Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	56 minutes	Robert McClenon (t)	56 minutes
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Potymkin (t)	8 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours
Ashfield Independents	New	NottsPolitics (t)	6 hours	None	n/a	NottsPolitics (t)	6 hours
Existential risk studies	New	JoaquimCebuano (t)	6 hours	JoaquimCebuano (t)	6 hours	JoaquimCebuano (t)	6 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 03:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

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

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

Syrian civil war

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DIREKTOR on 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Talk:Syrian civil war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

No change perceived as having a negative impact on the rebel cause can be entered into the article. Being the graphic depiction of the conflict, the infobox is the focus of the WP:STONEWALLING:

Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box. A graphic representation of Israeli military actions against the Assad faction would obviously cast a bad light on the rebels.
In spite of their fighting both the rebels and the government in this conflict, the Kurds must be kept on the rebel side in the box.
Similarly, non-combatants like Saudi Arabia and Qatar must also be listed in the rebel column, not once - but twice.

In short, combatants shelling and bombing in Syrian territory are excluded, while non-combatants are included for the rebels. Kurds fighting the rebels are kept in the rebels' column. The inclusion of huge, pointless lists of "sinister" Syrian government agencies also cannot be amended. The POV is so thick one can barely see the article.

The cornucopia of ever-changing, irrelevant "excuses" is also a thing of wonder. Arbitrary declarations of supposed "undue weight" and proclamations regarding the Kurds' "true allies" abound. Misleading "precedents" were brought forth as well, articles on wars with four or five or six warring sides which always use a simplified two-column infobox out of necessity (the template only provides for three columns) - but all three-sided conflicts like the Syrian civil war naturally use three columns. All of these essentially appear to be without significance, as none have any impact on the simple fact that the Kurdish faction, fighting rebels(!), is listed in the rebels' column; or that Israel is sourced as a side-combatant in the conflict. -- Director (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A couple ultimately-pointless RfCs. On the first occasion the consensus was clearly in favor of amending the infobox (9 users in support, 3 opposed), but participants were simply edit-warred into the ground (primarily by Sopher99). Most recently, frustrated users posted a second RfC which unfortunately garnered input from only three users, two of whom (Knowledgekid87, Zombiecapper) supported the stonewalled amendments. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved input on the three main issues would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by FunkMonk

I think the issue about the third row is the most urgent one. (Following copied from a RfC) Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions.[1][2][3] There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor.

Opening comments by Lothar von Richthofen

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.

Will post statement later. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the first point (Israel), I'm not terribly invested in it. I think it does merit a mention in the infobox, but I'm not sure how best to represent it. The airstrike is really the main event Israel has had a part in, otherwise we're just talking about shooting whoever is firing artillery westwards so carelessly as to land shells in the occupied Golan (the army, generally speaking—just how the geographic orientation of combat there plays out) and beefing up border security to keep Islamist rebels out.

The second point is far more important in my mind. The PYD (one Kurdish group linked to the PKK—neither "PKK" nor "Kurds" broadly construed) fights rebels (Battle of Ras al-Ayn) at least as often as it does the government ([4]). I absolutely and categorically reject any attempt to make this out to be a matter of "undue weight" (explained in detail here)—this is a question of factual accuracy, plain and simple.

As for noncombatants, previous consensus at this RfM permitted them, though the more I think about it, the more useless their presence seems to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Zombiecapper

Firstly, thank you Director for finally initiating these proceedings.

The current combatant configuration of the info box should remain as two columns.

Unlike other preceding Wikipedia civil war articles, the anti-assad factions are extremely fractured. There is no clear governing structure. Although all the factions have one key objective - to overthrow the Assad regime.

If we were to grant the PYD an individual column, a precedent would then be set to provide other (SNC non-aligned) factions autonomy, by way of providing them with their own column. We could easily end up with four or five combatants, I am sure everyone agrees that would be hopeless.

To the extent of what this civil war is about....it is a battle between two different options...two different paths for the Syrian people. One path leads to a continuation of the neo-baathist Assad republic or two a "Absent Assad non neo-baathist republic."

Therefore, I submit that we have the following combatant titles (bold and break-line, absent of flag and/or insignia): Government (Representing the Assad government and their allies) and Insurgents or Anti-Assad Forces (with all the factions/insignia listed directly below in order of political and military influence within that camp).

On the subject of Israel, currently the air strike has not yet been acknowledged...the Israelis governments intentions, all though strongly suspected, remain to be confirmed by senior leaders. It should not yet hold a place in the info box. User talk:Zombiecapper.

Opening comments by Futuretrillionaire

So I guess the rfc failed and one of the parties decided open up this. Anyways, the current infobox in the article is based on the model used in articles such as Iraq War, Mexican Drug War, and War on Terror, in which the government and its supporters are put in one column and the insurgents/irregulars are put in the other, with a note included that indicates that there is also fighting between insurgent groups. The Kurds have played a very minor role in the conflict, and there is no source defining the scope of this civil war as a 3-way battle. Therefore, giving a 3rd column for the Kurds is completely undue weight. I don't see any problems with the current model, and I don't see any need to screw it up.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this ("Both sides committing war crimes in Syria") clearly indicate that there are two sides in this conflict, not three. The arguments for a 3rd column are based on WP:OR, and not backed by reliable sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Sopher99

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 infobox Should remain as two columns. Adding a third row is undue weight as the civil war is beyond overwhelmingly a battle between the opposition and the government (in casualties, combatant numbers, territory, and reliable sources). There is a not a single reliable media source describing this as a three way fight. The PYD leader in fact has described the Kurdish factions as being friendly with the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the solution of putting a double line between the rebels and the Kurds, plus a note linking to the Kurdistan conflict. If this doesn't satisfy, then it is best to keep the kurds out of the infobox and elaborate on them in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Israel, it should not be added anymore than Lebanon/Jordan/Turkey all of which has several casualties but are not considered combatants in the civil war. Mainly because they are not fighting eachother. They are participants in incidental events, not belligerents. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by EllsworthSK

Frankly, I am not really sure what is this about. Is this about Kurds in third column or about infobox in general as listed in dispute overview? I´ll take a shot with later and make these points
1, Israel shelled also FSA position in Golan, in response to that FSA released a statement warning Israel from meddling into Syrian affairs [5] listing them as combatant on side of rebels is POV of POVs since no direct support was ever proven and is only propagated by Iran and Syrian gov
2, Frankly, sticking the support countries in the infobox seems counter-productive to me, especially given that we don´t know if support which goes to jihadists in Syria is from Gulf private donors or Gulf government (KSA, Qatar). Also listing countries twice, I don´t see much point in it. If it was up to me I´d remove it outright and keep it in the article only.
3, Unnecessary many combatants under government section. Agreed - would keep only army, Shabiha and foreign militants. Lijan militias are widely unreported and unknown, Jays al-Shabi was first heard from US government and that´s that, mukhabarat is not direct combatant etc. As for Iran, from what I read their main role is in support, logistic and training not in direct combat. Remove or move to support section.
4,Kurds - well I can see it from both sides and I don´t think that any of them is explicitly wrong. There are many aspects and I am really on line in this case. I will just simply stick with a consensus. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war discussion

There seems to be some very clear POV pushing with this dispute. The best way to solve this dispute is to take the issues one at a time.

First Issue

The first issue we'll solve is

Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box.

I perceive this dispute to be to determine weather we can verify from a reliable source that Israel is militarily involved in the conflict. For this:

Please provide the most reliable sources to verify that "Israel" is militarily involved in the conflict. You can also include sources which verify Israels involvement.

Please comment below weather you think my understanding of the issue is correct and if you agree to solving this issue this way.

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) Agree -- Director (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk (talk · contribs)Agree. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar von Richthofen (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name
Zombiecapper (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name
Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs)Agree --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sopher99 (talk · contribs)Agree/Disagree sign your name

Another thing I note is that the "commanders and leaders" box seems to be overcrowded, I should include the the highest commander/leader from each Belligerents Eng.Bandara (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say first off that noone is contending Israel is one of the main combatants in this conflict (that's a straw man), merely that it warrants inclusion as a marginal combatant, which is imo beyond debate. After several border artillery exchanges, Israel had launched (either one or two) air strikes against targets in Syria. This is nothing spectacular, but its a military conflict and warrants mention in the military conflict infobox - particularly one where non-combatants like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are listed twice. Turkey's involvement, for example, is comparable to that of Israel, with minor border clashes and shelling.

