in the sources provided by opposing party). It is also the most recent 1st edition of source we have available.(Source) Tony Jaques, Dictionary of Battles and Sieges, P.485, Year: 2007, Entire paragraph on the battle with entry specifically focused on the battle of Jamrud. Clearly states that Akbar was defeated outside Jamrud, raised the siege, and withdrew, with Sikhs keeping fort. This is also specifically a military history book, focused on battles, sieges, and their outcomes.(Source) By Dr. H.S. Singha, Sikh Studies, Book 6,P.61, Year: 2005 Several paragraphs on the battle. Gives the order of battle and specifies the Sikh possession of the fort and the circumstances of Hari Singh's passing (like Nelson, was mortally wounded, not killed on the field). (Source) Passing mention of Battle: Result: Sikh Victory Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227;Year: 2004. "For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the ...."????(Source) It’s clear from the text that Khushwant Singh questions the afghan ruler's claim of victory, having state that “he tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory”. Result: Afghan Victory By Jeffery J. Robert, The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, P.4, Year: 2003 "In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not followup his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands."(Source) Only has one sentence on the entire battle. Merely says afghan victory—doesn’t say why. Also says no advance on Peshawar, lending credence to possibility of afghan defeat. If this was a victory--why not go on to recapture other lost territories in India--especially the old Afghan capital of Peshawar. Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), P.62, Year: 1991 "The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison, p62;"1837 they fought a pitched battle at Jamrud in which the Afghan forces were victorious."(Source) Two sentences on battle. Does not explain what happened, or why it was victory based on military results. Merely said death of hari singh demoralized sikh regiments, so the afghans claimed victory. Editorializes without stating bald fact of what happened—and most importantly—who retained possession of fort. Ludwig W. Adamec's Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan, First Edition Year: 1991. "He defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud (1837) and assumed the title “Commander of the Faithful” (Amir-ul-Mu'minin)" (Source) Only passing mention of battle in account of Sardar Mohammed Akbar entry--merely repeats the claim in 2 separate phrases elsewhere. Result: Inconclusive/Unclear James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Year: 1967 ""At the battle of Jamrud neither side could honestly claim a victory, but the Sikhs suffered severely at the hands of the Afghan horsemen, and they lost one of their king's favorite generals, Hari Singh"(Source) Only has one sentence, and says inconclusive. Also, older publication--dating back to the late 1960s. Bikrama Jit Hasrat,Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p137, Year: 1977. "The doubtful Sikh victory at Jamrud in 1837 had made it clear to Ranjit Singh that policy of hatred and repression in the northwestern frontier so far pursued had failed in its objective." ((Source) Unclear how this should be read--says "sikh victory" but also qualifies it as "doubtful". Hence in the unclear category. By raw count, we have: 4 mentions of sikh victory/afghan defeat (3 extended accounts of battle; 1 passing mention), 3 mentions of afghan victory/sikh defeat (all in passing mention and/or out of context), and 2 inconclusive/unclear (also in passing mention). By tally alone, Sikh victory is favored. This is further reinforced by the fact that 2 of the Sikh victory sources give extended accounts of the battle that actually explain why it was a Sikh victory. These 2 (of 4 favorable sources) were also the most recent and most weighty (coming from objective (non-indian, non-afghan) authors) and were specifically focused on the topic of Military History. In contrast, opposing party favors 3 sources that only have a sentence or two on the battle, no explanation for the result, and one of which has an Afghan author. The lopsided nature of the source weight, due to the analysis as well as length of the respective accounts, alone should demonstrate the correct outcome. Most of all, the fact that only the sikh victory sources give clear and credible military reasons for the victory shows how clearcut the npov resolution to this dispute should be. One of the sources actually mentions that the Afghans were simply attempting to put on a brave face for their loss (honours), by spinning it as a victory perhaps due to the subsequent death of Hari Singh--even the though the battle was over the fort. Thus, it is totally possible that the sources claiming afghan victory were simply regurgitating the official afghan claims rather than actually analyzing the battle. NPOV as clearly written doesn’t mean WP: undue weight. When there’s a majority of sources in favor, (by quantity, quality, and recency), that should be given pride of place. Outdated or non-analyzed/minority assertions can be included in the main article (rather than infobox) as a “see also”—this comes directly from the NPOV page. Due to all these factors, both on the basis of secondary source tally as well as secondary source analysis (what was the military objective, why was this a victory?), the academic weight far and away favors the Sikh Victory result. Devanampriya (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Response to Devanampriya Tony Jaques has a Phd in Communication, does not work as a historian nor does he have a degree in an historical field. Just because he authored a book on military history does not mean he is an authority on military history or even battles for that matter.