Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Naseem Hamed	Closed	Mac Dreamstate (t)	13 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours
White Zimbabweans	In Progress	Katangais (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	In Progress	Traumnovelle (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Traumnovelle (t)	14 hours
Macarons	Closed	62.211.155.242 (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Angus Deayton

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

Filed by Bretonbanquet on 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Angus Deayton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs)
• Narrow Feint (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd better start by saying this has nothing to do with the Angus Deayton article per se – another editor has changed the subject of this discussion because apparently there needs to be an actual article in the subject heading. This dispute is about the same edit being made to hundreds of different articles. The Angus Deayton article has never been discussed on an individual basis.

Narrow Feint makes large numbers of edits to placename formats on English-related BLP articles, specifically removing "UK" from placenames. For example: [1]. Narrow Feint considers "UK" redundant in British addresses. I object on the grounds that various formats are commonly used across Wikipedia (e.g. London, England, UK or London, England or London, UK) and editors should not be enforcing any format en masse without a guideline or MOS guidance. There is no guideline or MOS guidance and I believe that any factually correct format of showing a British placename is acceptable, and that enforcing one over the others is not constructive.

After a discussion involving a number of editors here, Narrow Feint believes he has a consensus to make mass changes to English placenames in BLP articles, and I disagree. The discussion centred around the merits of the various formats, and not about the value of making mass changes. In any case, only a small majority of editors favoured Narrow Feint's preferred format, while others disagreed with him, and still others favoured other formats. I consider the result of the discussion to be no consensus, and that it is not sufficient grounds to make mass changes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from the above discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board, I filed an ANI report which essentially told us to come here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses), although I am not convinced that this is a plain content dispute. There has been further discussion at User talk:Narrow Feint.

How do you think we can help?

Narrow Feint is a very civil editor and we have not resorted to edit-warring. He has also stopped editing while we sort this out. But I have issues with his single-purpose editing and the nature of it. We differ strongly and we are looking for guidance as to whether his editing patterns are constructive and justified, or not.

Summary of dispute by Narrow Feint

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

From my end the dispute is about two things.

One: what is the consensus preferred description of places in articles (such as Angus Deayton)? Should it be Surrey, England, UK or should it be Surrey, England? That is, should it be England, UK or just England? Angus Deayton is unusual, usually it is "town, county, England, United Kindom" versus "town, county, England".

Two: assuming that the consesnsus is that UK (or U.K., or United Kindom) is redundant, should it be removed? And, what to do if it is added?

The most recent discussion of on the need for United Kingdom is just here. (I initiated that discussion following Bretonbanquet's comments at several places.) It follows on some old discussions which are linked there. My opinion is that United Kingdom is not required. My reading of the discussion is that there is a consensus that United Kingdom is not required in addition to England.

I have made changes to articles to bring them into line to what I think is consensus. I have only changed England, United Kingdom (U.K., UK) to England. I will reiterate that this is because that is what I was looking for. There have been cases where I changed England but left Scotland, United Kingdom or Wales, United Kingdom in place. If I have left articles with a mix of styles, then that was a mistake. Sorry.

Bretonbanquet clearly disagrees with my interpretation of consensus. And, if there is a consensus, I think he disagrees that the 'electorate' was wide enough. And if the is a consensus and it is valid, I think he disagrees that I have authority (probably wrong word) to make any changes.

Narrow Feint (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator notes

@Bretonbanquet: can you please provide links to places where this issue has already been discussed. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of discussion between me and Narrow Feint, only the places I've already linked to, namely Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses and User talk:Narrow Feint. Prior to that I made queries to a couple of admins about whether there were guidelines covering this topic, but they were generalised and Narrow Feint was not named. Narrow Feint wasn't pleased about my original inquiries when he found out, but I specifically didn't name him because I wasn't sure he had done anything wrong. They didn't lead anywhere anyway as I was simply told to engage with Narrow Feint directly, which I did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for providing these links. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Angus Deayton discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200, and I will assist with this dispute. Please give me a little while to review all of the evidence that both of you presented. Depending on where you live, we can kick off discussion in the evening. I just wanted to thank both of you for staying civil and Narrow Feint for halting your editing on edits related to this dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Have either of you read the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS? There is no current consensus on if people from the UK should have U.K. or their birth country listed for their birthplace. It looks like that is what we're going to have to do. I don't want to give an opinion nor side with one of you, but it seems more feasible to use their birth country over U.K,. The UK consists of four separate countries, however UK means "union," and we should use birth countries rather than a union. Something similar to this was the Confederate States of America and the Union. As a whole, it is still considered America (also by other countries at the time) especially if you were born there. On the contrary, citizens from the UK are considered "British citizens" and that can support using UK over the birth country; I still believe using the birth country is more specific. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MrScorch6200, and thanks to Narrow Feint for responding before the case was closed. I have read (and I believe NF has also read) WP:UKNATIONALS, and indeed there is no consensus on what to do – that's why I object to mass changes. It actually says "Do not enforce uniformity" and although it directly refers to nationalities, I believe this is the same concept. I appreciate your opinion on which to use, but other editors have made good cases for other formats, hence the lack of consensus. For example, not everyone across the world knows that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not independent sovereign countries, but parts of one, and the infoboxes should reflect that. You are correct that all these BLPs are British citizens, and many of them now do not have "UK" stated anywhere on their articles, which will be confusing for those readers who are not familiar with the makeup of the UK. It's important not to overstate the status of the constituent countries. "Birth countries" (England etc) are not mentioned anywhere on British passports – officially the birth country is the UK. Another point worth making is that the documentation for Template:Infobox person does say to use "city, administrative region, sovereign state", which is not being followed.

I reiterate that I'm not seeking to enforce the presence of "UK" across articles, but simply to prevent the enforcement of its removal where there is no consensus or guideline or MOS to support it. There's equally nothing to stop someone adding "UK" wherever they go, so it's basically futile anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with most of your statements above, however let's get back to the task at hand. Narrow Feint's edits are not justifiable. Nowhere (officially at least) does it say to either use UK over birth countries or vice versa. Nor does it say to enforce uniformity on articles by using one of the two. Narrow Feint, what's your stance on this? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My stance on this is that I will do whatever the consensus on the matter is. What is your interpretation of the very specific discussion at the UK noticeboard? (n.b. I think you should avoid telling us what your contribution would be.) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the discussion there and there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers. Some also say that "UK" should be used in very few circumstances such as if the BLP had an impact on the UK as a whole and not one of the countries. What do you guys say (post under heading below for organization)? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

UK noticeboard consensus

I don't think that it's a clear consensus, if it is one at all. In that discussion, Narrow Feint did not even explain what he is doing. Apart from those editors who were against removing "UK", at least two editors state a preference for "London, UK" and a few of the arguments in agreement with Narrow Feint were very poor: the idea about the BLP having an impact on just one constituent country rather than the whole UK is ridiculous. It would be impossible to make such a distinction. I actually don't see anyone in that discussion making that point. Also, "England is a country in the UK and everyone knows it" is a particularly vapid argument.

Redundancy seems to be the most common argument for removing "UK", but all the editors in this discussion already know that England and the UK are not synonymous. They all know about the makeup of the UK. What about those readers who don't? How many of those were represented in that discussion? An encyclopedia should not assume prior knowledge. Consider Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic.

But most importantly, there's no discussion there about enforcing this format at the expense of others. It's just about whether the "UK" is necessary. Talking about whether something is necessary or not is not the same as talking about wiping it out. One editor (Kahastok) brings up the point against enforcing uniformity, for example, and that is a crucial point. The discussion was not about making mass changes, so how can it stand as justification to make mass changes? If "UK" is to be removed from all BLPs (contrary to the infobox template instructions), it would need a much stronger and wider consensus than this – it is a controversial subject on which to be enforcing uniformity. Nobody has yet explained to me how enforcing uniformity in this way is constructive. Why not make an attempt to form a guideline or at least include it in a MOS? It would at least then have gained wider support than a rickety consensus on a talk page which large numbers of interested editors will not have seen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that of those editors who considered "UK" to be redundant, not many advocated its removal, and only a small number of them admitted to actively removing it when they see it. So how can the discussion justify mass removal? How many editors requested mass removal? Narrow Feint is the only editor of whom I am aware who makes it his sole purpose on Wikipedia to remove it. I do wonder, with all good faith assumed, why NF does this, only this, and nothing else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I definitely see your point that not all readers know that the UK and England are not synonymous. Also, like you and I said, there is no justification for Narrow Feint to make mass changes without a crystal clear consensus. Some editors consider that disruptive to the project. Also, the discussion (I will call it that instead of consensus) there is about if UK is necessary and not making mass changes opposing it (like you said). I remember an incident about two months back where a newer editor thought the consensus to use the new reader's commenting system on only some articles meant it shouldn't be used on any. He went and disabled the commenting system on hundreds and hundreds of articles. That made a lot of people mad and he refused to listen to anyone that there was a clear consensus to only roll it out on articles that could use it. Anyway, I would like Narrow Feint to state his current view on the discussion before I continue. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you (MrScorch6200) when you write above "there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers." I note the minority position that prefers '"Manchester, UK" rather than "Manchester, England"' though as someone wrote there that might cause trouble for (e.g.) Edinburgh. I expect that that change would make "a lot of people mad". Narrow Feint (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(cut and paste cut but not paste!) The next stage of this dispute resolution must surely be to agree on the consensus at that discussion, no? Bretonbanquet still does not agree, I think. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting to say this. Templates at Wikipedia are an aid to text entry. The guidance at any template to (e.g.) use soverign country it not a statement of anything except what the template documentation writers were thinking at the time. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) With regard to NF's first point there, I think that's why there should be flexibility across BLP articles, so that each article (if necessary) can host a discussion if there's a difference of opinion. Different formats will work better at different articles. I believe that's why there has never been a guideline or notes in the Manual of Style telling editors to favour any format over others. There really is no benefit in having the same format for all articles.