In my opinion, mere confirmation of a country's military involvement warrants inclusion in the relevant infobox in and of itself. However, even if we raise the bar, in addition to the said (undisputed) military involvement, respectable mainstream news agencies in Israel and the US (not to speak of Syria, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) do explicitly interpret these events as Israel's involvement in the war:

etc.. The proposal is to enter Israel in the infobox, clearly denoting its non-association with any other warring parties (via the usual horizontal dividing line). -- Director (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please note both FunkMonk ("your Assad dictatorship propagandizing will fail!") and myself ("YOU ARE BROKEN. WE ARE LEGION.") have been harassed on our talkpages over this thread. -- Director (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would encourage you in that case to sign your agreement in the section Eng has set for all parties. From looking at the previous disputes I can see this is a hot topic with many strong opinions involved. There is literally tens of thousands of words on talk pages and discussions about this and related topics so lets try keep things brief if possible. I would encourage all parties involved to take a read of WP:TIGER and continue the levelheaded discussion that persisted so far. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Turkey cannot be compared to Israel. First, Turkey is in support section because it supports rebels. For a long time it hosted FSA HQ (symbolical HQ but still closest thing to HQ there was), it gives shelter to Syrian rebels and defectors and supports opposition with both arms and money. Border shelling are minor incident that have no weight in the infobox and Turkey was there before that happened. So far I´ve seen no reports about Israel arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan or providing C2 support. Listing Israel as combatant, and above that on side of rebels who are anything but Israel-friendly, is POV. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Its about military conflict. Its not about political or logistical support. When I say Turkey's role is "comparable to Israel" - I'm referring to the military involvement of Turkish armed forces (border clashes). If we had a situation where Israel was, in fact "arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan etc." - but without the military involvement of Israel, I would not support the inclusion of Israel. Especially when we've got an entire separate article devoted to precisely that kind of foreign support - with a note in the infobox pointing the reader towards it. Again I stress the infobox is about military conflict, nothing else. If we, contrary to sources(!), selectively omit and add factions regardless of their military involvement, we are creating a POV picture of the conflict. -- Director (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1, What FunkMonk wrote

2, Infobox lists also non-military participants as was established in many articles before (like Vietnam war or Korean war). Participants in military conflict which significantly helped shift the conflict one way or another by either direct military help or indirect - support. Israel falls in none of these criteria and again - Turkey was in infobox before cross-border shelling.

3, Israeli airstrike was not part of the ongoing military conflict, it was not response to either Syrian army offensive against rebels or vice versa, it was simply prevention of arms reaching third-state actor (Hezbollah). It is separate WP:EVENT. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided by DIREKTOR defines Israel as a combatant in the conflict. They only vaguely say it's somehow more involved than before. All of them refer to one incident, and now are probably outdated. Israel itself has said that its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian conflict.. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wow. :) Now that's really "raising the bar". I guess "Israel enters the civil war in Syria" is unclear and misleading. We should find a source that says "Yes, we define Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war". Then we'll probably need to find one that says "yes, we most definitely define Israel as a combatant"...

The bare fact that Israel and Syrian factions have engaged in border clashes and air strikes is sufficient cause for inclusion. Sources provided in support of that fact should suffice alone. Additional sources that explicitly (and irrefutably) state Israel has entered this conflict should serve merely as the final confirmation that ends all debate. Here, amazingly, even the latter are rejected by you fine gentlemen. All I can say is.. wow.

2. Just... no. We simply do not require that combatants "help shift the conflict one way or another" before we include them in the infobox. What matters is if they're combatants. I don't have to go beyond World War II and World War I, but frankly I consider it kind of beneath me to even respond to this seriously, say with some extensive list of the dozens of mc infoboxes that include combatants who's involvement did not "shift the conflict one way or another". And, of course, the infobox guide itself states that the parameter is for "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". You're just inventing your own custom criteria at this point.

3. The sources say otherwise. And the idea that they somehow don't, to me seems pretty laughable. This isn't really "point #3", its essentially point #1 repeated.

And so it goes on. Red herrings, straw men and just plain wrong claims... -- Director (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this one issue at a time please, Israel first. It is quite clear that this issue is highly sensitive, However I'm encouraged by the level of POV pushing has seemed to have reduced. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what countries to be included in the info-box. From what I am seeing form the above dialog is:

Whether the 'involvement' has to make a major shift in the combat theater
Whether the 'involvement' has to take a particular side in the combat
Whether the 'involvement' has to be purely militarily or is 'logistics and supply' sufficient to warrant inclusion

After studying articles from other civil conflicts, and my own logical thinking, it is of my opinion that.

The main policy for inclusion is based on militarily action during the conflict
The involvement does not have to make a major shift in the combat outcome
"logistics and supply" involvement is not sufficient to warrant inclusion
Taking a particular side in the conflict is irrelevant to whether it should be included, however where to include it may need to be discussed

The sources the user has posted above are good and satisfy WP verifiability policy. Based on these I find

Israel has a clear militarily involvement in the conflict, regardless of whether its a full drawn out involvement to the end
It is not clear, as to which side Israeli military action was targeted against, going by the source it simply states "Syria" So I'd assume its against the Syrian government.

If editors can agree to work out the following questions we can decide where to include Israel.

If Israeli is action was directed towards a particular side then list it under the opposing side. The info box is based purely on militarily action, it does not require to have a political affiliation with that side
If Israeli action was directed towards both sides, it should be listed on a third column.

Lastly it would greatly help if everyone focused on these issues, so we can take this one at a time. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Israel did not attack either side in the civil war. It attacked an arms shipment going to Hezbollah. Isreal is involved in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, not the Syria conflict. Israel attacking Hezbollah is nothing unusual and has happened before the Syrian civil war even began. I repeat Isreal itself denies being involved in the Syria conflict. It has said its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[source] states "With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" .... But whether by intent or circumstance, Israel has inserted itself into a civil war that thus far had very little to do with it". Going by this I'm happy to justify Israel into a third column. Again I emphasize this military involvement not political. Israel may have policy of non political involvement, however by attacking it is involved regardless of weather its politically involved or not. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to stack the infobox with combatants. Countries that had both minimal and short term engagements can be elaborated on in the article, and not the infobox. The Infobox is not an encyclopedia which holds every single detail to the point where it gets controversially absurd. There is no rule that the infobox has to have every "combatant" particularly if there are major arguments against identifying them as a combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second of all if Israel is taking its first step into the Arab spring, that is directly saying Israel is taking its first step into political issues. It does not mean its an official combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military involvement does not mean its a combatant, combat (Noun; Fighting between armed forces) is what determines a combatant (notice the "combat" in combatant. Israel and Syria are not fighting each-other). Sopher99 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't have to list combatants with 'minimal to short term engagements' with the principal of maintaining clarity. However in case of this conflict as there are not many military actors, it wouldn't hurt to list Israel, when it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war. I am satisfied that Israel meets the criteria to be listed as a Belligerents in this conflict. Eng.Bandara (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the proposal is to include Israel as a seperate combatant (1a), and divided with a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct, However I would like some responses from the other members, instead of just staying quite if you don't have any disagreement. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source you quoted said 'Israel has inserted itself into a civil war' - this becomes 'it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war.' -- are they homologous terms? 'inserted' and 'engaged'? - just saying because one has to watch for pov pushing. to me they suggest different types of thing, those words Sayerslle (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel only launched an attack on a weapon depot that was going to be sent to Hezbollah,israeli involvement is minimal ,and it doesn't favor both sides especially the rebels. Abdo45 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you addressed the issues with the inclusion parameters we discussed above. Otherwise this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere, I'll wait another 48 hours if flow of discussion is still being constantly derailed, I will mark for closure as unable to reach consensus. I would suggest formal mediation as a next step. Eng.Bandara (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Eng.Bandara for your efforts to resolve this dispute logically, peaceably, and with a neutral perspective. I've only contributed occasionally to this article but have been following this discussion. I wasn't convinced by either side but I think the guidelines you've set down are appropriate in this case. -Darouet (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I have struck my previous comments. -Darouet (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand our "volunteer" friend turns out to be a sock. What a surprise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of is, actually... :) -- Director (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me there's nothing fishy about a guy who makes a beeline for DRN in less than 20 edits 5 hours after registering? [6] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly the fact that the Eng.Bandara came to you Direktor and only you "for help" with the sock issue? Not to mention that you both are big in editing Sri Lanka related articles? Sopher99 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lothar. I didn't check his contribs (why would I?).. hence - pretty surprised. Of course, from the point he was reported I realized he was probably a sock, but not before.

@Sopher99. Laughing out loud. There must be something vewy fishy here, must there, Sopher? Actually, I never edited any even relmotely Sri Lanka-related article or topic but once in my entire 7-year, 45,000-edit activity on this project. And that was a couple days ago when Eng.Bandara asked me to participate in an RfC. So I did, briefly. With one post. When the user asked me to somehow help him with his sock accusation, I said "I have no idea whether or not you're a sock" [7], and refused to participate. Not that it would make any difference whatsoever whether I did or didn't (checkuser rarely makes mistakes). -- Director (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just accept that he almost certainly is a sock? It seems to me that the only thing that matters is whether we need to start over. ~~We seem to be mostly in agreement that that's not necessary, so I suggest we simply drop it and go on from where we left off~~. CarrieVS (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking that last bit. It did look that way to me, though I explained it poorly - what I meant was that (until now) I hadn't seen any clear suggestion that anyone had a problem with Eng.Bandara's actual input, and it looked (and still does) to me as though a general agreement was reached not to simply strike his comments on principle - they've now stayed un-struck for nearly two days, after the editor who struck them self-reverted. But in any case what I meant by "drop it" was the discussion immediately above about how obvious it was or wasn't that he was a sock; if anyone has any problem with Eng.Bandara's mediation (and now someone has said that they do), then I am certainly not suggesting that that be ignored. CarrieVS (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is disgusting! I thought these people were supposed to be professionals? I'm sorry that this has happened to you all.-Darouet (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has attacked and killed Syrian forces at least two times, perhaps three. One time near the Golan last year, then the facility this year, and perhaps also a convoy. So no, there isn't only one single incident. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean he won't say it was "one incident" another fifteen times. Must have told the guy about as often. -- Director (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Golan incident was not an aggressive action, it was a response to army gunners with shitty aim. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy. It was responding to army gunners with shitty aim with aggressive action. Its kind of like the aforementioned "they weren't bombing the Syrian army, they were just stopping arms shipments to Hezbollah".