[16] Paddy Docherty was educated at Oxford University, where he also won a Blue for boxing and was Junior Dean of Brasenose College. Born in Scotland and raised in Gloucestershire in the west of England, Paddy has also lived in Africa and the Middle East, and currently lives in Prague. He has been a ranch hand, chef, oil & gas consultant, internet entrepreneur, shipbroker and investment banker. I see nothing about his expertise in history, Sikhs or Afghans.[17] Dr. H.S. Singha. I found nothing online concerning his area of expertise. He has authored numerous books about Sikhs & Sikhism(as a cultural biographer). Perhaps Devanampriya, should look at Dr. Singha's opinion(s) concerning the battle with his own advice;"When historians or cultural biographers write on a country, they may simply regurgitate primary sources (i.e. Official Afghan Chronicle or Official Sikh Chronicle) instead of actually analyzing whether the sources were accurate. Unfortunately, Devanampriya has latched onto the idea that providing sources written by individuals with no formal training(as historians) or cultural biographers will allow him to suppress other sources. He prefers this over university sources, why? Instead of deciding for ourselves the result of the battle, we should take what universities have stated regardless of "passing mention" or "result" and provide the readers with all the reliably sourced information. We, as editors, are not here to determine the result of this battle. We are here to supply reliable sources to write an article. Anyone can search for Sikh victory at Jamrud, but how many university sources support this? How many support a different outcome from the battle? Why can we not indicate what every university source, we can find, states? Since Devanampriya is worried about cultural bias determining the result of the battle then by default we should rely on university sources not books written by non-specialists or cultural biographers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I have to agree. No disrespect for the editor but they have not demonstrated their view ell. Khushwant Singh is neither an historian or expert in military history. A novelist and journalist. I am certain we have already discussed the author at WP:RS/N. Also, clearly the editor is using only the google snippet and not just directing us to a link. This is not RS for use here. In regards to Jeffery J. Roberts I don't see his credentials as a historian or military expert. I will continue to look through the "passing mentions" but so far, they are very weak.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump. I think that at least one contributor here has shown a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how the dispute resolution noticeboard works, and how Wikipedia works. We must not make a decision here as to 'who won the battle of Jamrud'. That is not for us to do. That is for reliable sources to decide. If there is a significant disagreement amongst sources, we must report that too. As to which sources are reliable (in Wikipedia terms), clearly academics working within the field are preferred, though other sources may be useful too - if there are questions about the reliability individual sources, they can be raised at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What we should be aiming to do though is represent accurately the balance of opinions amongst those qualified to comment, rather than to make a definitive assertion one way or another. Battles are not soccer matches, the 'winners' are not always self-evident - and in unforgiving territory like the Khyber pass, it is entirely possible for both sides to come out as losers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Reply to Kansas Bear, 2 Please discuss the contributions and not the contributor Let the record show that Kansas Bear has an unfortunate record of selective citation. The admins now have evidence of his characterization of the above authors; however, he conveniently left out certain facts: 1. Paddy Docherty- Kansas Bear wrote this " I see nothing about his expertise in history". However, Kansas Bear conveniently omitted this fact clearly available on Docherty's About the Author Page: "Paddy Docherty graduated from Oxford University...his graduate research into British imperial history led him to the North West Frontier and he travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the winter of 2003 to research The Khyber Pass, his first book." (Source) But I suppose Kansas Bear omitted this fact because that would merely have been fluff and "original research", so he chose an alternate, less credible link to suit his characterization--much as he did on the Battle of Jamrud page. 2. Tony Jaques-This author's "Dictionary of Sieges and Battles", cited for this dispute, was peer-reviewed by historians by an editorial board of academics at well-known