I think any agreement we might make on the consensus (or lack thereof) at that discussion is not relevant to our dispute, due to the fact that the discussion did not examine the nature of your edits. The only consensus that could be extracted from it might be that a (small) majority of editors prefer not to use "UK". There's really no talk there of removing it, particularly on a mass scale.

You're right about the instructions at the template, but it's also the only guidance there is on the topic. Those instructions would though have been formulated over a long period of time via a consensus, not just one editor writing them. It's an extremely heavily used template. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I have received a notification that the discussion at the UK Wikipedians Notice Board now has new posts (I think due to this discussion here at DRN), and another editor has expressed a desire for "UK" not to be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing that to our attention; I'm going to let the debate there run for a few more hours (as the last post was 10 or so minutes ago) before we continue, unless either of you want to. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That discussiuon seems to have stalled again. Perhaps we should carry on? Narrow Feint (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what happens next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• What do you propose to do? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's mainly up to Narrow Feint and how he sees the situation at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the situation much as before. I think I agree with MrScorch6200 on the consensus at the UK talk pages, But Bretonbanquet does not. Bretonbanquet writes that the documentation of Template:Infobox person is "also the only guidance there is on the topic", but as I said before, it's just an aid to text entry. There is however guidance at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements where it says "The lead ... should normally cover the following: Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (...), and constituent country." Constituent country is England, Scotland, etc. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, MrScorch6200 has pointed out that any consensus at the UK Wikipedians' talk page does not constitute a consensus for your edits and that your edits are not justified. He has actually said that twice. The discussion there does not correspond with what you are doing. Do you accept that? With regard to your other point, that guidance refers to the article lead, not the infobox. You are generally editing the infobox, if I am not mistaken. Furthermore, that guidance refers to articles about settlements and you generally edit articles about people (BLPs). So nothing of it applies to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me say it upfront - Any consensus (if clear) at the UK Noticeboard does not have much relation to what this DRN request was filed for. Nowhere on the Noticeboard has a discussion about Narrow Feint's mass editing not UK vs England, UK etc. Please remember that this was filed to address the mass editing and not interpret a consensus. Both of you are quote mining from me so I summed my view up here. Now, let's work on a solution. 23:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the whole point of this DRN – we were sent here because it was deemed a content dispute. Narrow Feint believes that discussion is a consensus which allows him to mass edit. If we have established that it isn't, then he doesn't have justification for the mass editing. What kinds of solution can there be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My proposal. In most circumstances the phrase "UK", "U.K." or "United Kingdom" is not needed in addition to the constituent country; it can be removed on sight and should not be added. Narrow Feint (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. It cannot be "removed on sight" because there is no guideline, MOS guidance or consensus to do that. I do agree that it should not be added en masse in the same way that it should not be removed en masse. Mass edits to any effect which has no supporting guideline or consensus are unconstructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I have to stop posting and cannot respod before tomorrow about three. (Thursday 15:00) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about you cease removing UK from infoboxes/leads and leave them as they are? If it has been there then technically there is a consensus to keep them, else other editors would have removed it. This is one of those things that can't have uniformity; it's impossible. These types of edits are considered unconstructive and are completely unjustified. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume that it has been added (it has always been added, never there from the start) because there is a consensus but I am removing it against consensus? Other editors are removing it, and in this case it is me. And what to do if it is added? At the risk of repeating myself, why is it OK to add it but not OK to remove it, especially when the consensus format is to not have it? Narrow Feint (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass editing or repetitive changes to a series of articles without clear consensus from a group of people at a project page or a WP:RFC is generally not appropriate, especially when other editors have registered their objection. In the past I have seen it lead to problems for the editor that is making the mass changes. At some point the issue transitions from being a content dispute to being a behavioral issue and I think we are at that point now. Better to put a hold on the changes and get a clear consensus by a group of editors and make sure that the changes are beneficial to the project and not unintentionally disruptive. NF I think you are acting in good faith but I recommend that you stop making these changes and find other productive work on WP until a clear consensus is formed that specifically endorses your desire to make this change across all of WP. I'd also like to suggest that this discussion be closed since it appears there is another discussion on this same issue on the UK project page which is in violation of our guidelines. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First, there is a clear consensus at a project page. I was advised to seek a consensus there at WP:BLPN. I opened the discussion ("... Do I need to reconfirm here that UK is not needed, or can I get back to improving things? ..."). Having confirmed that the consensus was the same as it had been for years I went back to improving things. Bretonbanquet was about the fourth editor to comment (the exact number doesn't matter). He had the chance to say then "this is not the place", but did not. Nobody has said there "this is not the place". OK, one more time (I have asked this before). Where is the place to seek consensus about the preferred way to describe places in the UK?

Second, where is this other discussion (that Keithbob describes) taking place? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was just about to ask that. @Keithbob: what discussion are you talking about? NF: There is also not clear consensus on that page. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh third. Close it if you like, but not much has been resolved. I will be away for four days from about 23:00. Please don't assume anything from that. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought there was mention in the discussion above that there were ongoing comments on this issue at the UK project talk page. If I'm mistaken then I apologize. As for what is the right venue to get support for mass changes. I think you need to have an RfC at a venue with good traffic and participation. If you feel you have gotten that already please provide the links here so I can look at them and comment. Many thanks to all for your patience and participation in this massive collaborative event we call WP :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, my apologies I was not aware of this discussion that NF has cited in his comment above. It appears to be quite comprehensive. The remaining question is: Was there a clear consensus to make the change en masse? I admit that I don't have time to read the entire discussion as I'm in the midst of a busy week. So I'll leave it to the two parties here and the moderater, MrScorch, to sort that out. I will leave this discussion with one suggestion though. That is to list the Dec 2013 discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board at WP:ANRFC and ask that it receive a formal closing with an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. I think that will provide something solid on which to base further action. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We had linked to that discussion here a few times. I realise you haven't read it, but in it there is no discussion about mass changes. Nobody made any comment about mass changes because Narrow Feint did not disclose that that is what he is doing. We've sort of been through that above. Even if a consensus could be extracted from it, it still wouldn't justify what NF is doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200: It's been two days with no new comments. Is more discussion needed here? Or would you like to summarize and close? My apologies if I seem pushy, but we have a lot of open cases this month and I want to move things along in a timely way if I can. If more discussion is needed then please, by all means proceed, but if not, then a timely close would be helpful. Thank you for all your help at DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be OK if we go to WP:ANRFC and ask for the discussion at WP:UK to be closed and summarised. Narrow Feint (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done that. I have based the request on others already there. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked a specific question there related to the consensus that may be found in that discussion. There's no value in someone saying "Yes, there's a consensus" without clarifying what that consensus allows editors to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before anyone gets round to that closure. In the meantime I read WP:DISRUPT and I don't see anything there that's relevant. I don't want the discussion as yet (give me time to read) but where do I look to find the policy/guideline/consensus that helps to understand if edits are disruptive? Narrow Feint (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all there, I think. WP:DISRUPT is a rock-solid guideline, and admins basically decide whether someone has violated it or not. I don't think it's so much the exact edits someone makes, but general behaviour that can be seen as disruptive. But nobody's saying (as far as I can see) that you have violated that guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'disruptive' apears twice in this section. I don't want to be accused of quote mining so I won't extract it, but it is in the post by MrScorch6200 at 03:02, 11 January 2014 and the post by Keithbob at 16:25, 16 January 2014. Just checking. Narrow Feint (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either used the word to directly describe your actions, rather that the potential is there for your editing to be seen that way, particularly if the consensus closure is in accordance with this DRN case. Let's wait and see – as you say, it might yet be a day or two, or longer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, let's wait and see what happens at ANRFC. I'm also going to confirm that I didn't want to call out Narrow Feint's edits as disruptive, just that they can be viewed that way (especially by an admin and because there is no current consensus). There's definitely a backlog at ANRFC, so let's R&R for a few days. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior administrative discussion about the status of the case

Friday closing notice (old) I or someone else will/should close this dispute as either stale or as a major party declined to participate in 24hrs if there is no participation. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Could we leave it open at least until Friday? Narrow Feint has limited connectivity (his words) from Monday to Thursday, so maybe he is unable to post at the moment. If this is closed, we do not have any other route to solve the problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC) OK, I will wait until Friday night but if there is no participation I will close. Thanks for letting me know. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) OK, no problem. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) You're welcome. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC) I've put a note on User:Narrow Feint's talk page to let him/her know that we'd like ,him [them] to join the conversation soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC) OK, I'm online again. I will make a start today. Narrow Feint (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for participating :-) User:MrScorch6200 I'm stepping out of this now, so please continue with this case, if you have time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of the theory of relativity