And please lets leave the discussion legible? Can we tone down the POV that much? -- Director (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from un-involved editor

I'm not involved in this dispute at all (I'm actually having another dispute above this one) but I just wanted to make a quick comment: I have no idea whether editor Eng.Bandara is a sock or not but I believe that there's no reason to strike out his comments if they where reasonable and WP:CIVIL and to take for granted almost immediately that he in fact is a sock puppet. Having been on the receiving end of an unjust indefinite block after an accusation of sock-puppetry myself (luckily lifted), I now think that admins should be much more careful and thorough before blocking somebody and editors should try to adhere as much as possible to WP:AGF. Just my 2 cents. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser rarely lies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CarrieVS makes the assertion that there is general "agreement" to continue from the point that Eng.Bandara left off. But just from the edit-warring over whether to strike his comments, it seems to me that that is an ill-advised assertion. I propose a simple straw poll to gauge this. For those parties participating in the mediation, are you satisfied with Eng.Bandara's mediation, or do you want to start over? A simple satisfied or not satisfied with at most a sentence of explanation will suffice. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfied - Biased editor. He didn't lead the dispute even close to a resolution.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what's the use.. Eng.Bandara more-or-less came out in support of adding Israel. Naturally everyone supporting the addition will say he's "Satisfied" whereas everyone against will claim "Not satisfied" and try to "strike from the record" anything he said or did. I myself liked his approach, particularly his points above.. of course, that's all (quote) "Assad propagandizing" and must be opposed at all costs.

P.s. I have no idea how you've concluded the sock was "biased" on this issue, Futuretrillionaire, but at this point I'm getting used to random statements.. The reason he couldn't bring the dispute closer to resolution is simply because it cannot be resolved through general agreement. No matter what anyone says or does Sopher will oppose the addition of Israel to the infobox, and so will presumably Futuretrillionaire.

I myself follow a simple rule from the infobox guide and generally adhered-to throughout Wiki: "add countries whose armed forces took part in the conflict". The rest I see as POV-pushing ("its not really a conflict", "its not really taking part in", "its not really armed forces", "its not really a country", etc..). -- Director (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the rule to add countries however glancing and tangential and miniscule their 'taking part in the conflict'? is there a problem of UNDUE WEIGHT at all. since the strike , which was reported widely in RS as targeting stuff israel feared was Hezbollah bound, it seems nothing has happened on the Zionist front. is undue weight an issue at all? just asking. its not "add countries who's..." btw- the apostrophe indicates a letter is missing - it is short for 'who is' what you've written Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its the rule to follow published sources [8][9][10][11] and not give a damn about what random internet users think is "tangetial", "miniscule" or "undue". I believe its called WP:V.

Hezbollah is an ally of Assad in this conflict. But even if it were not, it is not up to us to interpret primary sources such as Israeli public statements and claims. Israel may or may not have actually been targeting Hezbollah (in flying over the sovereign territory of two countries and attacking the military of the latter), that's up to sources to confirm, but either way it is not up you to decide whether or not these events are a part of the Syrian war. I'll thank you not to bore others and myself with your personal OR anymore. (Also thanks so much for the grammar lesson; very amusing.) -- Director (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS DR/N DISCUSSION IS ON HOLD UNTIL ALL INVOLVED PARTIES AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD!

The original volunteer has been blocked for sockpuppetry. A request has been made for all parties to decide on whether to start this filing over. The discussion cannot continue until a decision has been made.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I myself don't believe there is much chance participants will agree on anything. What is required is additional uninvolved input to form a consensus on the three issues. -- Director (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above and the lack of participation in regards to deciding to move forward or stop, I will be closing this case in 24 hrs unless all participants weigh in on the matter. I will not close as resolved or failed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lists of tropical cyclone names

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 174.226.4.31 on 20:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)
Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Every six years the national weather service uses the same names for hurricanes and typhoons with a few exceptions. We've attempted to turn over the 2012 list a few times given 2012 season has officially ended. But two users have been persisantly disputing the changes claiming it was original research. In addition they keep intentially spelling the names wrong. Each time we correct they keep reverting to the version with many names poorly spelled

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've explained the 2012 season is over but they've insisted their changes are right and that every year anew set of names is created each year.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a compromise

Opening comments by Hurricanehink

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.

[12] - the National Hurricane Center has not updated the list for 2018 yet, and the names that were there are correct. I protected the page since the anon kept changin be names incorrectly (like Bret to Brett). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Jason Rees

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.

Our list of tropical cyclone names is imo the most accurate list of tropical cyclone names around as it trumps the WMO list of names and we do not add the list of names until we have a source telling us what the names are. While it is true that the names for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons rotate every six years, it could be that the WMO decides to add a new list of names or completely change the naming scheme like they did in 2008 with the Australian region list of names. It is also worth noting that the IP is changing the names to what they think is the correct spelling of the name rather than what is the official spelling of the name. I oppose any addition of the names for 2018 until the lists are put out by the NHC/WMO due to the rules on Original Research.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of tropical cyclone names 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.

Who filed this?

Who is 174.226.4.31? — nerd fighter^(academy) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Would you consider adding the rotated 2012 names for 2018, under a description stating something like "The following names are predicted based on WMO's system of repeating hurricane names every 6 years". The description probable needs some clean up, but would either of you be ok with that? — nerd fighter^(academy) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see the reason, since the same could be said for 2019, 2020, etc. Not to mention, the NHC still lists only the 2012 list (not 2018). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont personally see the need to include the predicted 2018 names just yet since it is Original Research and due to the fact that we are not here to predict which names will be removed at this years Hurricane Committee in April. Personally i dont see the need to remove the 2012 names just yet and add in the 2018 names as some people might be curious to see what names were used last year still and it would lead to more problems with people marking Sandy as retired since we have the outside chance of it becoming like Gordon 1994 and not being retired.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a DRN volunteer. This doesn't mean I have any special privileges or the power to enforce any decisions, but I will try and help you come to an agreement. I have a couple of questions:

What has been the usual practice in the past when a season ends but the names for six years on haven't been released? (NB: I'm not saying that it must be done as it has been in the past, but if there is an accepted 'usual' practice, we should do that unless consensus emerges for a change.)
Can we find a source for the prediction of the 2018 names, or is it a prediction by editors based on the 2012 names and the fact that they are usually repeated? CarrieVS (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From what i can tell we have generally waited until the lists have been released (with the retired names) before updating it, however there will be some random websites out there that will have the 2018 names on them even though they are not available yet based on the fact that the list of names will be used again in 2018.Jason Rees (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see we have three options:

Leave the 2012 names up until the 2018 list is released.
Remove the 2012 names and add the predicted 2018 list.
Remove the 2012 names but do not add the predicted 2018 list.

3 has a big disadvantage in that it removes the sixth list of names entirely.
2 would be WP:synthesis unless we have a reliable source for the prediction. If someone finds one, then we could discuss whether or not to do this.
I would suggest 1, but with the addition of a sentence (either below the table or perhaps in a seventh row headed '2018') saying that the 2018 names have not yet been released. The paragraph immediately above the table says that the names are rotated, so readers may deduce for themselves that the 2018 names will probably be the same as the 2012 list. If we can source it, we could potentially include a mention of names which are expected to be retired.

How does that sound? CarrieVS (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remove the 2O12 names and add the 2018 list without the predicted names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2018 list without predicted names. The entire 2018 list is only a prediction. (Have edited my above comment to clarify). CarrieVS (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 2013

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Codename Lisa on 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Microsoft Office 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Recently, magazines have started dedicating coverage to an issue of Microsoft Office 2013: Apparently, the retail versions may only be installed on one computer only. Purchasing a replacement computer means purchasing a new Office.

But how much coverage should we dedicate to this issue? Does WP:SYNTH allow us to say "this might not be legal in Europe" from a source that neither mentions Microsoft, nor Office 2013? (let alone the issue at hand). In addition, there are a lot of unreferenced info. (e.g "Microsoft publicly stated that this change was meant to reduce (or, even eliminate) the pirating of Office that has been rampant for years" fails to be verified against its source.) Should they be kept just because one editor keeps reverting their removal? What about speculations? Is keeping them not against WP:NOT?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue has been discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013. There are two separate discussion threads. All mentioned involved users have participated except User:Dogmaticeclectic, who prefers reverting instead of talking.

How do you think we can help?