institutions such as University College London. (Source), see p.3. In addition, his educational background is in Political Science and Journalism--hardly unrelated to field of military history and geopolitics (Source) 3. H.S. Singha--Is Director of a University/Institute of Management and Technology(Source), a University Professor, was the former Chairman of the Indian Central Secondary Education Board, and was a former Indian Army Colonel (Source) --I suppose Kansas Bear will now say that Army Colonel Professors are "non-specialists" and have no knowledge of or capability to analyze military history... This is the problem when wiki editors only engage in surface level research and mischaracterize/omit instrumental facts that end up actually being adverse to their questionable conclusions. Singha is clearly not a layperson, applied a military mind to a military historical matter, and is university level professor. It is precisely this type of fact-omission, poor research, and selective-reading by Kansas Bear that has made it difficult to help him understand what is required for an accurate article. Why omit the fact that Paddy Docherty (who has the most comprehensive account and analysis of the battle) was an Oxford graduate student who researched british imperial history?--I suppose Kansas Bear will now conveniently backtrack and say he never came across...the about the author webpage...of the very first google hit for "Paddy Docherty". It's one thing if he doesn't comment in good faith on the talk page, but it's quite another to prejudice the facts at an admin moderated dispute resolution. The irony is that the admin actually had previously noted that military experts weren't the only ones who would be considered. All I referred to was providing Due Weight to works that are actual military histories--in that they focus on the actual details of the battle, analyze them, and explain the conclusion. Further, in my comprehensive list of sources, I didn't even include the "Proceedings from the Punjab University" source even though it was favorable and a university source, which Kansas Bear believes is the be-all-end-all even if there's no analysis or basis or support for the battle conclusion. I could easily have added it to my tally above to make it 5-3 in my favor, for a commanding majority of sources, but it's important that sources are verifiable and credible--the "Proceedings at the Punjab University" source didn't appear to be, so I set it aside even though it was favorable to me; that's called good faith editing. The point isn't even about university sources, the point is whether these were detailed analytical publications that justified their conclusions rather than merely driveby passing mentions in circumstantially related books and theses. As for H.S. Singha and cultural biography--that's my point. If Kansas Bear didn't have that unfortunate little habit of selective reading, he would see that I placed my primary reliance on Docherty and Jaques--not Singha when I said this: "This is further reinforced by the fact that 2 of the Sikh victory sources give extended accounts of the battle that actually explain why it was a Sikh victory. These 2 (of 4 favorable sources) were also the most recent and most weighty (coming from objective (non-indian, non-afghan) authors) and were specifically focused on the topic of Military History." Thus, it's clear that unlike him, I'm not placing primary reliance on cultural biographers or nationalism-biased authors, but objective, third party analysts. In contrast, Kansas Bear's reliance is on the following: Zalmay Gulzad-His work doesn't even appear to be a widely published book, but a mere school thesis(Source), See "Notes: Typescript Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1991 ". If his "Durand Line Delimitation" work was indeed just a student thesis, that made only passing mention of Jamrud, then that means it not only was a work that didn't focus on military history, but was, unlike the works of Docherty and Jaques, reviewed by only his thesis advisor and required degree granting panel. If the wikipedia entry on him is correct, rather than a "university source" as Kansas Bear paints him out to be, he's a professor of social sciences at a community college--big difference(Source). The work Kansas Bear uses here, unlike the Docherty and Jaques books, isn't even available on amazon, lending further credence to the point that the Gulzad work is a mere thesis. In contrast Docherty's published book was shortlisted for the "History Today" award, and was extensively reviewed by notable historians in newspapers of record: REVIEWS . Jaques work was widely edited by a board of scholars from institutions around the world, as noted above. Jeffrey J. Roberts- Tennessee Technological University Professor of history (Source). His specialty is unknown but the work used is focused on the Origins of the Modern Day Afghan conflict, see book description (Source). Again, mere passing mention of the Battle of Jamrud. The work is actually focused on the 2001-Present War in Afghanistan. That's why Jamrud is only briefly noted in the introduction (on page 4) to give a brief background--rather than extensive analysis. The author himself actually focuses the work on the present war there and how it began. There is otherwise No explanation, no rationale. The what and why are important. If the author didn't