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by LCcritic on 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Criticism of the theory of relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LCcritic (talk · contribs) Paradoctor (talk · contribs) DVdm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview (Second attempt after "badtoken" error prompt.) Quoted sources documenting relativity's philosophical basis in idealism, and criticism from realism are not allowed. Question Can you please add more to this? It will allow a moderator to quickly and efficiently assist you. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC) As per request, more detail transcribed from my talk page summary: My specific request concerned the refusal by editors to allow quotes from Einstein himself clearly stating that he is not a realist and from Godel and others, that relativity is based on idealism. Nor would they allow a comparison of accepted definitions contrasting idealism and realism vis-a-vis the specific issue of "objective science" (as well defined) in contrast to relativity's basis as an observer (frame) dependent (idealistic) philosophy of science. I chose the user name LCcritic because the most obvious example of a well criticized flaw in special relativity theory is found in the very prevalent mainstream "camp" which insists that physical objects (including Earth) and the distances between them vary ("length is not invariant") in dimensions, as per "length contraction," with the velocity and in the direction of travel of all manner of different relativistic frames of reference. To be clear, this is not just my personal point of view but a ubiquitous historical and contemporary criticism of SR, not allowed anywhere in Wiki's coverage of relativity. LCcritic (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Much discussion on various user talk pages besides the article talk page above and at "talk, philosophy of science (physics subsection)"; "talk, length contraction," and "talk, relativity of simultaneity." How do you think we can help? Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism. Summary of dispute by Paradoctor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. We do not discuss conduct here at DRN. The place to discuss conduct is AN, ANI, RFC/U, or ARBCOM. On the other hand, participation in conduct dispute resolution is always voluntary. If you do not wish to participate, please just say so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) LCcritic's contributions, almost complete, and in no particular order: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Relativity Criticism of the theory of relativity: [2] [3] [4] all reverted by DVdm Tests of special relativity: [5] [6] both reverted by DVdm Talk:Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity #Einstein's denial of a "real world" as the basis for SR #Examples of editorial opinion... not permitted by the rules? Talk:Relativity_of_simultaneity#Lead_promotes_a_philosophical_bias Philosophy of science: [7] reverted by DVdm Talk:Philosophy_of_science#Observation_and_measurement User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20131112 #My edit of "Length Contraction" #DVdm's removal of my "talk" comments on length contraction #no access to message DVdm User_talk:DVdm#Article_leads_allowed_philosophical_bias Length contraction: [8] reverted by WikiDan61 Talk:Length contraction #Physical? #Proposal for a new section (and title on this page) called "The Philosophy of Relativity." #Relevance of "Philosophical Realism" to the "Reality of Length Contraction" subsection Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_October_31#Contracted_Earth_diameter_and_atmosphere_depth Note User 63.155.141.178 is an alias of LCcritic: "My opening paragraphs have not been addressed." [...] "Again, please address my opening paragraphs. LCcritic (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)" (couldn't find the diff, sorry) Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_October_26#"Real world" length contraction In a nutshell, LCcritic tried to push a point of view, can't or won't address the objections based on subject matter and policy raised by more than a dozen other editors, and won't quit, despite repeated warnings by me and DVdm. Sorry, my bad. Basically, LCcritic seems to understand relativity as saying that length contraction is a physical process, rather than the result of a change in reference system, and appears to have construed this as proof that relativity is an idealist theory. He tries to support the latter with a Gödel quote which states that relativity proves the Parmenidean view of change as an illusion. Summary of dispute by DVdm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My apologies: in view of the above remark by user TransporterMan, I have collapsed my input. In this case I have no idea what could possibly be discussed here. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) User LCcritic seems to be here for the sole purpose of putting his personal critique of length contraction in various articles (either unsourced or in the form of original research), on article talk pages, on user talk pages, at the reference desk, on the physics talk force pages: Talk:Length contraction#Relevance of "Philosophical Realism" to the "Reality of Length Contraction" subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Non-mainstream views of relativity Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 31#Contracted Earth diameter and atmosphere depth Talk:Length contraction#Physical? The most recent dispute was about article talk page abuse for which they were warned on many occasions, both informally ([9], [10], [11]) and formally ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) As far as I can tell, user LCcritic seems to have a major dispute with the Wikipedia policies, and none of the contributors who have interacted with them, seems to be able to help in any way. DVdm (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry for being late with this. I didn't understand what would be on topic here. I hope the following complies. It looks like user LCcritic wants the article Criticism of the theory of relativity to mention that relativity is an idealist theory and he would source that with statements, made under various circumstances by Einstein, Gödel, and others. To me this looks like synthesis (wp:SYNTH), a form of original research (w:OR). In my opinion it could well be true that these authors held some idealistic views about some aspects of the world, but I see no way for such views to establish a criticism of the theory, which is the subject of the article. Such statement would therefore be essentially off-topic. On top of that, almost a century later, it seems that it is commonly agreed that relativity—on the contrary—is very much a realist theory. For example: "It is commonly agreed that neither special relativity theory nor general relativity theory contains any compelling argument against an Einsteinian metaphysical realism. An interpreter of these theories may have philosophical reasons against this epistemology, perhaps in the form form of doubts about the correspondence theory of truth, but on physical grounds alone he can stay with objectivity in the strong sense. On the other hand, the relativity theories distinguish sharply between relative properties, dependent on the reference frame, and absolute ones, independent of it." DVdm (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Modocc LCcritic wants us to "Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism." I am certain there is material on philosophical criticism from realism, much of it older, that we could include with proper references. Perhaps the article on Criticism of the theory of relativity suffers from wp:recentism in that there existed prominent and relevant criticisms from the turn-of-the-century that have the same veracity that they did when raised, although they have not been presented well by us, nor have these been sustained because of a lack of an alternative theory and the current systematic bias which merely verifies precision of measurements, without reinterpretation, i.e. a new paradigm. That said, the other editors in this dispute excluded quotes provided by LCcritic in part because they were from primary sources interpreted by LCcritic and not by published secondary sources. --Modocc (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC) @Paradoctor, I am fairly sure LCcritic understands what coordinate changes are, for it means one is measuring within a different inertial frame of reference. For example, in two frames F and F', if rods are accelerated from being at rest from one frame to the other, then they are length contracting in one and expanding in length in the other due to deceleration, but we are rightly very skeptical of this consistent duplicity. Sometimes wp:truths are real, even if these are not adequately understood. --Modocc (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Criticisms of the theory of relativity discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Note: I'm very sorry that this has been here for a week without discussion. I am currently backed up on resolving disputes so please be patient for another mod to help you guys out. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC) That's ok, no need to hurry on my account. We're all volunteers with limited time. Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC) No hurry on my account either. It is a big issue in the community of relativity critics. It is not only about the protocol of "mainstream sources" as the only acceptable sources, which must be friendly to relativity. That is all I've heard so far. LCcritic (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) MODERATOR NEEDED please. ---- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (volunteer DRN coordinator) Hi guys! I shall moderate this, as my previous case seems to be coming to a close. I will look through the materials over the next few days, then report back here. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Opening comments This dispute seems to center on sources, or a lack of them, provided by User:LCcritic. Have you found anything at all that could help? I have done a brief search, which has turned up little or nothing of the like. WP:NOR is an important policy when looking at many types of articles, and I am afraid that no solution will be found to include this unless it has been mentioned in independent sources. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reliable sources clearly stating "relativity's philosophical basis in idealism" is all I'm asking for. I couldn't find any, either. Paradoctor (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Already rejected by Paradoctor; Einstein to Eduard Study in a letter dated 9/25/'18: "I am not a realist." (I have quoted the full context repeatedly.) Also a quote from Kurt Godel's article, "On the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy" (rejected for insufficient footnoting on my part, and Paradoctor states as a fact his opinion that I have misinterpreted Godel.) Further, thought experiments ubiquitous among mainstream special relativity theorists use examples contrasting measurements taken from "Observer A's" relativistic frame of reference as contrasted with measurements taken from "Observer B's" frame of reference. This is clearly idealism, denying "objective reality," including the intrinsic dimensions of physical objects, and theorizing that their dimensions and the distances between them contract in length as differently observed (as above.) LCcritic (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Ps: SR must be disambiguated, because it does in fact claim that the length of objects does contract, as in the case of a 20 foot pole fitting into a 10 foot barn, the classic train thought experiment in which the train is contracted "for one observer" and longer "for another." Clearly the train does not change lengths. Also clearly, the distance between stars does not contract the faster a ship travels between them, as claimed by SR theory. This is a content issue. LCcritic (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Restoring needed context for the Einstein quote: "I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist.". This qualification makes the quote useless for saying more than that Einstein considered himself not to be a realist. But even taking the cherry-picked version of the quote at face value, how does this imply that relativity is an idealist theory? Idealism and philosophical realism are not complementary philosophies, as far as I can tell, so we need a source saying what you want to include. "This is clearly idealism" Not to me. That certain measurements depend on the choice of reference frame does not force idealism. If you disagree with this opinion, that's ok, but then you'll have to provide sources directly supporting this claim. You didn't bother to quote Gödel, so I'll do it: "Following up the consequences [of relativity theory] [...] one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and the modern idealists, deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception.". A) This is a statement of the consequences, not of the basis of relativity. B) What is considered not real is change, not the world at large. This quote does not support the statement that relativity is rooted in idealism. Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC) What you took as most important from Godel's article was: "What is considered not real is change, not the world at large." So, "The Block Universe Theory." Time travel is scientifically possible through the "timescape" of relativity's "block universe." Famous relativity theorists endorse that. (Hawking is in favor of that.) Godel said clearly that relativity was based on idealism. Paradoctor disagrees, for his own reasons. LCcritic (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Right.... there seems to be a lot of partial quoting going on here. Is there a link to the full texts somewhere that I can have a look at please? --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Please note that I have added my summary above. Sorry for being late with it. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC) The Einstein quote seems to have been introduced by Howard, so his SEP entry appears right on spot. The Gödel quote is discussed in the context of the philosophy of time. LCcritic found it on a philosophy student's blog. Parsons' paper may be helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) I would bring the focus back to my statements above, "Further... and theorizing that their (physical objects) dimensions and the distances between them contract in length as differently observed (as above.)" This is the most basic criticism of relativity, which is, as I have said, ubiquitous but not allowed because it is not mainstream. The idealism vs realism issue lies squarely in relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length as so measured from various frames. That would, for instance, allow the famous (thought experiment) 20 foot pole to fit inside a 10 foot barn. It would also allow Earth's diameter to contract as measured variously from relativistic frames, contracting in proportion to the velocity and in the direction of travel of various frames. The only "explanation" for such obviously impossible phenomena is that there is no real world, i.e., that "it all depends on how you look at it" (to use the common vernacular.) This is in fact idealism. Here is the full text of the Einstein quote [enclosed], clearly showing that he denies a real, objective world independent of observation:"[**“The physical world is real.”** That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does “hypothesis” mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity.** The above statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless,** as if one said: “The physical world is cock-a-doodle-doo.” It appears to me that the “real” is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole), whose monstrous importance lies only in the fact that I can do certain things in it and not certain others. This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead ... I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist.]" (My ** emphasis.)LCcritic (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Ps; I don't have the full text of the Godel article on relativity's idealism. If it can be found on the net I would appreciate a link. But basic prolific criticism of SR, as above, does not depend on Godel's philosophy. LCcritic (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Please note that this basic prolific criticism of SR, as above, just does not belong in Wikipedia. Are you serious about putting this in the article? - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) That brings us right back to my summary of the dispute. "relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length" There is no such claim. What relativity implies is that "length" is on the same footing as angular diameter is in classical physics. Both can be measured by mechanical means, yet different observers obtain different results, even when measuring simultaneously. I think further discussion should wait for Mdann52's input. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Regarding, "There is no such claim." From the Length Contraction article, opening statement: "In physics, length contraction is the *phenomenon of a decrease in length* (my *) measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." It does not say "an *apparent* decrease in length." If it did, the whole issue would be clarified, i.e, disambiguated. It says LC is a decrease in length of an object. The standard relativity examples of a decrease in a train's length and the shrinkage of a 20 foot pole to fit into a 10 foot barn are clear examples of the claim which Paradoctor denies. Examples abound on internet "ask the expert" websites. Such expert relativity physicists answer that the diameter of Earth "depends on who is looking at it,"... "depends on the frame of reference of from which it is measured," etc. "Earth's atmosphere IS contracted, for a muon," etc. Different observers "see" different "worlds," and relativity claims that there is no preferred frame of reference, that all are equally valid. LCcritic (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Please do not use "*" for emphasis, we use italics, see WP:SHOUT. You can surround text with '', or use the I button at the top of the edit box after highlighting what you wish to emphasize. For someone claiming a to have PhD in philosophy, your abuse of quotes is awe-inspiring. I didn't say "apparent", contraction is a measurable phenomenon. length contraction says "decrease in length" You said "physically contract in length" (my emphasis), which is not what the article says. Also, the article has a section on the "reality" of contraction, which you ignore. Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "'relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length' There is no such claim." It's my understanding that there is such a claim though. According to relativity, if I launch an elephant into space, the rocket contracts in our frame, but the rocket expands in the space station's frame and it does neither in its proper frame. These supposed length changes are on par with relativistic increases in a particle's available energy which changes the object's inertia (such as with Mercury's mass which advances its perihelion). -Modocc (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "there is such a claim" Great. Where? As regards pachyderms, let me point out that our guiding principle is not truth. It is verifiability. Disagreement about truth is always a possibility, but arguing against verifiable facts is futile. Paradoctor (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Any primer on relativity will do, such as this [18], see the second problem Length Contraction ("Moving Rods Contract"). On one hand, the rocket (it's a fancier rod, kind of) and elephant that are at rest become contracted when these reach the space station due to their orbital velocity. But from the space station's perspective it is the rocket and elephant that are initially moving and contracted thus once docked, the rocket and elephant are no longer moving relative the station and they have have expanded! In addition, for those on board the rocket, although its not an inertial frame, it is a proper frame hence no length change is observed in that frame only. Thus different physical length observations are certainly claimed by relativity. -Modocc (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Putting aside the fact that the file is not a reliable source, it still doesn't support the claim that there is a physical change, i. e. a change in the properties of the object measured, as opposed to the measurements. The text takes care to talk about measurements. It's not by accident that they use scare quotes around "moving rods contract"! Measurements generally depend not just on what is measured, but also on who is measuring. If "length" was a physical property of the object measured, then how could it be that different observers get different measurements, at the same time? This is entirely analogous to angular diameter as mentioned above. You need to find a reliable source stating pretty much literally that the object measured contracts, or that contraction is a physical process. If this was really in accord with relativity, it should be in widely used relativity textbooks, and peer-reviewed papers should explicitly say so. Please note that I'm not talking about proper length, which is a physical property, and does not undergo contraction. Paradoctor (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC) There are plenty of physics books that state what length contraction is and this source is written at the university level. Note that they state more explicitly that "Eq. (7) indicates that the length x of an object measured by observers at rest in S is smaller than the length x 0 measured by an observer at rest with respect to the meter stick." The elephant in the room is and always has been as you naively ask "how could it be that different observers get different measurements, at the same time?" Well they are being measured in different reference frames are they not... not that that redundancy enlightens most people for we are unappreciative skeptics immersed in our everyday Euclidean worldview after all under the ever more incomprehensible non-Euclidean relativity. Yet, this paradox is accepted as fact, thus it simply doesn't matter if you or I fail to accept it too. -Modocc (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC) The level is irrelevant, if it's not written by an established expert or peer-reviewed it is not a reliable source. "more explicitly" Just confirms what I said, the quote says "length" [...] "measured by observers" and "length" [...] "measured by an observer" for the reason I stated: this measure depends on the observer. "naively ask" It's more like a "naive" quotation. You overlooked the condition attached to the question: "If "length" was a physical property of the object measured". Since (intrinsic) physical properties are the same for all observers, and since the measured length varies with observer, the obvious conclusion is that length measurements of moving objects are not measuring a physical property. The angular diameter model shows the same behavior. You can use compass and goniometer to make the measurements, yet different observers get different measurements. "the ever more incomprehensible non-Euclidean relativity" Excuse me for pointing this out, but foreign languages are only incomprehensible until you learn them. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I've yet to read any physics book or reliable source that states "the obvious conclusion is that length measurements of moving objects are not measuring a physical property." It's late here, so I'll followup with perhaps more again tomorrow. Modocc (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC) To followup, you are right that contraction depends on who is measuring, but my understanding of the literature is that the measured lengths differ because observers are measuring different slices of spacetime, and each slice is real (thus intrinsic to matter and spacetime), according to the paradigm. --Modocc (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Continued in userland. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) @LCcritic, we cannot bend Wikipedia rules to accommodate synthesis, but articles are a work-in-progress, thus I am certain that a better article can and will be created. For instance, of the prominent critics of the past, we are allowed to write "According to X.." and quote or paraphrase them. It will likely take some extensive research at the university library though to get this right. -Modocc (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) @LCcritic, at this time, I can not see how this quote can be introduced. The concept appears not to have been analyzed by professionals. Therefore, I propose that you drop this, with no prejudice against it being added in the future if more reliable material supporting it emerges. As pointed out above, WP:SPS is important, and it is generally hard to get an exception to it on articles such as this. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Come again? "Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism." That's from the SEP entry linked earlier. To be sure, quite a bit has been written about the philosophical underpinnings and consequences of relativity. It's just that there are no RSs supporting LCcritic's view. Too lazy to dig up sources right now, but my impression is that, generally, relativity is considered to be more of a realist bent. Paradoctor (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC) The issue of physical vs apparent contraction has been completely ignored as applied to improving the length contraction article, and that issue is central to criticism of relativity from realism... i.e., that physical objects do not actually shrink when measured to have contracted lengths as in SR theory. As I said above, if the word "apparent" were added to the opening statement there, the issue would be clarified/disambiguated. Then it would read, "... length contraction is the phenomenon of an apparent decrease in length..." There is no question (and I do not question) that relatively speaking, as I said, different observers see different 'worlds.' But also as said, "...relativity claims that there is no preferred frame of reference, that all are equally valid." Realism states (from Wiki's Philosophical realism section): “... the belief that reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.” From The Free dictionary: “b. The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.” From Wiki’s Realism article: "Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers.” So this part of relativity (SR) as presented in "Criticisms...", in "Length contraction," and in the "Relativity of simultaneity" articles is screaming for the clarification that observed differences in length do not reflect actual physical differences in length. (An Earth with a 4000 mile diameter as measured from a frame approaching at .866c does not mean that Earth's diameter has so contracted from its proper length, just under 8000 miles.) Please address the above before you dismiss the conflict as resolved. Thanks. LCcritic (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Ps; Paradoctor's continuing ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate, as per, "For someone claiming a to have PhD in philosophy, your abuse of quotes is awe-inspiring." I never claimed to have a PhD in philosophy. I taught a "special studies" course in the philosophy of science as a graduate student at the invitation of the university's Dean of philosophy, who liked my philosophical thesis. I am a retired psychologist. This dispute is not about my lack of expertise in punctuation (or indentation) as persistently criticized by Paradoctor. I have repeatedly admitted my incompetence regarding technical details including execution of various Wiki protocols. LCcritic (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "I never claimed to have a PhD in philosophy" "I was a professor of the philosophy of science" "My contribution to science as a professor of the philosophy of science (retired) has been to contrast Einstein's idealism (that reality depends on observation) with realism" "repeatedly admitted my incompetence" WP:CIR notwithstanding, the expected response was "Thanks for the tip, I will do that.". Instead, you elected to justify your behavior. The problem is not lack of knowledge, it is your unwillingness or incapability to learn and adapt to this community. As far as article content is concerned, I consider dispute resolution to have run its course in full, the result being that you failed to get support for your position every step along the way. If you continue, I'll raise the issue at WP:NORN, with a view to a topic ban. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I can only assume that you are Paradoctor, since you didn't sign. I hope that your opinion that "dispute resolution has run its course" is not the the final decision here. In reply to your inappropriate personal attacks: I was called an "assistant professor" under the counsel of my academic adviser (the full professor) and with the approval of the Dean. If you don't approve of the title, "professor,"... well that isn't the issue here, is it? It is not about "my position." It is about the criticism of relativity from the perspective of the philosophy of realism, as defined a few times above. Relativity allows no criticism. That should not dictate Wikipedia's policy of included sources. LCcritic (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC) See my comment just entered on Modocc's talk page. Maybe a resolution is in sight for changes in Wiki's coverage of relativity. (Maybe that comment should have been entered here. It may be moved if appropriate.) LCcritic (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC) In the opening sentences of the lead of our article Proper length you can also see how Wikipedia already covers your criticism of relativity. Proper length is invariant. Didn't you know that? - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Coordinator's note: Just so everyone knows, this discussion may be automatically closed by our archiving bot. Discussions here at DRN have a 2-week life span. After that, if a 24-hour period passes in which no edit is made to the discussion then it it is subject to being archived by the bot. The lead volunteer here, Mdann52, may avoid that by resetting the date in the "Do not archive until" invisible header at the top of the listing, but should do so only if substantial progress towards resolution is being made. If that's not the case, then the listing ought to be manually or automatically closed and referred on to some other form of content dispute resolution, or merely referred back to the article talk page for further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator) It is disconcerting to hear that this request for resolution will be ended by a robot at a given time allotted for "conflict resolution." I expected intelligent human consideration of the issue. Such automation does not make an encyclopedia. New information... or old that has been overlooked... should be considered in a volume of human knowledge. Science must resist automation... and 'dogma' in whatever scientific package. (Just a personal point of view, should it be "allowed" before this automatic censorship.) LCcritic (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Mdann52, Paradoctor has issued me a final warning in the conversation at Modocc's talk page. Please tell me what authority he has to issue me a final warning before... my editorial privilege is revoked. Or is he way over his head in presumed authority here? LCcritic (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC) If you think my behavior is in conflict with community rules, you can report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC) We do not discuss behavior on this forum, so if the discussion begins to centre on that, you will need to go elsewhere. As far as I can see, I can't find any way to include this information in line with WP:SYN. Also, the robot will only archive it when it falls inactive for 24 hours; and in any case, I have added a week on in case this drags on. Unless any new reasoning comes to light in 24 hours, I will have to close this as unsucessful, as it appears to be centred around user conduct. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC) The issue is that I am not allowed to edit in changes that contrast observer/frame dependent measurement, different for each observer as per SR, with the the unchanging measurement of proper length of objects/distances from frames at rest with whatever is measured. The intent is to clarify that physical objects and distances do not shrink when measured from various relativistic frames, i.e., that they would only appear to shrink. I made this point above, and still hope for resolution of this content-based issue. From the length contraction article lead: "In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." As I said, it does not say "an apparent decrease in length." If it did, the whole issue would be clarified, i.e, disambiguated. May I add "apparent" to that statement? If so, may I then edit the "Criticism..." article to reflect that difference?LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC) SR theory insists that physical objects and distances do contract as so measured to contract. The "proper length" article stands in conflict with the length contraction article and the relativity of simultaneity article. A 20 foot pole will not in fact fit into a 10 foot barn under any circumstance, for instance. Nor would the distance between stars contract in proportion to the speed of an interstellar traveler, as SR insists. Finally realism should be allowed fair representation as a "criticism of the theory of relativity" in that article, i.e., that the intrinsic length of objects is not observer-dependent. LCcritic (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "May I add" No. You have just been informed by Mdann52 (for the second time!) that this is in conflict with our content policy. As did everyone else here. You have been informed which policy, and you have been informed what is required for such changes. It's over. Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Indeed no. The fact that the "intrinsic length of objects is not observer-dependent" is not a criticism of the theory of relativity. It is an essential aspect of the theory. If you don't even know that, I really don't understand what you are doing here. - DVdm (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Without physics books' stating that contracted lengths are "apparent lengths" verbatim, no. -Modocc (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I was not asking the two of you involved in the dispute, as you have already denied my proposed edits and have made clear that you consider me an ignorant, crackpot relativity-denier. I thought I was in the right place to get a decision from an impartial volunteer who understands the content issue, i.e., that no criticism from realism is allowed in the "Criticisms" article. Observer-dependent measurements which vary with the observer are not based on realism, definitions of which I have quoted above. The essence of the relativity of simultaneity, for instance, which is basic to claims of length contraction, is that there is no "objective, real world" with events happening independent of when they are observed from different frames. So one frame sees a shorter rod while another sees a longer rod, and SR claims that both are equally valid, i.e., that there is no objective, "real," physical, rigid, unchanging rod. Neither of you seem to understand the issue, as "died in the wool" relativity defenders. Btw, I am really tired of your continuing personal insults. I thought they were not allowed here in dispute resolution on the content of edits. I again ask Mdann52 to address the issue of allowing criticism from realism, as above. LCcritic (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC) LCcritic, as I already said before, note that you don't have a criticism to add to the article. What you have in mind is not a criticism but an integral aspect of relativity. The relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", not even close. Furthermore, the "essence of the relativity of simultaneity" is not that "there is no "objective, real world" with events happening independent of when they are observed from different frames." Yes indeed "one frame sees a shorter rod while another sees a longer rod, and SR claims that both are equally valid", but SR dot not "claim that there is no objective, "real," physical, rigid, unchanging rod." You see, and please don't take this as an insult, in this last comment you just demonstrated your ignorance of the basics of special relativity, but nobody ever called you a "crackpot relativity-denier." Please try to assume good faith from fellow editors (see wp:AGF), like we assume good faith (buth alas, ignorance on matters of special relativity) from your part. As I told you before, I really honestly think that you have come to the wrong place with your views. - DVdm (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I repeat: I was not asking the two of you involved in the dispute... This is not personal, as you insist... "you just demonstrated your ignorance..."... again presenting your opinion as a fact. Study the old standard train length example as a case of "who sees what, when, from what frame" determining the length of the train... and the changing length of the pole/ladder as it shrinks to half its "proper length" so as to fit into the barn. Realism is in fact a philosophy of legitimate criticism of SR, the latter being an observer dependent theory of changing lengths of objects... and the distances between. Your lack of familiarity with the philosophy of science in which realism is a legitimate criticism of SR's observer dependency does not make your statement factual when you say "... you don't have a criticism to add to the article..." I beg for a reply to the content of my criticism from Mdann52. LCcritic (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I repeat from above: it is commonly agreed that relativity is very much a realist theory. For example (with emphasis added): "It is commonly agreed that neither special relativity theory nor general relativity theory contains any compelling argument against an Einsteinian metaphysical realism. An interpreter of these theories may have philosophical reasons against this epistemology, perhaps in the form form of doubts about the correspondence theory of truth, but on physical grounds alone he can stay with objectivity in the strong sense. On the other hand, the relativity theories distinguish sharply between relative properties, dependent on the reference frame, and absolute ones, independent of it." In short, indeed you don't have a criticism to add to the article: realism is in fact part and parcel of SR. - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) In the spirit of civil conversation, please explain your understanding of the phrase, "metaphysical realism." Since "meta-" is the prefix for "beyond," how does metaphysics, beyond the physical, properly describe the physical world, as it exists independent of theories about it? That is a philosophical question. Irrelevant in the world of physics, these days, it seems. But an encyclopedia should represent human knowledge fairly. What is "mainstream relativity?" That physics which does not tolerate criticism, endorsing shrinking objects and such? I wax philosophical. But I am very serious in this question before the dispute resolution desk. Please answer before I go "away" for a week starting 1/30/'14... and just let the robot archive the request, unresolved. LCcritic (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I did a little (minimal) research for you regarding your claim, "The relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", not even close. " From Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_length_contraction See “The pole-barn paradox” section...“Length contraction as a result of the relativity of simultaneity” (diagram and explanation.) Please do not continue to present your misunderstanding of length contraction and its relationship to the relativity of simultaneity as 'The Truth About SR.' (No, not a quote; a characterization of your ongoing presumption as the all knowing expert on relativity.) I will now wait for a reply from the moderator. You, Paradoctor, are the one making this personal by continuing to insult my intelligence and by continuing your pretense to superior knowledge. 71.34.249.157 (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "your claim" ... "your misunderstanding" ... "your ongoing presumption" ... "You, Paradoctor" Once again, you demonstrate failure to parse what you read. Your self-admitted "incompetence regarding technical details" clearly extends beyond the "mere" technical into the "crucial". "insult my intelligence" ... Paradoctor (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC) @71.34.249.157 aka LCcritic:: See Special relativity#Length contraction to find out how relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", and indeed not even close. You can bring the two concepts together in some setup of your choice, but one is not basic to the claims of the other. The fact that you can eat meat and vegetables does not imply that meat is basic to vegetables. See how little you know about the subject? - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devyani Khobragade incident