As Max Payne says "a millions of dollars question I didn't have the answer for."

Opening comments by Dogmaticeclectic

First of all, WP:CON has already been established at the article's talk page, with all essentially agreeing except for User:Codename Lisa (who at first attempted to ignore it altogether while simultaneously pretending that the issue had already been addressed, and later added the content to the lead as discussed but did so in a manner that made it quite difficult for the average reader to spot). Second, this sentence on that talk page (not by me) - combined with WP:WEIGHT - summarizes my opinion quite well: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever." Third, this dispute is not about the content (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.) - since there exist numerous WP:RS for that, including the original Microsoft EULA itself - but about the currently-existing content's visibility (User:Codename Lisa is trying to change the subject again). (Fourth, to quote myself this time: "My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Sonicdrewdriver

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be included too heavily, simply because straight answers are hard to find. We have sources that back up the currently-included point, but there are other sources available that contradict it. I understand that it's a major issue, not something small, that's why I believe some coverage is good, but we shouldn't be alarmist when Microsoft themselves have been known to contradict our summary of their terms. They've failed to respond to direct questioning when I've put it to them (so far) as an organisation, but technical support staff from the company have made statements that muddy the water significantly, if not completely contradict us. drewmunn talk 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Greglovern

My opinion is that this is very important information that should be briefly stated in the lead and then stated in more detail in the body. For people who have been buying retail editions of Office for many years, this is a very surprising change, and one which can lead to an expensive ($400 for retail Office Pro) mistake.

When we read very surprising information that is mentioned only in passing, it is human nature to assume that the source must be mistaken. To state very surprising information only in passing is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. That disservice is compounded when the information could have helped readers avoid an expensive mistake. A reader who makes such an expensive mistake after reading the Wikipedia entry would naturally feel betrayed by Wikipedia.

In accordance with the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" (see neutral point of view), surprising information should be given the prominence that would be expected by a reasonable reader, so that the reader takes notice instead of assuming that Wikipedia is mistaken. A reasonable reader would expect such a surprising change to be included in the lead and then stated in detail in the body.

Microsoft representatives who have been asked about this change in the license agreement have given wildly varying answers. However, the license agreement itself is very clear, and in previous retail Office versions Microsoft meant exactly what they said in the license agreement. Withholding information because we fear Microsoft might really mean something different is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.

Where Codename Lisa says "consensus was reached" regarding her dispute with my edits in January and early February, I disagree. I had stopped when I felt I'd done as much as I could, given that per Wikipedia policy I could only quote Microsoft's license agreement and could not "interpret" it in any way. I still believed that the information was not given "due weight". Greg (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by FormerIP

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.

Opening comment by uninvolved editor: FleetCommand

Without naming any name, here is my observation of the article in regard to the current dispute:

WP:LEAD problem: Lead contains novel info that do not appear in the body
Content problem: Article contains contents without source and original research, including two instances of improper synthesis of sources, in the disputed area. These must either be deleted or properly referenced. Attempt(s) to reinstate them without direct quotation from a reliable source must cease immediately. Tabloids are not reliable sources and weak/half-hearted statements made by the most reliable sources must not be turned into full-fledged bashful or praising statements in the article. (They must be disregarded.)
I do not name any names but among the editors, there are those who really seem to be trying to improve the article and communicate with others. At the opposite end of the spectrum are editor(s) whose editing nature is tendentious editing and their communication skills needs a lot of improvements.
All editors must immediately cease commenting on the contributors and start commenting on the contents. In additions, all editors should refrain from reverting unless there is a clear sign that their contribution will go uncontested. Tags are a semi-exception. Problem tags must remain on the article unless there is a clear sign that the dispute is resolved.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 2013 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.

Question

I am a little confused about the comment concerning WP:SYNTH and Office '13 in Europe. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. — nerd fighter^(academy) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

WP:SYNTH says that an editor should not advance his own point of view based on material in source, when the said point of view is not in the source. Now, the article says "This may be illegal in the European Union", referring to the new licensing terms but does not provide a source that explicitly confirm it. Existing sources do not directly back this up. One of the sources is about Oracle, not Microsoft. Extending it to Microsoft based on an editors interpretation is WP:SYNTH and not allowed here. An expert must analyze the court ruling to see whether it applies to Microsoft or not, then we can cite him in the article. The other source is The Register which says "European courts tending to lean in favor of consumer rights" but does not specify how much do they lean. There are a couple of other statements about piracy and Trojan Horse-style which have elements of WP:SYNTH in them. There is another problem with this sentence which does not apply to your question.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's notes

Hello everyone, I will try to help achieve a consensus in this case. I have not been involved, nor heard of this dispute before reading this request. I would appreciate if you would give me some time to go through the dispute before I will proceed with the negotiations. If you have any questions, please ask them below. Zaminamina (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the volunteer

Hungarian people

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Csendesmark on 18:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hungarian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Csendesmark (talk · contribs)
Iadrian yu (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

A Romanian editor wants to remove pictures which are taken in ex, now not Hungarian territories It's started with a puppet edit user:Electrifier1999, after a semi-page-protection

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We had an unsuccessfully discuss on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Restoring the original state of the page

Opening comments by Iadrian yu

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.

I disagree that this was discussed. If one comment is a discussion...and that comment is confusing because it is not related to the problem [13], talk page, while ignoring everything on the talk page. I will respond by numbers for better readability.

1) I started this section several days ago(February 19), not the sock puppet (first comment of the sock on February 24), the sock puppet did`t participated in the discussion simply because he left only one comment and we ignored him.
2) Is it important that I am a Romanian editor? Should that affect this problem in any way? How did you concluded that I am a Romanian editor?
3) There are several images of places outside Hungary. This pictures are nothing special, some images of Churches, a simple panorama of a village with Hungarian majority and etc..
- I stated on the talk page, if we have a simple image of a Hungarian village outside Hungary should we add all one million Hungarian villages to the gallery? What makes that one random village special to be added to the gallery?
- All Catholic Churches build under Hungarian administration? Don`t forget that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, if it was constructed under Hungarian administration it is not necessarily Hungarian.
- Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia - According to the researchers the town had a German majority until the mid-16th century - so why would this be on Hungarian people article? It would rather go on Germans if anywhere.
4)The article is about Hungarian people, I fail to see the connection in this images with the article except that it may be used as POV pushing because I compared all other articles on wikipedia about ethnic groups and none of them contained images of random places outside that country. Ex: (Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...). I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. As the folklore and traditions which images I have left on the article. Adrian (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Answers by CsendesMark

(I gave numbers to your other questions too, please forgive me that, but it was easier to answer that way)

1) Yes, you started on the talk page, and you've been already caught and much more times been accused of having puppets.
User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_April,2010#March_2010

your first indef ban You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus at AFD

User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_May,2012#Sockpuppetry_case

2) This time? Maybe.... I don't know yet...

But what I know: You have vandalized multiple articles which concern Hungarian persons/nobilities (your personal favorite is clearly John Hunyadi, last try is in this month February_2013) , or other Hungarian related facts (Iadrian_yu's "contributions"), which didn't fit your agenda, like this article about Hungarian people

User_talk:Iadrian_yu/Archive_May,2010#3RR_warning

I am not saying you're totally unconstructive, but you really do a lot of trouble for us, and you're putting an awful lot of effort into enforcing your POV over Hungarian-related articles (one way or an other).

3) It's not your job to decide what is special, those pictures there are, because they represent part of the Hungarian culture which is spirit of the people.

You also didn't remove other pictures which show other buildings still standing in Hungarian land. And you deleted those which are standing where Hungarians live, even though all of them were part of the Hungarian state before 1920.

4) Redundant statement, but: Yes you started one, then a "mysterious stranger" came and acted just as you wrote in the Talk section.
5) The two bigger churches which I can recognize: Yes

St. Elisabeth Cathedral's construction began under the rule of king Louis I the Great 1378 and the church was named after St. Elizabeth of Hungary

St. Michael's Church's construction began under the rule of king Charles I of Hungary 1316

But in fact, Romanians belong to the Orthodox church, they haven't really built anything else.

6) Yes you failed to see that, Hungarians aren't ....Serbs, Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...

Csendesmark (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answers by Iadrian_yu(Adrian)

I will answer by your numbers.

1) Before doping ridiculous accusations on me please investigate a bit, because you are not credible in this way.
- In March 2010 I was blocked for edit warring, yes I was a new user and I did`t know how to conduct myself. That was in 2010! My last block was in May 6, 2010! Three years ago therefore I don`t see this related except that you dig this up all this in bad faith since you clearly did`t read them, just dropped here.
  - About the sockpuppet , I was blocked by jpgordon::==( o ) 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC) for socket puppetry, but if you analyze it first you see it was a mistake, at the time there wasn`t even a sock case against me. Take a look at my block log AGAIN, 16:55, March 18, 2010 Scientizzle (talk | contribs) unblocked Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) (looks like a mixup...) - and if you take a look at the discussion [14] you will see everything. Several editors noticed that it was a mistake since they were looking for someone from Pakistan. Don`t know why did you bring this up when it was clearly a mistake?
  - About this [15], I don`t know why this user started this thread in HurricaneFan25 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC), but the case was accepted and I was cleared as a normal user. Now this is the second time you proceed with personal attacks based on nothing second time, please read WP:NPA and try not to attack me again personally and keep to the subject YOU opened here.