study the details, just mentioned it en route to more important matters, then how much weight is it due? Ludwig Adamec-Effectively wrote a cultural biography with his Dictionary of Afghanistan. His work merely made passing mention of jamrud. He did not analyze it for pages like other authors did. Nothing more need be said. Thus, what we see here is a track record of Kansas Bear omitting important facts and selective reading, which is why he left out Paddy Docherty's University graduate level study in history. His research is so poor he was unable to even unearth favorable information to him (Jeffrey Roberts, history professor)--I had to volunteer it myself. That's the difference between a good faith editor interested in accurate articles and a nationalist keyboard warrior. This is what has made it so difficult to ensure an accurate article as well as engage in a good faith discussion with Kansas Bear. Furthermore, if Kansas Bear had any understanding of Wikipedia Core Content Policy, he would realize that WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which he accused me of here, "We, as editors, are not here to determine the result of this battle.", applies to primary sources, not secondary sources:[[18]]. His poor understanding of (or bad faith description) of wikipedia policy is emblematic of how he's less interested in accurate articles and wiki collegiality and more interested in labeling good faith editors and pushing a nationalist agenda by any means. In sum, from Kansas Bear's perspective, student theses are equivalent to published history award-winning books, passing mentions outweigh detailed battle analyses, and military officers have no military expertise and are "non-specialists". Of course, all of this leaves out the obvious fact that we have secondary sources themselves that clearly state that the battle was about capturing the fort of Jamrud, which is why it was a Sikh victory, since the Sikhs kept the fort--the Afghan military objective failed. Therefore, in comparing the competing secondary sources, which rationale makes more sense? Devanampriya (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC) "Furthermore, if Kansas Bear had any understanding of Wikipedia Core Content Policy, he would realize that WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which he accused me of here, "We, as editors, are not here to determine the result of this battle.", applies to primary sources, not secondary sources..." No. Entirely untrue. We do not engage in original research, ever, regardless of which sources we are consulting. Wikipedia:No original research is core policy, and non-negotiable. We are not going to decide here 'who won the battle'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Not AN/I Questions to the Admin 1. Could you please clarify AndyTheGrump's competency to comment here? He claims to be uninvolved, is not a party to the dispute, yet selectively targets my comments, and also attempts to speak with (unknown) authority. He also misunderstands Original research. Here's what it means: "The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." (Meaning). I have not produced any new knowledge, I am merely presenting the existing knowledge in summary form--"i.e.the sikhs won the battle of jamrud, because secondary sources wrote x,y,z". Is AndytheGrump attempting to mischaracterize that fact that the secondary sources themselves said it was a sikh victory due to x,y,z reasons? The official wiki core policy on original research states this: "This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. A and B, therefore C is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."[[19]] How have I synthesized anything? Sikh victory is not a new position. All I did was point out the secondary sources that said it was a Sikh Victory, and then pointed out that they did detailed analysis on the topic and gave arguments for why the sikhs won, as opposed to the passing mention done by Afghan victory authors that had no supporting arguments. Compiling secondary source arguments and presenting that analysis is not original research. 2. Could you please clarify the google snippet/RS issue you had with my cited links? Because most publications aren't available online in their entirety, I can only send you google book preview links or see inside amazon links. These frequently do not allow the user to link directly to the specific text that lists what source said. That is why I made it a point to include page numbers for your convenience, so you know which entry I refer to by searching the page. This also allows for readers to search inside the book himself/herself using "jamrud" as a search term. 3. I would also like to point out that the Original Research page specifically notes the following: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."[Policy]. By that Official Wiki standard, would that not mean that the Zalmay Gulzad book on Delimitation of the Durand Line is disqualified, since it could not be considered a "published source directly related to the topic of the article"? I only point this out because it appears to be an unpublished thesis focused on delimitation/border issues rather than historical accounts of battles. It also calls into question the Roberts book, since the Battle of Jamrud (Sikhs and Afghans) had nothing to do with the unrelated Origins of the 2001 American-Afghan war. Even the Adamec book becomes questionable since it's a general cultural biography, with a passing mention of jamrud. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Hello. I know you addressed the above questions to an admin, which I am not, but I hope I can help. 1. I assume that AndyTheGrump is a volunteer on this noticeboard. If you scroll up to the top and click show on the guide for volunteers it explains that that is not a formal position and does not require any special authority. Anyone who feels they can help is free to input to the discussion. I am in exactly the same position: uninvolved and merely trying to help. He "targeted [your] comment" because he felt there was an issue with that particular comment. I very nearly did the same thing yesterday about something Kansas Bear said, but decided I wasn't sure enough about what I was saying. As for the issue that Andy pointed out, I agree with him. Sikh victory is not a new position from a source that says Sikh victory, but it is a new position from the combination of a source that says that keeping the fort was a victory and another that says the Sikh's kept the fort, or even from a single source that states both but does not make the connection. You need to combine those two pieces of information and make a deduction from them to know that the Sikhs won, and unless you can find a source that does combine them and makes the deduction, it is synthesis. I realise that this is a frustrating limitation when your sources have all the information you need to deduce something - my own very first substantive edit ran into similar issues, but Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth. You could put both pieces of information in the article, but you can't make the deduction yourself, even as a summary of the cited information. If you have a notable source that explicitly claims Sikh victory, then you may include that statement. 2. I really can't say what the issue is. If the source doesn't have the full text available for free on the internet, then you couldn't link to it, which is less convenient but certainly does not mean the source can't be used - if anything the contrary. 3. First, WP:V states that "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)". In other words it does not have to have been published in the sense of a publishing house, and the 'unpublished' thesis would count unless as long as it can be accessed by the public. Is this the case, or else how was the information from this source obtained? Of course, this doesn't by itself mean that it is a notable, reliable source, but it would not, as I understand it, be disqualified for not being published. Second, on the point you raised about "sources directly related to the subject of the article", it is not clear to me that this requires the entire work to be about a specific subject in order for a section of it which is directly related to the subject to be used as a source. Provided the information cited is directly related to the subject in question, I don't think there is an issue. I hope this helps with your questions. Finally, I would exhort all involved to please not resort to personal criticism and insults. No matter how justified, talking about "so-and-so's selective reading" or "if such-and-such had any understanding" is not helpful. All it does is inflame tempers and cause bad feeling, and make it that much harder for anyone reading the discussion to pick out the pertinent information. Please can all of us stick to discussing what it was that so-and-so omitted to read, and what point we feel such-and-such doesn't understand. Also, is there any chance we could get some indentation, so it's clear when each comment ends? CarrieVS (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Devanampriya, give your comment regarding me above, I shall be taking no further part in this discussion - I shall however point out that your tendency to engage in what appear to be personal attacks on those who disagree with you or point out that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is flawed, is unlikely to be productive and should it continue, is liable to result in sanctions being taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC) This is an informal board to resolve small content disputes. I am not an administrator, but merely a listed volunteer. Andy The Grump, as well as ANY other editor may participate in this and all other discussions on Wikipedia unless they have been closed to outside comments and we do not do that here. The reason Andy speaks with authority is because he has some expertise in this area and I am very disapointed that Devanampriya would simply attack him over commenting here. I find this very disruptive and not in good faith. Devanampriya, and editors. From this point on we will be speaking in the third person. No further mention of an editor should be made by name. Use him, her, them, they or "the editor".