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

Filed by Prodigyhk on 05:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Devyani Khobragade incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prodigyhk (talk · contribs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Bluerasberry posted the complete court records in the article. Had removed these documents and provided my reasons for removal in the Talk page. But the other user is not convinced and reinserted the problem images.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have discussed on Talk page. But, other editor not convinced and reverted the edits.

How do you think we can help?

Advice if WP policy allow editor to post or link original court documents within WP articles

Summary of dispute by Bluerasberry

The article is about an arrest and indictment. I posted the indictment (a court document and primary source) and a letter (another primary source) which was part of a related press release to Commons and then posted them in the article as illustrative media. The inclusion of these two files into the article is the subject of the dispute - see the diff.

Just like other media in Commons such as photos, non-text media which are primary sources can be used to supplement articles so long as they are not cited as sources of data. The article does not cite these documents.

I know that WP:PRIMARY says not to do original research or derive information from court documents. No one should! However, since this article is about an arrest and an indictment, and especially since the indictment is mentioned repeatedly in many secondary sources, it is helpful to have it included in the article. The relevance of these documents is not disputed. The issue is whether court documents are allowed to be shared through Wikipedia. I assert that they can, so long as they are not used to source text to the article.

Devyani Khobragade incident

9 January 2014 letter notifying the court that Devyani Khobragade was indicted on 9 January 2014 after she had left the United States. "The charges will remain pending until such time as she can be brought to Court to face the charges..."