2) If you have a problem with Romanian users I am sorry, I can`t help you there but you should try to keep your personal stuff out of this.
- You obviously choose not to see and present half-facts as a genuine data. My latest "vandalism" (another personal attack from your side?) was the removal of strange comment and I got a warning, but please read it well before making another unsourced accusation about me read it please.
- My "agenda" is editing articles and correcting whenever I see something strange. It is always nice to see a warning from 2010 about me. WP:LETITGO ? That is so recent I don`t know what to say anymore.

3) It is our job to improve articles, and if you looked, you notice that ANY other article about ethnic groups don`t contain this kind of pictures. According to other examples on wikipedia, it is more than obvious that there is something wrong here. Please try to find the "Hungarian spirit" in the people, not on some random buildings that are nothing special to the Hungarians, just a random village, random place?
- Yes, it is interesting how something was a part of the Hungarian state 100 years ago.. Should we add on the Ottoman people (Turkish) all places under Otoman Empire? Or French Empire? Or maybe the Germany in the World War II, the territories they annexed? You name it.. I have left the building in Hungary because they are in Hungary, simple as that.

4) I don`t see how can this be redundant because it proves that those places are present at the article without any valid logic, except that they was a part of Hungary 100 years ago?

5) So then why add only those 2 Churches? Let`s add all 1 million of them that was constructed under Hungarian administration? I think Slovakians are Catholic too. Don`t forget that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, if it was constructed under Hungarian administration it is not necessarily Hungarian.

6) You fail to see that all this articles don`t have this kind of POV pictures, therefore why should this one do? Take for example only the first Nation, Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here. They are a constituent nation in Bosnia, they have a Republika Srpska and no images of places outside Serbia? Don`t you see anything strange here in comparison to the Hungarian people article? They have a big part of national heritage, UNESCO sites on Kosovo and yet not a single picture on the article. I think that the Serbs are one of the people with the most bigger diaspora and not a singe image of random places of them on the article? Do you understand it now?

7) Please don`t modify my comments! [16], if you take a look at my talk page [17] that is forbidden - or as you called it Vandalism! You have deliberately deleted a part of my comment so I will just reinsert it.

Opening comments by uninvolved editor CoolKoon

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.

It's always kinda sad to see Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors arguing because it's rarely constructive. And when the topic involves stuff that generally concerns only Hungarians (like this time), then it turns even uglier.
Iadrian yu for one thing you definitely have a history of edit warring and a cooperation with sockpuppeteers, most notably Iaaasi. This is a fact and his repeated appearance in this discussion make you look even more suspicious. Also this has nothing to do with the fact that you're Romanian. The whole argument seems to be sparked due to the fact that you seem to have some sort of inexplicable anti-Hungarian agenda which (currently) manifests itself in attempting to limit Hungarian influence to Hungary and trying to assert that nothing notable has been built by Hungarians outside of current borders of Hungary. Unfortunately it isn't Romania alone where the official curriculum manifests itself this way: I happen to know for a fact that Slovakia and Serbia is the same (in Slovakia Hungarian history is usually -but not always- taught from the Hungarian translations of the Slovak schoolbooks, while in Serbia the only schoolbooks allowed are the translated versions of the official Serbian schoolbooks). So while your bias might be understandable, it's inexcusable in context of Wikipedia, independently of your nationality.
So what if the pictures are outside of Hungary? Most (if not all) of them are from areas which still ARE inhabited by Hungarians AND are part of Hungarian architecture (designed/built/ordered by Hungarians). Or do you assert that Catholic churches of Transylvania have ANY connection to Romanians? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Romanians Orthodox? As for St. Elisabeth's church in Kosice, I happen to know that Ferenc Rákóczi is buried there. Do you deny his connection to Hungarians perhaps? Also, if not for these pictures, what pictures do you recommend from Hungarian architecture/artifacts OUTSIDE of Hungary? Perhaps you could make some suggestions.
I kinda fail to see the point in naming all those different nations you did. What does that have to do with Hungarian cultural heritage? I have nothing against naming items of the cultural heritage of other nations either. Why should be Hungarians exceptions to this?
On the other hand it was kinda pointless of Norden1990 to bring up the debate about Hunyadi, because it doesn't have much to do with the article discussed at all. The mere mentioning of Hunyadi has caused the discussion to become completely off-topic.

Since Iadrian yu himself has admitted on starting the whole issue, let me ask him: why did you do it? What was your point?

-- CoolKoon (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to CoolKoon

It is always nice to see other editors participating, but uninvolved I would`t say. I will skip the personal attacks you made on me and go right to the point.

1) I am not denying any connection to the Hungarian people of the buildings you enumerated now but you must take into consideration that this images can be used as POV pushing since we have random images from Romania and Slovakia only, but not from Serbia, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Ukraine ? Example: Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania - In Romania and a typical village. Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too? Why only this village? What is on this image so special to the Hungarian people?
2) The connection of the Church you talk about is obvious, but please consider all other wikipedia articles of Nations I enumerated here, many if all of them could have same pictures outside their country, but they don`t. If we have examples all over wikipedia of something, why should this article be any special? For example, the Serbs are in even better position to have this kind of images, but they don`t.. Take a look at Gračanica monastery, it was declared Monument of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1990, and it is protected by Republic of Serbia, and on 13 July 2006 it was placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List - and yet no picture of it on the Serbs article?
3) I am really stunned that you don`t see the connection with the Nations`s articles I enumarated. I will try to explain it further. We have articles about nations all over wikipedia, all of them don`t contain this kind of problematic pictures like the Hungarian people do. Do you see the problem now?
4) For example a map of the region where Hungarian people are inhabited is OK by me (and nobody is denying the Hungarian presence in those places), but according to all the other examples on Wikipedia, adding random images of places outside that county is not. Example on the Hungarian people, the section "Folklore and Landscape" - landscape of Hungary? Or Hungarian people? I don`t see any Hungarian people on those images. This is also very misleading.
5) Of course I started the discussion, and if you check the talk page of the Hungarian people, you can see why. Adrian (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Iadrian yu

You wouldn't say that I'm uninvolved? I wasn't editing this article in the past 7 months for sure and neither did I participate in the edit war and heated debate unlike your "brother in faith" did (who's still blocked BTW), so this time I'm quite uninvolved.

1) Ok, the fact that the images are only from Slovakia and Romania CAN be considered POV and biased, so yes, I have nothing against inserting images from Serbia, Croatia, Austria and Ukraine as well. However that might make the gallery a bit overcrowded, don't you think? Also, it's not like these images itself are set in stone, you're always free to recommend some better ones. But then again what do you have against this particular village?

2) Why would the fact that other nations don't have such list of monuments (e.g. because they don't care for their cultural heritage too much) mean that/necessitate the Hungarians should follow the same path? Why should the Hungarian editors copy other nations' editors' attitude?

3) No, I don't and see my answer for 2)

4) Ok, then the term "landscape" should be removed/changed to something more appropriate. Not a big deal.

5) Yes, you stated some vague ars poetica on the beginning of the discussion at the article's talk page, but that doesn't explain that why now and why this article.

-- CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Answer to CoolKoon

I did`t know that I had a "brother in faith" as you say. In case you missed it, please read WP:NPA. Before I start answering your comment, please read my initial answer to you (point 1) )one more time, I have a feeling you misunderstood the 1) of my comment. Now to the point.

1) Yes, but this is a paradox if you can notice. On one side if we insert all images we will have an already heavy gallery even heavier(overcrowded), on the other side following all the other examples I think we should focus on the actual Hungarian people, not it`s "landscapes" to avoid any possible problems. A lesson that can be seen from all other nation`s articles. About the village, please analyze my 1) point again, I have nothing against it, just making a point that if we have one random village, why not all of them? What makes Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania special? I see nothing special there, except some trees and a couple of houses that can be build by any ethnic group. Nothing to distinct then from all the others, something special only to the Hungarian people.
2) I wouldn`t say that "they don't care for their cultural heritage too much" - as an argument (every nation respects itself, it is impossible that 12 nations don`t care and only the Hungarian nations does..), but in my opinion they focus on the subject of the article and not inserting random images of some places. Ex: On the Hungarian people article, you can notice that I have left the images that are outside Hungary: "Voivodina Hungarians women's national costume" , "Csárdás folk dance in Skorenovac, Vojvodina, Serbia" and "Kalotaszeg folk Costume in Transylvania, Romania" because they actually depict the Hungarian people and traditions (something special for the Hungarian people only) - what this article should represent.
3) On wikipedia if no rule is defined, we edit according to other examples. If there is a reason for a special case, then we introduce a special case. Hungarian people are not special to any other nation or ethnic group. In this case we have a dozen of articles of Nations like Hungarian people, and none of the have this kind of gallery including images outside their country. According to all examples, I made changes to the Hungarian people too.
4) Ok, but even that doesn`t solve the problem. And if changed, how can you explain adding random places to the gallery? How to explain for example the addition of one Hungarian village and not the other? What makes one special from another?
5) Sorry if you see "ars poetica" in arguments, I will try to be more precise and I hope I explained my reasons in my 2 comments now. Adrian (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Answer to CoolKoon

I understand moving my comment, and I am Ok with that as long as you don`t modify or remove anything from it.