--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) As an uninvolved editor, can I suggest that next thing to do is to take all the sources to WP: RSN. The best way to present them is author, title, publisher and date of publication. The question is the same in every case: is this source reliable for the outcome of the Battle of Jamrut. Don't add what the source says about the outcome. Then when you have a list of sources considered reliable, if they disagree, you can summarise them in the format "X argues but Y argues". Itsmejudith (talk) Regarding "Question to Admin" My "Questions to Admin" response was addressed to Amadscientist, as it was my understanding that since he was in charge of the dispute resolution, he had such authority. Apologies if that was unclear, but I am not a regular in Dispute Resolution processes. My concerns about editor AndyTheGrump were expressed given the very recent complaints about his incivility on his talk page. I have no problem if good faith comments are made, but selective targeting and continuing incivility is a natural concern to any dispute party. In any event, as Amadscientist stipulated, I will reserve comment on new commenters as per the code of conduct. With respect to my comments regarding opposing editor, I am unclear as to why they are viewed as attacks. Opposing editor stated without evidence that I was conducting original research and made snarky comments about me and cultural biographers; how is pointing out selective research and fact omission conducted by him being a problem an attack? In any event, I am more than happy to engage in discussion civilly, and will observe the code of conduct as stipulated by the DR mediator with the understanding that it will be applied equally. I am also awaiting the DR mediator's response to my questions--specifically the issue he had with accessing the concerned text. Do the page numbers help? Do you need me to repost the links in the hopes that specific text is pulled? Please let me know. Thank you. With respective to CarrieVS's comments, here is my response: Thank you for attempting to clarify my questions. However, I must respectfully disagree: 1. Sikh Victory is not a new position even within a single source. If you take a look at the Tony Jaques source above, it specifically notes that the Afghans were defeated outside Jamrud and withdrew. The specific argument for Sikh victory therefore comes directly from the source. If it was a defeat for party A, then it's a victory for party B--it's not synthesis, it's axiomatic. The overbroad logical standard you appear to be setting here is not explicitly mentioned in the core policy--and for good reason. Summary is neither synthesis nor original research, and does not require verbatim text. Wikipedia infoboxes are formatted to state whom the victor was rather than loser--for the record, I think stating "Afghan defeat" would be accurate and acceptable as well. Thus, no original research has been conducted since the argument about Afghan Defeat/Sikh Victory comes directly from a reliable, academically reviewed source, "Dictionary of Battles and Sieges". This is also supplemented by the Col. H.S. Singha book which said Hari Singh (the Sikh Commander) "lost his life but not the battle". 2. I just wanted to make sure Amadscientist could access the concerned text from the above sources. Google books does not always let one do so, which is why I listed page numbers and later recommended a specific search term to make sure the Reviewer could access the concerned material. 3. With respective to Verifiability, if you read further down, reliable sources are clearly stipulated as follows: [[20]]. "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Just to clarify, this is my point about "Extended Accounts vs Passing Mentions", since three sources I provided spent time actually "analyzing facts" instead of merely supplying an unjustified conclusion, aka passing mention. The Gulzad thesis, Roberts book, and Adamec book all make passing mentions rather than go about analyzing facts pertaining to the issue at hand. By WP standards, Gulzad, et al are less reliable as sources than Docherty et al. In addition, the policy also states "Completed dissertations written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and can be cited in footnotes if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community.".[[21]] It has not been demonstrated that the Zalmay Gulzad unpublished thesis in question entered mainstream academic discourse and was vetted by the scholarly community at large--only his advisors and degree panel. This was the concern I expressed above. In contrast, the Docherty book has been clearly vetted, reviewed, and even given awards by actually professors of history at reputable institutions. The Jaques book was also reviewed by an editorial board of professional historians and history faculty members at recognized institutions. Thanks again for your comment. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I did write another long comment in response, but then I deleted it. It doesn't matter. This is what matters: a solution has been proposed to resolve this dispute, namely, to take all the sources, from both sides, to WP:RSN. Do the editors involved agree with this proposal? Also, again, indentation? Like discussions usually have? Like the one above has? Please? CarrieVS (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Itsmejudith's proposal. I see no reason to continue this "discussion" following the attack(s) on an uninvolved editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I also agree with Itsmejudith's proposal, particularly given mischaracterizations of the opposing party and the unwillingness to answer good faith questions about the reliability of sources. Devanampriya (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Golden Ratio