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Yes, court documents may not be used as (primary) sources. Looking at the diff provided they are not cited as sources. @Prodigyhk: Please state why these violate any policy and please do not quote mine. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • MrScorch I'd like to add my 2 cents if I may, to this case that you are moderating. A few points for everyone here to consider.
    • WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources as long as they are not the foundation of an article and as long as they are used to state straightforward facts about the article topic. WP:PRIMARY says that court documents are primary sources but it does not disallow their usage and court documents are being used as citations in some WP articles. However since this article is about an event in the life of a living person we need to consult WP:BLP which says: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Photo's are appropriate when they illustrate content in an article. And in this case they seem appropriate to me. The only requirement is that the caption should not be used in an attempt to "support assertions" about the living person that are not already supported by secondary sources. In this case, the image has relevance to the article as an illustration and a simple caption such as "9 January 2014 letter notifying the court of Devyani Khobragade's Indictment" seems useful and within WP's guidelines and policies.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

9 January 2014 indictment of Khobragade, which was issued immediately after she left the country

MrScorch6200, as user:Keithbob explained - violates policy WP:BLP. Also, unlike judgements, the indictment is a document that is not neutral. It just confirm accusation put forward by the prosecution team(in this case Bharara) meets certain condition to proceed for prosecution. So, by posting this primary document, we will also violate WP:NPOV policy in addition to WP:BLP. Prodigyhk (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I said it does not violate WP:BLP and I explained why. Further, I don't see how an image of a document violates WP:NPOV. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Keithbob did not say it violates the BLP policy. He didn't even use the word 'violate' in his statement. He said, and quote: "In this case, the image has relevance to the article as an illustration and a simple caption such as ..[blah blah].. seems useful and within WP's guidelines and policies". It seems you are quote mining again. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Keithbob Intention was to direct MrScorch6200 to your reference on the specific sentence from the WP:BLP. Have now corrected my earlier sentence to reflect this. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Sorry if I overreacted :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. It seems at this point, these are the standing assertions:

• To clarify, I posted actual documents and not images. I am posting them here.
• Documents of this sort should not be used to "support assertions". I think we are all in agreement that the documents are not supporting anything, and that the proposal is just to post them on the side.
• Prodigyhk says, "unlike judgements, the indictment is a document that is not neutral." Keithbob requested clarification of this.
• Prodigyhk said, the documents "just confirm accusation put forward by the prosecution team(in this case Bharara) meets certain condition to proceed for prosecution", and I agree with this.
• Prodigyhk says that posting these documents would "violate WP:NPOV policy in addition to WP:BLP"

Prodigyhk, why would you say that the indictment itself is not neutral? This document was produced by a grand jury and I have trouble imagining what could be NPOV about this document. Do you feel that this document is insulting or giving misleading information about Khobragade? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BluerasberryThanks for agreeing that the posting is actual documents and not images Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry & Keithbob Since only "some" and not "all" indictments result in judgements favoring the prosecution, my stand that indictments can/may/will give misleading information about the prosecuted. Hence WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Moving away from the emotions of this specific case, my opinion is that we do not allow such court documents be posted in complete form anywhere within WP. The only exception may be in some historical case where the document itself may be of some great importance, which this case is not. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prodigyhk and Bluerasberry, thanks for your willingness to continue to discuss and collaborate. Now that it is clear that we are discussing the insertion of a document and not an image I am not so supportive. An image is a representation of a place or object that illustrates text from the article. In that respect I felt the image of a document was suitable for the article. Now that its being presented as a document (I assume for the purpose of reading) then I have to reconsider. It seems like a most unsual way to incorporate a document into an article and I'm not sure what the precedent or policy is that applies to this situation. It is very late now where I live so I am going to sleep. Maybe our moderator User:MrScorch6200 will be back on this thread after the end of this holiday weekend (tomorrow) and I look forward to his insights and suggestions. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say. To me, the indictment document seems fundamental to a discussion of the case and that the Wikipedia article would be worse if it did not make it available in an appropriate manner. I thought that I was asking if the document could feature prominently to complement the article, but perhaps I should ask how the document should feature, or if the document should feature at all.

1. Does anyone here think that these files should not be on Wikimedia Commons?
2. Does anyone here think that the article on the Devyani Khobragade incident should not link to these documents at all?
3. If the article does link to the documents, then how should that happen? One option is to put a Commons box as shown here in the external links section, but I do not prefer this and see no reason to hide the documents.

Despite what Prodigyhk says, I know of no rule prohibiting the posting of court documents to Wikipedia. I have never seen court documents posted to Wikipedia, but I assumed that this was because they were usually not easily available or not well discussed in secondary sources, and not because they were prohibited.

I still do not understand the NPOV and BLP arguments. The entirety of the Wikipedia article and all sources cited are a commentary on the information in these source documents. Again, there is a policy at Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• There isn't anything in the BLP and NPOV guidelines prohibiting court documents from being used; to resolve disputes here we usually enforce what the guidelines and policies say instead of giving an opinion. Regarding this, the questionability of inserting the document and your questions above, an WP:RfC seems better in this case for a broader community consensus. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that an RfC is necessary yet and I wish that there could be some compromise. Prodigyhk, can you think of any compromise? Could you answer my questions 1, 2, 3 above, please? I am not clear if you want the documents removed entirely or if you just do not like how I posted them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry to answer your questions, refer WP:NOTREPOSITORY

* "Photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."

* " Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."

--> Since this is a document and not an image. Cannot include in the article, nor in Wikimedia Commons.

on your request for compromise, my suggestion - in the section "External Links", include a link direct to the specific page on portal for 'US District Court - NY South District http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/ that relates to this case. By linking to the court portal, we ensure any future changes in this case is available. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prodigyhk At this time I cannot accept the compromise offer to only host an external link to the court website as I do not feel that would be sufficient to share this information. Thank you for proposing a compromise, but I would like to share this information if it is compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines to share it.

I fail to recognize a response to my questions in WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I hope that you recognize that there is text in the Khobragade article which goes with the indictment document, so I am not adding "media files with no text to go with the articles", and I do have the files hosted on Wikimedia Commons and one of them is on Wikisource too. Even though they are on Commons and elsewhere, I would like to mirror copies on Wikipedia without actually hosting them here or copying text from there here. Do you see a difference? Do you still feel that NOTREPOSITORY applies? To what extent do you understand my argument? Thanks for continuing to talk with me about this. If you like, I could ask the moderator or anyone else to help to interpret that policy also. If you are serious about wanting the files deleted from Commons I could help you start a deletion discussion there also, if you wish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Blue per my understanding of various policies(as cited), can not post these complete documents within the article space. This is the reason I suggest a compromise. If you wish, do get another moderator, since our existing moderator it seems has given up on us :) Prodigyhk (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200 and Keithbob, I feel that Prodigyhk and I are having a good exchange but we are having a bit of trouble understanding each other. Do either of you have any advice on how we can isolate the nature of the dispute, consider it in light of all the policies we have named and any others that might be relevant, and then find some resolution? I am not ready to say that anyone has given up and I am happy with the pace and progress of this so far. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTREPOSITORY says it pretty blatantly, "[cannot be included...] Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." If either of you believe this policy applies, then the document may not be included. This is why I suggested an RfC. Also, with Keithbob's indefinite absence, I will heed this dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: It is unlikely that Keithbob will be participating in this discussion further, as he is taking an extended wikibreak. MrScorch6200 is now the lead volunteer handling this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator)

Preparation for RfC

Prodigyhk, I do not see any Wikipedia policy which I feel prohibits including this content. At the same time, I have never seen this kind of content included elsewhere, nor have I been able to find any prior discussion on this issue. I would like to start an Rfc. Below is a draft of what I would post on the Khobragade talk page. Could you please look this over and make changes as you like? After you approve, we can move it to the Khobragade article and start the request for content. Also, sometimes it is nice to be ready for an RfC, so I thought that I would ask - How is your schedule these next few days? Is it okay with your schedule to start an RfC soon? How do you feel about my starting an RfC? Does that seem reasonable to you? Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute: Devyani Khobragade is an Indian diplomat. While in the United States, the US government arrested her and later indicted her. The issue received a large amount of media coverage in both the United States in India. When Khobragade was indicted, the Department of Justice publicized the official indictment document and a related letter discussing the document. The information in the indictment and the letter were covered by media. Per US law, the documents are public domain and are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Many people have responded emotionally to this issue for a range of reasons.

Question to answer in this RfC:

• Should this Wikipedia article link to the court documents? If yes, then in what way should they be linked?

Arguments for

1. These documents are the primary sources from which most media sources are derived, and as such, are relevant to this article and would be interesting to people visiting this article.
2. Everyone is clear that these documents should not be cited, used to develop text in the article, or use to prove anything. Their content is entirely covered by secondary sources. They are serving an illustrative purpose much in the same way that a photo would.
3. Unusually, the Department of Justice has publicized these documents for distribution. Perhaps this is because they thought that these documents are relevant to people who want to learn about the case. It seems right to use Wikipedia to offer the media files promoted by parties to the incident.

Arguments against

1. Perhaps this has never been done before. It seems unusual to post court documents for a contemporary active legal issue.
2. The documents are accusatory and promote a POV by stating that sufficient evidence exists to charge the diplomat with a crime. Sharing an indictment on Wikipedia may violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policy.
3. Sharing these documents may violate WP:PRIMARY.
4. WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
5. Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of Public domain or other source material... Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."

If the document is to be included, then how should it be included?

1. Post the images and links to the files within the text of the article, as shown in this RfC, so that people can get to the file page in one click.
2. Have a link in the external links section to all files on Wikimedia Commons / Wikisource categorized as related to the incident, so that people get to the file page in two clicks.
3. Do not acknowledge the files on Wikimedia projects at all, but give an external link to their hosting on the Department of Justice website

Feel free to change text in this box, or just comment below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Chikungunya

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

Filed by Sathishmls on 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Chikungunya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sathishmls (talk · contribs)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) aka Doc James
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Ian_Furst (talk · contribs)
• Axl (talk · contribs)
• LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya [19] happening in India tried using Indian Traditional Medicine by Government Hospitals and Central Council Research Institutions. I am not advising anything here. I am using the source as the document [20] prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Government of India. To make the content neutral, i have started with "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, ..." which was also taken from the source. Page 60 of [21] source provides the observations and benefits of the used traditional medicines. For many days, User Jmh649 said the above source is not reliable and removed the content continuously. Since another user WhatamIdoing also supported the content, User Jmh649 stopped removing the content. [22] But now User Jmh649 is trying to place the content with certain removal to a negligible and unrelated section called Society and culture in the article page instead of placing in the Treatment section and refusing consistently. I feel there is discrimination shown by allopathic people against Indian Traditional Medical System and intentionally trying to hide facts about them from Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain about the source details. But still User Jmh649 is not convinced.

How do you think we can help?

I have used 2 lines which are directly taken from the source. User Jmh649 stopped removing the content since another supporter user WhatamIdoing supported this. I believe people here will provide an unbiased and neutral view on this so that User Jmh649 will accept to put the content in Treatment section.