I have really tried to explain to you why are this changes valid but you simply refuse to acknowledge the arguments or you call my arguments "hypocrisy". You refuse to acknowledge other examples and the arguments why this images are out of context. It must be something special, only attributed to the Hungarian people, not images of random places.

I see that you are now poetic, "The "riches" of the (still ridiculously poor) country (besides the Csíksomlyó pilgrimage)? The sight of the gas pipes just laid around next to the road? The unsightly view of ALL the conceivable cables fastened to the buildings (sometimes including fiber optics) instead of them being buried into ground (or at least into special underground cable channels as it's done in ANY civilized country)?" - I did`t know that Romania is so uncivilized(Do people even use forks there?) and that the only good things in it are the Hungarian sites.. very neutral POV and a rock solid arguments really.

If you think that my goal is to remove the mention that Hungarians live in those places(or to undermine the Hungarian people in any way), please be free to insert in the article, in the text form locations you feel needed, or all locations where Hungarians live.

I have explained in detail why this images are not appropriate, I don`t know what else to say except to repeat myself, which I will avoid.Adrian (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second answer to Iadrian yu

(I had to move your reply below mine for legibility reasons, because otherwise the whole discussion would be an even bigger mess than it already is)

Look, what I was pointing at is that your familiarity with Iaaasi is well-known to everyone who's been around longer than a year or two. This is not a personal attack, but a fact. But if you insist, I can always file an SPI to have at least the proxy he's editing from blocked.

You see the hypocrisy in your whole argument is the fact that the "random Transylvanian village with Hungarian majority" picture isn't BY FAR the only one you've removed. To be precise I've counted up to 7 items which you've removed in your last edit and only 2 of them pertained to various villages. The rest were various castles and churches, all of which lie outside of present-day Hungary yet constitute some of the finest examples of Hungarian architecture. If that won't be so, then tell me, what else would draw hundreds of thousands of Hungarian tourists every single year to Transylvania (and Slovakia as well)? The "riches" of the (still ridiculously poor) country (besides the Csíksomlyó pilgrimage)? The sight of the gas pipes just laid around next to the road? The unsightly view of ALL the conceivable cables fastened to the buildings (sometimes including fiber optics) instead of them being buried into ground (or at least into special underground cable channels as it's done in ANY civilized country)? No, the Hungarians go to the various cities of Transylvania to see the Hungarian artifacts there, to see the birthplace of King Matthias, to see the Székely cities, to see the top of Madarasi-Hargita etc. None of the Hungarian tourists go there to see the Orthodox churches of which so many have been built in Romania in the last couple of years that one would think that Romanians are spending their whole day in them. In fact nobody insists even on inserting any Romanian Orthodox church into the gallery. Why are the Catholic churches problematic then (into which no Romanian would ever step anyway)? Because the Slovaks are Catholics too? So what? A church consecrated to St. Elisabeth of the Árpád dynasty can't belong to Hungarian heritage? A castle built by a member of the Hont-Pázmány family and long owned by the Pálffys is not supposed to be Hungarian? Then what is? Only what's within Hungary? Because your actions certainly seem to assert so. As far as I'm concerned the villages can be removed, but anything else should be left in, because you're yet to prove that they are not connected to Hungarian culture and heritage.

Like I said earlier: why should the presentation of Hungarian heritage be the same as that of other nations? Wikipedia's rules are not THAT exact when it comes to standardization. I mean I'm pretty sure that you'd be ridiculed endlessly when you'd argue on New York City or London articles' talk page with the Belgrade or Bucharest articles. And this is pretty much the same. Besides: I'd wholeheartedly support the inclusion of any Slovak artifacts in the appropriate article even if it'd come from outside of Slovakia. The things is however that Slovakia in general (and the public opinion of Slovakia in general) doesn't care about the Slovak minorities living abroad so it's kinda a moot point. But arguing with the "deletionist" approach of other articles in an article based on inclusionism is completely pointless.

-- CoolKoon (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by

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.

Hungarian people 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. I've hesitated to say anything because I'm probably not going to moderate this dispute and wanted to leave it unopened for another volunteer to take it, but let me warn the editors in this discussion that we do not deal with conduct disputes here and will not tolerate personal attacks. Do not discuss or comment about one another or any other editor. If you have conduct, including puppetry, complaints, take them to sockpuppet investigations, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC/U but do not make or discuss them here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 4th personal attack on me. Is there anything I can do to stop this kind of accusations on my account?Adrian (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Pdunbarny on 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C Inc..27s 1997 Financial Rescue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Wikipedia article's statement that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." is based on the subject's, Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, own claims ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") and is not supported by facts other than those referencing the subject's claims thus making the subject the primary source of the statement posed as fact.

In addition the claim has a very high probability of being a false statement based on supporting evidence to the contrary provided in the talk pages linked, including the referenced article and linked US government documents filed by the company, Apple Computer, Inc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Satisfactory evidence suggesting the article's statement ("Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.") relies on the claim under dispute that was made by the subject ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") that evidence shows it not likely correct, has been provided on the talk page.

Two other registered editors have provided opinions, one supporting the article's statement by questioning the evidence and the other believing there is adequate evidence provided.

How do you think we can help?

If the evidence provided is satisfactory, the statement under dispute should be either:

a) removed from the article, b) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject, c) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence, or d) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence and is disputed.

Additional evidence can be provided to conclude the dispute.

Opening comments by BashBrannigan

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 argument that Jobs' statement that the company was "90 days from bankruptcy" when he arrived is that the only source is from Jobs himself. I did a quick search and was able to find a New York Times article from March 28, 1996 which discusses Apples grave financial situation, specifically a $700 million loss in it’s second quarter. Here is the link: New York Time 1996/03/28 apple-expects-it-will-lose-700-million.html

From the article: “A former Apple executive, who spoke on the ground that he not be named, said that the company's financial situation was so dire that he believed Apple was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year.” As Jobs took over in Dec of 69 this gives independent credence to Jobs “90 days” quote and certainly to the grave situation.

Additionally, in the evidence provided against Apple being near bankruptcy, it appears that the SEC filing is from late 97 and Jobs arrived late 96, so I’m not sure it applies. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Dream Focus

Someone who understands all the stuff in the SEC report should comment on whether or not Jobs was just lying to exaggerate his own importance, as everyone that knew him said he often did(see his official biography).

I commented on how the current source referenced in the article is "just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there". Can anyone find any evidence to keep that bit in the article? Dream Focus 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue 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.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discuss the dispute prior to a dispute resolution volunteer opening the thread for comments

~~In response to BashBrannigan's last comment:~~

It was announced Dec 20, 1996 that Apple Computer, Inc. would acquire NeXT Software, Inc. (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193-96-000027.txt) and, following the transaction, the subject was to be a part-time consultant to Apple. The subject was not appointed Interim CEO until Sep 16, 1997.

The rebuttal quote from the Mar 28, 1996 article that Apple’s “financial situation was so dire” then is not attributed to any person other than a “former Apple executive” (who could just as well been the subject). In addition, the article also states “And some industry experts contend that while Apple has a serious image problem with customers, the affliction is not necessarily fatal.” and that “Having drifted lately in the $23 range that only weeks ago was deemed an insult when Sun proposed it as a takeover price, Apple's shares gained $1.375 today to close at $25.25.”

~~Moreover, according to US government SEC filings by Apple, referred below as the “Registrant” (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193-96-000023.txt):~~

“The aggregate market value of voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant was approximately $2,941,155,709 as of November 29, 1996, based upon the closing price on the Nasdaq National Market reported for such date.”

A $3bn publicly-traded Silicon Valley stalwart with a loyal following on the edge of insolvency would have gotten more coverage than a single article with a non-attributed quote speculating on the company’s demise. The fact that Apple still had refinanced its debts at 6% with low-grade long-term securities, held about $1bn cash one year later and had a substantial market value even after reporting a large loss indicates that the company was solvent. This article and / or its quote appear to be the common Silicon Valley FUD.

~~Pdunbarny (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, everyone has made a statement. Please give me a little time (less than a day) to read all of the talk page history, check all the references, etc, and then I will open this up for discussion. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Senor Taichi on 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Article is an episode list of a live action TV show. Content dispute is on the summaries of the first four episodes (or the fifth summary) since Favre1fan93 keeps adding his own version even though this episode has not yet aired.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I removed any futures summaries that may be considered "original research" telling Ryulong to act civilly

How do you think we can help?