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Tibbits on 20:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Golden ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tibbits (talk · contribs)
• dicklyon (talk · contribs)
• johnuniq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A short Structural Dynamics section added to Golden Ratio describes the appearance of this number in a the time domain. The section was rewritten to satisfy a couple objections. The objectors persist in deleting the section for vague reasons, i.e., "inappropriate", "the book is worthless", "As for the building as an example of this equation, it's not a good one." or for punctuation, or the font in which the section appears. A second attacker did not leave anything on the talk page, just deleted the section and commented "consensus on talk (and reading the proposed section) shows the material MAY be suitable after reworking, but has nothing useful now)." The vague ad hominem attacks lead me to doubt the motives for the repeated deletion of the content. Specific criticisms could be addressed in a rewrite. Why is the building not a good example? It just isn't? So you will delete the entire section? Vibration of buildings is an oft-occurring design problem, certainly in the realm of structural dynamics, and one in which the golden ratio appears. Any constructive edits to punctuation, wording or formatting would be welcome.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Rewrote section. Obtained a writeup from the author of one of the references.

How do you think we can help?

Require specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements.

Opening comments by dicklyon

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.

Tibbits does not seem to have put much effort into following up on the discussion at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics. The Golden ratio article is a magnet for trivial, biased, tangential, and unprofessional content, so a number of us are more protective there than we might be at other articles. The standards for getting new stuff into it are perhaps higher than a new editor expects. But we've talked to him about how to get there, and he hasn't done much. His assertion that the GR appears in "Vibration of buildings" is patently absurd; it appears in the solution of certain quadratic equations that are special cases of those that show up in just about every field; this is relevant to GR only if those special cases can be shown to have special significance. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Johnuniq

As Dicklyon explains above, the article requires more care than most other technical topics. As well as the five editors who have not supported the proposed text, there are numerous others who watch the article and who would have joined the discussion if they felt the matter needed further attention. The best thing would be for anyone wanting the addition to study the points made at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics, then rework the text and ask questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Ratio 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.

I'm Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've read through the discussion on the talk page, read through the page history, and read the section of the article that was added via the page history as well as your opening statements. Is there anything else any of you feel I should read that is relevant to this dispute? Please bear in mind that I am not a mathematics expert, especially in the area we're talking about here. If we need a mediator who is receptive in that area, it'll have to be someone other than me. I am, however, happy to guide a compromise discussion. Nevertheless, back to my original question, other than those items, what else do any of you feel I should read? Please limit your response to that, for now, prior to spilling the discussion here. Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A cursory look at the table of contents of the book by Morin cited in the Structural Dynamics section will reveal that it is not a "bunch of problems cooked up that happen to involve golden ratio". It is a college text on mechanics. The book can be searched on Amazon.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A look at the text Random Vibrations: Theory and Practice (Dover Books on Physics) by Paul H. Wirsching, Thomas L Paez, Keith Ortiz and Physics(May 12, 2006) will give an idea of huge number of engineering problems to which structural dynamics applies. Design of buildings to withstand earthquake vibration requires understanding their natural frequencies, for example.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading the talk page will also reveal that not every editor who commented is opposed to the inclusion of the section. "I think an illustration and brief comment is worthwhile, at least if it's done properly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)"Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:UltraViolet (system)

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

Filed by BurritoBazooka on 22:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• BurritoBazooka (talk · contribs)
• JimTheFrog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor, JimTheFrog, who appears to be an expert in UltraViolet, and who has personally worked on and gained from UltraViolet, has been editing UltraViolet in a way which it sounds self-promoting and non-neutral. I feel that criticism needs to be added, because there is plenty of criticism going around on the Internet of UltraViolet. The process is slow, because UltraViolet is relatively new.

JimTheFrog has been accused by other users on the talk page as a "big time Microsoft shill."

The dispute is that JimTheFrog feels that there is no POV issue, and has twice now removed POV tags, citing things like the fact that no meaningful discussion has been forming in the space of a few months, and therefore that the POV tag should not remain. All the while, the POV issue has remained as unresolved as it did at the start of the discussion. No criticism has made its way into the article.

I've already re-added the tags once, and adding it again would start an edit war. Firstly, we need to figure out whether this article really does have a POV issue (I think it does). After this primary dispute has been resolved, we can start looking at adding some of the disadvantages to UltraViolet, and finally make some progress in trying to make it neutral, if it is deemed to have an POV issue.

NB: While I only added me and JimTheFrog into the 'Users involved' field, I think that the other users on the page are also involved. But I am unsure whether they feel that they are involved, or feel they have abandoned the discussion already. This path seems more applicable than Third Opinion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Determined that JimTheFrog works for DECE. But he has claimed that he edited the article before he joined DECE staff. He only points to a LinkedIn profile (Jim Taylor).

Attempted to find sources of criticism. No source has been reliable. At this moment, I feel I cannot attempt to find criticism if the article turns out not to have any POV issues, as JimTheFrog has claimed.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the article, and decide whether a POV tag should remain in the header of the article, or whether it should not be added. Decide whether a very major source given by JimTheFrog, and written by him (Jim Taylor), is a reliable source in resolving the POV matter on the whole (http://uvdemystified.com/), or whether it would only work towards making the POV matter worse.

Opening comments by JimTheFrog

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.

Talk:UltraViolet (system) 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.