Summary of dispute by Jmh649

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The source this user is trying to use is not very good. This is more or less the consensus on the talk page. While one might be able to use it to say traditional medicine is used (which is a social and culture issue). The source does not support any benefit from said traditional medicine. We would need better sources for that and in fact the better sources say there is no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We need better refs. Yes all sorts of treatments are used. We do not just list all the things people can do that have been reported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Although a reference work trying to tell doctors what they ought to prescribe might omit such things, I believe that encyclopedia articles are incomplete if they do not describe all of the treatments that are commonly used, including treatments that are ineffective, silly, or harmful, regardless of their status as "conventional" or "alternative". Ineffective treatments are still "treatments", not "social issues", and should therefore be described in the ==Treatment== section.

It may be worth noticing that the section heading is an all-inclusive word, Treatment, rather than a restrictive phrase like Effective treatment or Treatments supported by evidence. The relevant guideline says this section should "include any type of currently used treatment, such as diet, exercise, medication, palliative care, physical therapy, psychotherapy, self care, surgery, watchful waiting, and many other possibilities". In India, Ayurvedic care definitely comes under the heading of "any type of currently used treatment".

That said, the description in this case should not claim that these Ayurvedic treatments are effective. The original opening phrase in the disputed paragraph, which says that no satisfactory treatment exists, should be retained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ian_Furst

The author is making the claim that a botanical remedy, apparently common to India, is a potential treatment for Chikungunya based on a single source document published by the government of India. The source document has several major flaws that in my opinion preclude it from being a secondary source, a hard standard on medical articles especially with respect to treatment. The fact that it's published by the government should have no bearing on the situation.

1. it uses the article itself in Wikipedia as core reference on the disease,
2. the document is a series of descriptions on the use of botanical therapies by several practitioners, that would not pass basic publishing criteria as a primary source on treatment (e.g. they haven't followed commonly accepted practices on study design for treatments), and fail to follow basic principals of the scientific method
3. I could not find any mention of informed consent on the part of the patients in the data reported (and as best I can determine the the data has not been published elsewhere in greater detail) so it's possible the people in the treatment experiments were given alternate potential remedies without their knowledge that someone was experimenting

In short, the document would fall far short of any standard for publication, even as a primary source in a reputable scientific journal. But because it's published by the government, the author is making the claim it is a secondary and reliable source. As a source that most of the population uses the botanical treatment, they simply state, "About 65% of population in India is reported to use Ayurveda and medicinal plants to help meet their primary health care needs and the safety of this vibrant tradition is attributed to time tested use and textual reference." (emphasis added), but it's generalized to all botanical treatments, unreferenced and unrelated to Chikungunya specifically. The "textual reference" is in reference to ancient texts dating back thousands of years. I don't believe the document passes basic principals as a reliable source for Wikipedia and should not be included. Ian Furst (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Amendment; with respect to the argument that all treatments should be included, effective or not, I don't dispute properly investigated remedies deserve a place. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made for discussing the negative findings which often get suppressed. However, there's a difference between a well investigated "alternative" treatment (like acupuncture for pain) with secondary sources and this, which is essentially untested by the scientific method. To include any claimed cure, researched or not is to dismiss WP:NPOV. How can I discuss it, if I can't read NPOV research on it?Ian Furst (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Axl

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The source that Satishmls describes is published by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. This in itself makes me question the impartiality of the authors. The document has a list of authors/editors who are "doctors". Whether they are really medical doctors is questionable, but I am prepared to assume good faith on this matter. The document makes a number of claims about ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya, but on closer inspection, these claims are based only on case series data. This is a low quality of evidence.

I have searched for other evidence on PubMed to investigate chikungunya and ayurvedic/siddha treatments. However I could not find any PubMed-indexed articles about this.

Regarding Doc James' claim that the document is a primary source, I believe that this is unclear. At least some of it is primary, but it is plausible that some of its content might be secondary. However, in this case I believe that the distinction between primary and secondary is less relevant than the low quality of evidence adduced.

LeadSongDog's claim of an argument from authority is not relevant here. The "argument from authority" is a philosophical stance used when considering "the truth". With medical articles, we are not trying to establish "the truth" but rather what is reported in reliable sources.

In summary: I believe that the document could be used as a reliable source to indicate that ayurvedic/siddha treatment is used in India to treat chikungunya. However this must be tempered with an indication that evidence is weak—although we can't actually write that because it is WP:OR—we can say that only case series data is provided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LeadSongDog

DocJames is too kind, this is a terrible source. That several officials with doctorates have their names attached does nothing to change that fact. There is no evidence that it reflects "a reputation for fact checking", nor authorial impartiallity, nor scientific rigour. It advocates the use of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic substances as drugs without any kind of accompanying discussion of their toxicity! Wikipedia should not do anything that might lend credibility to such sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinators note

Hi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

Chikungunya discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

There is another PubMed article [23] which describes the usage and properties of Nilavembu Kudineer in treatment of Chikungunya fever. Sathishmls (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an article, a clinical study published in Indian Journal of Traditional Medicine on 'Siddha way to cure Chikungunya' - link [24] (Specified as Andrographis paniculata [Nilavembu]) Sathishmls (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to respond, if not please excuse the lack of decorum - I can move the comment elsewhere. The 1st reference is to a study in mice with fever generated by brewer's yeast. It has nothing to do with Chikungunya or humans. The 2nd article reports the treatment of 500 people with bontanicals during an outbreak and the author claims a "cure" in 450/500 without evidence that the botanical had any impact, good or bad. The study fails to give almost any details of how people were assessed or treated (other than the botanical) and is lacking many other details standard to publications on the effect of treatments, except to claim that the fever was reduced in 8/10. Both are primary research. Ian Furst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You all people are asking sources to claim that these ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya are 100% effective which even i am not claiming. I believe that the information of these treatments which are promoted by Indian Government itself at present, is definitely valuable to be included in the treatment section of the Chikungunya article. Sathishmls (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst, the point isn't to say that it works. The point is to accurately describe the fact that people do actually use this. There are enough sources available to support a claim that this is done. For example, PMID 17433130 says that 40% of patients with chikungunya (in a different country) used herbal medicines. Using herbal medicines is very common, largely due to the cultures that the disease happens to be prevalent in. We should not exclude the fact that people are actually using herbal medicines.

NB that the disputed statement says, "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, in India, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine like Linga Chenduram, Nilavembu Kudineer are used"—not "they work", but "people really do swallow them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The original point being pressed, was not to say that people in India use herbal remedies, rather, that a herbal remedy might be a treatment for Chikungunya. From the statement of dispute, "I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya ..." The paper you referenced (PMID 17433130) found 16 different herbals used by 40% of the survey group (none of which was Ayurveda - but one was cannabis) on an island in the Indian ocean. It's a good primary study, but the same could be said for many home remedies of influenza and almost any other ailment. I would wager that people use similar herbal remedies for a wide range of ailments on Réunion. Unless it is something specific to the disease (not to say that it works/doesn't work/whatever, just a secondary source that at a minimum says people specifically use it for Chikungunya), I don't think it should be included on this page. Better it be on a page about medical practices in India, otherwise, people will believe it's a potential treatment, just as the original author desired. Isn't the secondary source rule intended to protect articles from speculation just like this? Ian Furst (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The report [25] is specifically towards Chikungunya, is reviewed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (The Apex body in India for the Formulation, Coordination and Promotion of Biomedical Research), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (The Authority for setting of standards for drugs, pharmaceuticals and healthcare devices and technologies in India) and National Institute of Virology (Designated as WHO H5 reference Laboratory for SE Asia region). I am adding what is given in the reliable source and it does not claim to be 100% efficient either. Sathishmls (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the report is specifically toward Chikungunya. But it is a primary publication of data, the limitations of which, we've discussed at length above both technically and as a wikipedia "reliable source". As to the influence of the three governmental bodies mentioned above on the report, I notice that all other participants are listed as either contributors or editors (and all are from organization for either siddha or ayurvedic) and their findings are detailed either throughout the report or in Annexure-7, the summary of your workshop. Whereas the 3 doctors from the governmental bodies you mention, Drs. Mishra, Mishra and Lalitkanth, are a "review board" and they appear nowhere in the report except the title page. Their inclusion on the title page doesn't change my opinion that the report is still just bad primary research. Ian Furst (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I or Wikipedia don't need to worry about personal opinions or personal grievances of anyone because of the only reason that it not allopathic. People should be broad-minded and give respect to other medical systems rather than narrow minded towards their medical system. There is a reviewed and published (both by the highest authority in India) report which no one can deny. There are enough sources to prove about these happenings in India. I have made the content unbiased. The content can be published under ==Treatment== section as per Wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing else to say here. Sathishmls (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dharmachakra