Users should respect others and not dismiss every edit they don't agree with as "original research"

Opening comments by Ryulong

~~Jesus christ the summaries for upcoming episodes are based on TV Guide/Zap2it listings. If anything Senor Taichi is the one who is violating WP:OR by posting this content.~~ Senor Taichi is constantly violating WP:OR by adding content that is not stated outright by the television show, and also violating WP:COPYVIO by copying summaries from TV guide websites (such as Zap2it). He is being told by Favre1fan93 and myself that he is incorrect, and reporting on us here in an attempt to get his way, such as claiming that the addition of a one sentence summary for the fifth episode, which has not yet aired but uses Zap2it as the source, is a violation of WP:OR. At this point he should just be blocked for disruption.

Again, no attempt was made at resolving this on the talk page and Senor Taichi is just trying to slog everything through Wikimedia process for no reason (he was the IP who previously posted here concerning a line that I removed from the page).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Favre1fan93

Ugh. Okay. So basically everything that Ryulong said is what I would have said here in some extent. As Senor Taichi stated above that we should "not dismiss every edit [we] don't agree with as "original research" ", the only reason he was being dismissed so many times, as Ryulong said, was because his edits were OR. Before his edits, I add added new episode titles that were sourced by Zap2It as well as one future episode summary (more on this in a bit). Senor Taichi went on to change a properly sourced title to one that he could not provide a new, valid source for, saying that his version was right and not OR.

As for the future episode summary, the title source (usually from a press release), can be used as a guideline for the short summary. However, you can not copy word-for-word, as Senor Taichi did, less it be WP:COPYVIO. The summary must express what the episode will be about, with out using the exact words from the source. The official short summary is: "Gia and Emma are turned into enemies by a vicious monster; Beezara captures the boys and turns them into her drone slaves." while the one added is "The Warstar monster Beezara uses her powers to turn Gia and Emma against each other and the boys into her loyal drones." Just a simple sentence or two to say what the episode will be about before a more lengthy summary can be added after it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes 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.

View by Nerdfighter

This really shouldn't be on this noticeboard. Adding summaries for shows that have not aired is vandalism. Please warn the user starting at level one, each time he vandalises. If he vandalises past 4 warnings he may be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks. — nerd fighter^(academy) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I got something mixed up.[reply]

I am not so sure you are correct about that Nerd. I will look further, but for now we should not be advising editors that this is indeed vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism:"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." This is too soon, could be less than accurate and is possibly innapropriate, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America

– New discussion.

Filed by Mendaliv on 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Does the phrase "United States" also refer to territories such as Puerto Rico?

Some editors have argued yes, and that the United States article at present does not reflect this in its lede. Others argue no, or at least that the current article does not exclude the possibility. I have argued that the term is ambiguous and the sides should be equally addressed.

One problem that has come up is sourcing. My sources, admittedly, are legal encyclopedias and thus tertiary sources. One editor in favor of explicit inclusion of territories has provided sources that he argues support that contention, but which I believe either independently support the ambiguity of the term, or are primary sources being used to advance a synthetic position.

Another contention has been the appropriate application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Without straying into behavioral issues, it has been repeatedly argued that tertiary sources should not be used at all, that certain sources are or are not secondary/scholarly, that primary sources may be used to support the definition, what constitutes OR, what value judgments we may make about the validity of certain sources, and similar.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I got pulled in via a request at WP:EAR, where I volunteer. I came to Talk:United States and engaged in discussion. Upon realizing this issue had wider implications, I called on members of WP:USA to join, and started a discussion to standardize affected articles and to describe the ambiguity rather than attempting to resolve it. I believe the sheer volume of discussion, both prior to and in response to these attempts at resolution, is preventing participation by uninvolved editors.

How do you think we can help?

Keep things on topic and moving, break the deadlock, and move the participants towards hacking out a consensus.

Opening comments by Golbez

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.

My personal stance has been, the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy has been settled law, and absent a specific statement from Congress, the Executive, or a higher court, that remains how things are done. The U.S. consists of the incorporated territory of the fifty states, federal district, and Palmyra Atoll (so insignificant as to not warrant mention in the introduction).

However, throughout all this my concern has been less about the definition of the country (though I still disagree that we can unilaterally say the territories are now part of the country), and more about what impact that would have on the rest of the article, and other articles. For example, all of the stats in the infobox would have to be changed to accommodate the change in area and population. And all statistics and facts in the article itself would have to be checked: Does this change the population density? The crime rate? Are their unique aspects mentioned in geography and demographics? Furthermore, what impact would this have on Wikipedia at large? Would we have a situation where we are massively inconsistent, with this article reporting one area and other articles reporting another, or other articles talking about Puerto Rico as a possession whereas this one would now talk about it as integrated into the country? Would the articles on incorporated and unincorporated territories be updated to indicate that those terms no longer have meaning? Would the articles on the five territories in question be updated to reflect their "new" status? Has anyone even asked the talk pages of those articles how they feel about this?? Those who are for this change have denied any need to do this, let alone any willingness to perform it. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by TheVirginiaHistorian

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 view of a U.S. without territories echoes the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Editor synthesis of tertiary sources should be replaced by secondary scholarly or government sources as quoted. Contribution to the lead sentence sourced from the last twenty years should be admitted describing the U.S. federal republic as including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.

The U.S. is an internationally recognized nation-state with a constitutional tradition upholding basic human rights and self-determination in a federal constitutional republic. Scholar and government secondary sources show the U.S. territories of 2013 are “locally autonomous” with rights and privileges “equivalent to states” in the Union. The U.S.G. reports itself as today including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.

The constitutional practice of the U.S. since 1805 develops territory from “possession” with military governor to “unincorporated territory” with appointed governor without citizenship-of-the-soil, to “incorporated territory” of citizens with elected governors. Territories admitted as states in 1910 and 1960, AZ, NM, AK, HI as territories are surpassed in privileges for the five organized U.S. territories 2013: N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. As were the territories incorporated before them, they are incorporated in the union of U.S. federal constitutional republic.

There is no secondary source to classify U.S. territories of 2013 as “separate personalities”. WP articles should not source WP. Insular Cases are temporary judicial fiat to administer Spanish regions in 1901. Alaska was held “incorporated” in “Rassmussen”, because congressional intent was manifest with citizenship-of-the-soil, as is the case in all five organized U.S. territories but Samoa. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

There is a dispute about whether "and territories" should be added to the lead which currently says the U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." It is settled law from the Insular Cases that unincorporated territories of the United States are not part of the republic. It is the position of the U.S. government and congress that these territories are either separate states in free association with the U.S. or non-self governing territories. They are considered separate personalities under international law with the right to self-determination.["Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[18]] TFD (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by RightCowLeftCoast

My summary of the discussion regarding the proposed changed to the lead can be found in this diff. Although there have been a few rough patches along the way during this discussion, it has been more or less cordial, IMHO. That being said, when editors have strong opinions one way or the other sometimes discussions can become contentious; however, compared to political discussions this discussion is rather mild, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America 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.

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

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

Filed by Ryanspir on 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Medical uses of silver (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim. 2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs.

Opening comments by Zad68

1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Doc James

A great deal has been written on Wikipedia about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk [19] and there is definitely some of that. I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review [20] which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed.

However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion

not relevant to discussion
user:Zad does not appear to exist. Certainly, that user has no contributions so can't be involved in this dispute. There is a Zad68 who appears to have been involved, and I've changed 'users involved' appropriately. Zad68 has been notified. CarrieVS (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, all of you.

As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right?

I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources.

What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source.

It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reasoning

According to:

"It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" (From the relevant RSN discussion)

Quackwatch is considered as provocative and containing of self-published articles. Here I'll provide reliable primary and secondary available sources:

Current research on nanosilver

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209 - However the third article PMID 18854209 is a recent review article in a MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. In my opinion, that article is worth looking into and possibly using in this article. (By Zad)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523420

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286985

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22654516 - Cites http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20730806 - A recent 2012 review - secondary source. Peer-reviewed medline indexed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22117785 - Dental oriented 2011 review.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029522 - Coping with antibiotic resistance: combining nanoparticles with antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. Secondary source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163208 - Synergy between novel antimicrobials and conventional antibiotics or bacteriocins. Secondary source. "..examines the enhancement of antibiotic efficacy by their combination with new antimicrobials, such as plant-derived compounds, metal ions and nanoparticles and bacteriophage lytic enzymes

p.s. Here are some more sources:

   http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering .
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles.
   http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing

It would be very highly doubtful and very unusual to have many scientists investigating a quackery substance. Not to mention the positive results all of the articles demonstrate. Ryanspir (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my thoughts on that.

Are any of these about ingesting colloidal silver, as treatments for any disease? If not, I don't think they apply to this situation, nor would they be evidence that that use of colloidal silver is not 'quackery'.
Would you agree that if better sources can't be found (and agreed to be appropriate), one of the Quackwatch sources could be used, with an in-text attribution such as "Quackwatch says..."? If not, could you give reasons why. CarrieVS (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles." I would highlight the word "always".

I wouldn't like Quackwatch to be used in this article because it makes the article speculative. I have further established that higher quality, peer-reviewed research is present, current, in abundance and with positive results.

In relation to ingestion, I'm currently satisfied with the FDA advisory regarding that, the link is here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm. I have no problem of the FDA advisory to be used in the article. In fact, I have proposed also to remove all NCCAM refereed context and only use the current FDA's one as it outlines the current situations, in which some of the silver containing preparations has been approved by the FDA for external use, and none were approved for ingestion.

I'll also bring to your attention, that the updated quackwatch article says: "(or anything else)". That contradicts the FDA advisory which separates ingestion (which is still in the field of alternative medicine) with external application. A quote from the FDA advisory: "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth."

As such, I agree that this quote from FDA can be used specifically in relation to ingestion: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of standards than those that apply to drugs. For example, FDA does not approve dietary supplements or their labels before they are sold. It is unlawful for a manufacturer to represent a dietary supplement containing silver as able to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure any disease."

If that is ok with you, there is no need to use quackwatch (or NCCAM for this matter). Ryanspir (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there's no need to keep adding to the thread on your talk page. I'm watching this page so I'll know when you reply. I only posted my last reply there so that the others would see it.

Firstly, which of the sources you've found pertain to ingestion of colloidal silver to treat diseases? Please bear in mind that I am very far from an expert on this topic or on medical Wikipedia articles in general.

Secondly, can I repeat my question from above, if - this is a hypothetical situation - better sources can't be found and agreed to be appropriate, would you then - in that hypothetical situation - agree to use the Quackwatch source?

Thirdly, as I understood the sentence, the phrase "or anything else" referred to treating diseases by ingestion of colloidal silver.

Fourthly, I'm not sure whether the FDA quote is applicable either. Precisely what content would you be using it to source? CarrieVS (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another aside: from some of the things you've said, I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that I have a position of authority or would be able to overrule the other editors. That is not the case: volunteers have no special powers or privileges, and we can only try to help you come to an agreement with the other editors. If you're hoping for me to issue some sort of ruling in the face of consensus, we might as well close this now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing.

1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old.

- "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1.

2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead.

Ryanspir (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quote

The relevant quote is: "Colloidal Silver

Many colloidal silver and silver salt preparations have been touted as cures for AIDS, chronic fatigue, herpes, TB, syphilis, lupus, malaria, plague, acne, impetigo, and many other diseases. Lyme disease is just the latest target. A 1996 Federal Register notice stated the "FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of . . . colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions." The same notice stated that "human consumption of silver may result in argyria—a permanent ashen-gray or blue discoloration of the skin, conjunctiva, and internal organs" [17]. Despite these warnings, some websites devoted to Lyme disease or colloidal silver products display misleading reports about laboratory experiments in which colloidal silver killed spirochetes. One such report is a letter from Dr. Burgdorfer, the discoverer of the Lyme spirochete. The letter merely reports on a pilot study using colloidal silver to kill spirochetes in a test tube and states that additional laboratory and human studies are underway. Many silver and Lyme advocates have used the letter to suggest that colloidal silver has been proven effective against Lyme disease. However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." It referenced to [17] which is Federal Register 61:53685-53688, 1996.

The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as).

I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok.

"Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion.

I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion.

If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus.

Ryanspir (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything.

Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic

I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations:

From RSN archive 32:

"This question [of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source] has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit."
"I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit."
"On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source."

From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics."
From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Wikipedia articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does
This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources"
This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use.

I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion.

Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments.

I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN.

I think with that we may close the current RSN.

p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach.
The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here?
If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same.
That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify:

There is absolutely no consensus to remove all references/uses of Quackwatch in the article and leave it like that. It was very disappointing to see Ryan jump the gun and remove it while this DRN conversation over exactly that is still active and unresolved.
To try to better respect the WP:MEDRS timeframe, there is a proposal to replace the existing article content "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as 'risk without benefit'." sourced to the Quackwatch Colloidal silver article last updated 20085 with something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." sourced to the Quackwatch Lyme disease article. Note this is just a proposal, we haven't worked out an exact agreement on it.
If we can't come to an agreement on this replacement proposal, there is no agreement or consensus to remove the existing Quackwatch-sourced content, for the reasons Doc James and others have already stated.

Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus. Zad68 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going over old ground a bit.

This is what we have consensus on:

We are going to include one of the Quackwatch articles.
Ingesting colloidal silver is an alternative treatment without scientific evidence of benefit.

The main thing we have to decide on is whether or not to replace the existing content sourced to the older Colloidal Silver Quackwatch article with something sourced to the newer Lyme Disease one. Now,

without editing the article until and unless we've finished discussing and explicitly agreed to do so,
without making interpretations of anyone else's comments or claiming we've reached consensus on things other than those listed above,

can you say whether you agree to make the change, or disagree and want to keep the current content and source. Keep arguments and explanations very brief for now; when we have an idea who objects to what, then we can start trying to persuade each other, if we need to. CarrieVS (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the change, although I would not mind if the existing content were to stay as-is either. Zad68 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree using wording: "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (would also be happy with the status quo) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both. Zad68 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Agree it is useful for the reader to know this is on QW's radar. Strongly agree with suggestion to use both QW sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alex Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to discussion.

I see that Ryan's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry -doesn't come as a surprise, but it is a shame as we finally seemed to be making some progress. I assume the rest of you can all agree on what to say and cite and we can wrap this thread up? CarrieVS (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think with that, there is no more impediment to agreement and consensus and this can be closed. Zad68 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was a misunderstanding. CarrieVS (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion - mainly going over old ground - on my talk page following tha last comment on this thread. No new conclusions were reached. Can we continue the discussion here, please. CarrieVS (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical uses of silver and Quackwatch -- are we done?

Are we done? Can this be closed? Zad68 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan hasn't responded, or indeed made any contributions, since Wednesday. I'm not going to close it just because one side of the dispute has been away from Wikipedia for two days, since he might just not be able to get online, but I would suggest that, since the rest of you are in agreement, you go on with editing as if it was done. If Ryan has any more to say on the matter I'll either let you guys know or I'll archive this as failed, depending on whether I think there's any point continuing to discuss it - if Ryan's still going over the same ground that's he's already failed to change consensus on for the umpteenth time, there won't be. If it gets to two weeks since it was filed and no-one has said anything for (I think it's 24 hours), it'll be automatically archived. CarrieVS (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not related to dispute

A little late but open.Go ahead and close it after two weeks but shouldn't it be opened?24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned that indiscriminate use of colloidal silver causes human being's skin to turn blue? If the previously mentioned Quackwatch article does include that warning, I think that it would be a good source.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'shouldn't it be opened?' I had intended to close the thread several days ago, unless Ryanspir had replied again in that time, but I've since heard from him (on my talk page) that he does intend to continue the discussion so I was leaving it until either he returned or the case is archived. Regarding silver turning you blue, there is a section about it in the article already. CarrieVS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but I was attempting to jiggle the pink statement at the top of this DRN. I was under the impression that a volunteer could open a discussion by posting but it is still pink-my bad.Yes I did see that under side-effects ty.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De-archived

This case has been de-archived to be closed. There will be no extensive discussion, only agree/disagree statements. There is clearly no consensus, or any likelihood of gaining it, for removing references to Quackwatch.

Proposed compromise: Quackwatch remains in the article, but the newer article (about Lyme Disease) is referenced instead of the older one currently used. The previously proposed wording: "according to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness" seemed to gain approval.

Please delete agree or disagree as appropriate and sign. If you agree in principle but dislike the suggested wording, choose 'agree' and add a brief comment. If you disagree, add a brief comment stating what you would be prepared to accept. CarrieVS (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68: Agree although I'm also equally fine with leaving the existing content or adding the Lyme source to the existing. - Zad68 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jmh649: Agree - Sure either leave it with the old ref or leave it with the new one. Or even leave it with both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn: Agree/disagree - [signature and timestamp]
Ryanspir: Agree/disagree - [signature and timestamp]

Francesca Hogi

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 170.35.208.206 on 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

The article's eligibility has been discussed on the AFD page

Location of dispute

Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Frietjes (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article was nominated for deletion a week ago and was closed today. However, the closure has been disputed by Frietjes (talk · contribs) and I am filing this in case she feels the article is notable. I suspect this user may be Francesca herself trying to keep her own article or an avid Survivor fan trying to keep the article in spite of consensus that the article fails notability standards

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We redirected the article to a list of all the contestants but we know this user will attempt to reopen the WP:AFD discussion

How do you think we can help?

Explain to this user that not all people are notable enough to have their own articles and that anonymous IP voters are entitled to share their opinion as much as logged in users are

Opening comments by Freitjes

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 AfD was closed as no consensus, so redirecting Francesca Hogi is inappropriate. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*:: I've reset the nomination in light of he recent war over the article's closure. This is a straight vote

Francesca Hogi discussion

Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a DRN volunteer. *What exactly is the dispute? The AfD was closed as no consensus, so the article hasn't been and shouldn't be deleted. CarrieVS (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC) My mistake, I didn't examine the article history.[reply]

The AfD was closed as no consensus - the previous closures did not meet the criteria in WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures, so the final closure by an administrator should stand - so the article should not be redireced unless a future discussion results in a consensus to do so (the closing comments included a suggestion that the article be relisted in a month's time, so if you still feel it should be redirected, I suggest you wait and do that). CarrieVS (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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