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Devanampriya on 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Dharmachakra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) Devanampriya (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 1. I have provided a reliable source that states that the Dharmachakra is of hindu origin and incorporated it into a small part of the article body. 2. A second editor has been edit-warring, deleting this sourced content on the basis of his original research (focused on tangential issue), rather than directly-related WP:RS. He generally opposes hindu association with the dharmachakra, despite evidence and direct quote from WP:RS. After intensive discussion and demonstration of adverse WP:RS, still refuses to acknowledge any contravening evidence. Previously advanced WP:FRINGE theory about nordic origin of dharmachakra as bargaining chip. When for the sake of compromise I agreed to it with condition of relocation, he subsequently removed it and then demanded removal of hindu content. Dispute now back to square 1, demanding removal of this sourced content 3. A third user originally supported hindu origin(thanked me for edit) and expanded content, but after several days of uncompromising opposition by second user, now just wants to end the discussion based on second user's refusal to reach consensus or make any compromise. I provided supplementary sources asserting hinduism's greater antiquity than buddhism. See hereand here. One American source directly states that Buddhism was an "outgrowth" of Hinduism. Despite this, second editor still relies on original research to contest Yan source assertion of hindu origin. Request recommendation on how to proceed in treating hindu origin content on dharmachakra article based on sources. I should briefly add, that the wikipedia Hinduism article has retained sources such as Klostermaier(which I gave above)--so the charges of "not reliable" are, well, not reliable. Klostermaier (whom I cited above), is a Professor of Sanskrit and Hinduism who taught at Oxford. His work is Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007), A Survey of Hinduism: Third Edition, SUNY Press Morgan (whom I cited above), was a Professor of Religion educated at and affiliated with the Harvard Divinity School who uses D.S. Sarma's article in his work The Religion of the Hindus. Sarma was a professor at Vivekananda College and published numerous books on pre-buddhist hindu texts such as the Upanishads. Both are from the Hinduism article--where note 2 pretty much negates the opposing certainty about "mainstream scholarship"--since the "hinduism is oldest religion" mainstream sources are convincingly the majority. And respected news magazines such as Time are accepted reliable sources for statements of fact and predominating views. There are many other additional sources, which can be provided on arbitrator request, but the main point of blunting this original research assertion of "no hinduism then so no hindu origin" as some foregone conclusion or "mainstream majority scholarship view" has been served. The floating of a relatively new theory about Hinduism's age--despite the long-standing consensus among western and other scholars about how it's older than Buddhism--does not make Yan's dharmachakra view unreliable, since mainstream majority scholarship backs her up on the chronology. Refusal to see preponderant mainstream scholarship viewing hinduism as the oldest religion thereby opposing his offered sources is not a basis for stalling the process, or in laymen's terms WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thus for the second editor (JJ) to present his recent "theory" about buddhism being older than hinduism as controlling fact or "the truth" or the majority view is misleading to say the least. In contrast to his sources (all from the last 10 years demonstrating how this theory has yet to be validated and is still being tested--much like JJ's nordic dharmachakra fringe theory courtesy of Dr. Wolf-Dieter Storl - ethnobotanist), my sources run the gamut starting from the 1950s into the late 2000s. This demonstrates that the long-standing, preponderant, and continuous view among western and indian scholars of sanskrit, history, and religion has been that hinduism is older than buddhism, and that buddhism is in fact an offshoot of hinduism. Rather than a "limited minority", it is the preponderant majority (as shown above). It is not for the wiki-editor to use his presumed knowledge "of fact" against a scholar like Yan, but to cite a scholar discussing the dharmachakra, specifically contradicting Yan's hindu origin assertion on the dharmachakra. He has not done that--hence the validity of the charge of his Original Research WP:OR. I believe the article talk speaks for itself, and the editor's unwillingness to collaborate, only impose, and breach good faith through stealth edit warring. (Updated) "it will be hard to find such a straight contradiction, since no author". And there we have it, folks: No source, no contradiction, no claim. JJ just conceded to my point above that he failed to provide a single source contradicting Yan's assertion of hindu origin. This shows he's relying on WP:OR as an excuse to edit war and POV-push. What's worse is he's pretending Samuel (whom he's used ad nauseam on multiple articles, including Yoga, Hinduism, and this one) is gospel. Note 2 on Hinduism shows a clear majority in favor of Hinduism's greater antiquity to Buddhism. JJ makes a false claim that his view is somehow uncontested mainstream. Proof is in the pudding. So that's strike 1 on adverse authority to Yan, strike 2 on bad faith claim to "majority/mainstream" view, and strike 3 on WP:Original Research...where's an Umpire when you need one. Devanampriya (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extended discussion on talk over several days, Request for Comment How do you think we can help? Please assist us in determining how sourced content (1 sentence) on hindu origin should be treated in the "dharmachakra article". Summary of dispute by Joshua Jonathan The source in question states in a note that the Dharmachakra "is a Buddhist symbol of Hindu origin". At the time of the Buddha, 500 BCE, there was no Hinduism. Hinduism emerged as a "synthesis" of various traditions around the beginning of the CE; see Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12, Routledge; Nath 2001 p.20, Social Scientist (journal) 2001, pp. 19-50, full quote at Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section; Samuel 2001 p.195, Cambridge University Press: "The establishment of Brahmanical Hinduism as a state religion can be associated above all with the Gupta dynasty in North and Central India (c. 320-c. 510 CE). I use the term 'Brahmanical Hinduism' here, because I think that if we want to use the term Hinduism at all before the nineteenth century then this is the point at which we can reasonably start using it." (Samuel 2010 p.195) The sources provided by Devanampriya are unreliable c.q. do not support his claim; see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra; the "one American source" is a Time Magazine article from 1959, which is contradicted by contemporary scholarship: "In arguing for the fundamental commonality of the Indic religious background (a very different position, it should be added, from seeing Buddhism merely as a development from or a reaction to 'Hinduism', which is a position that by now has hopefully lost any scholarly respectability it may once have had)" (Samuel 2010 p.13) So, I think Devanampriya makes a claim based on one source, which he found by a Google-search diff specifically searching for "dharma chakra" hindu wisdom, used it out of context to give WP:UNDUE attention to Hinduism, calling my questioning of this "info" "original research", neglecting recent scholarship which he calls "fringe theory". The problem at stake here is WP:RS and WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." We're not even talking about a "minority" here, we're talking about misusing a single source which is flat-out contradicted by mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Additional comment regarding "contradicting Yan's hindu origin assertion on the dharmachakra"': it will be hard to find such a straight contradiction, since no author, let alone a scholar on Indian or Hindu-history, has made such a statement, except Yan, in a note without further references. This is simply not a scholarly issue, only a Wikipedia issue created by an uncritical editor Google-searching for any source that supports his view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bladesmulti Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't disagree with the edits by the either users. But what happens is, whenever Devanampriya adds anything similar to "dharmachakra is of Hindu origin", Joshua Jonathan would attribute it, either by adding that there wasn't such term "Hinduism" that time(which is similar to Buddhism term), or that he would add the other related/suggested origins. Which seems to be common in nature, especially when both users are concerned about promoting their knowledge. Joshua Jonathan later seeks for the credibility of the source, Devanampriya described. But if I was in the place, I would be just using other source. In fact some sources related to this page are being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But its very hard to consider that there will be a solution, since both editors like explained above are adamant for their versions. Either one has to be agreed, or the version that i propose would be.[26] or the latest.[27]Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Dharmachakra discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

– New discussion.

Filed by Oncenawhile on 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• Greyshark09 (talk · contribs)
• Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, I am coming here for advice on how to resolve a roadblock between me and another editor with whom I have previously worked with cordially and successfully on other articles. I have been unable to make progress on the article for almost two months, as the other editor insists on reverting back to an earlier version without commenting on my carefully considered individual edits. I have stopped editing the page for days or weeks at a time in order to allow adequate time for explanations of the continued bulk reversions, but sadly this does not appear to have had the desired effect. What baffles me is that the article edits themselves are not particularly sensitive - the only really sensitive area has been permanently left on the talk page ([28]) until this roadblock is resolved. All I want to do is improve the article, taking into account the thoughts of all other editors. I feel the above has in effect placed a brick wall in front of me, without any explanation. I have tried and tried to assume good faith, so I put it down to laziness on the part of Greyshark, particularly as the edits themselves are really not particularly contentious.

In the box below is the timeline of the interactions / roadblocking so far from my perspective:

Extended content

* 5+8 Dec - Oncenawhile makes 15 edits to the article, Greyshark makes 4 edits and Oncenawhile makes a further 3 edits. All very cordial, and the only point of difference was discussed at talk [29]. Although Greyshark stopped responding on the talk thread, and despite WP:ONUS, his edits were left in the article pending further discussion to avoid antagonizing the situation. 8 Dec - Greyshark notes that s/he wants to discuss amendments to the structure [30]. Oncenawhile, stops editing and answers on talk explaining the proposed further amendments intended [31] and asks for comment 26 Dec - After 2.5 weeks with no discussion from Greyshark, Oncenawhile makes 13 edits to partially implement what he proposed on talk 29 Dec - Greyshark makes one large revert, reverting almost all of the 13 edits made by Oncenawhile on 26 Dec as well as most of those made on 8 Dec. On the talk page Greyshark explains he had expected a self-revert by Oncenawhile following Greyshark's comment on 8 Dec. Greyshark reiterates s/he does not like the proposed new structure, but does not comment on the other changes s/he reverted. Oncenawhile stops editing again, and responds with a detailed comment having parsed through Greyshark's mass reversion edit [32] 6 Jan - After no response from Greyshark in over a week, Oncenawhile reverts the revert with the edit comment "Temporary revert pending response on talk (I presume Greyshark is on a short wikibreak))" 7 Jan - Greyshark reverts the revert, with a constructive response. Oncenawhile responds to the response in detail [33] 8 Jan - Oncenawhile makes two edits - one as agreed with Greyshark and the other an unrelated edit improvement, not touching anything Greyshark disputed 10 Jan - After 3 days with no talk response, Oncenawhile reverts the disputed part of Greyshark's response with the talk page comment: "Hi Greyshark, I have again reverted your reverts after waiting a few days. Happy for you to revert back on your return. It's just it impedes progress otherwise given the long delays" 10 Jan - Plotspoiler, a previously uninvolved editor only a few weeks back from an ARBPIA ban for "tendentious editing" [34], reverted Oncenawhile's revert without meaningful explanation. Oncenawhile asks Plotspoiler to review the talk discussion and consider self-reverting, with no response [35] 12 Jan - Brief exchange between Greyshark and Oncewhile, but with limited progress. [36] Oncenawhile partially reverts Plotspoiler's revert with the edit comment "There is a detailed talk discussion ongoing. i have reverted PS but also reverted my own last edit, since Greyshark has now replied. PS, we'd love to have you involved - please join us on talk". In other words, only the 8 Jan uncontroversial edits were reinstated, not the 10 Jan edit, pending further discussion. 14-19 Jan - Onceawhile makes a further 10 edits, as well as related talk page comments. Most are new edits, those covering old ground were intended to take into account Greyshark's concerns raised in earlier comments. 19 Jan - Greyshark reverts back to his 7 Jan version, in effect reverting right back to the beginning. The edit comment is "pls wait for feedback before continuing massive edits". No talk page comment is made. Oncenawhile reverts the revert. Plotspoiler reverts Oncenawhile. Onceawhile stops editing and leaves a comment on Greyshark's user talk. [37] 22 Jan - Greyshark makes four small edits. Oncenawhile reverts two (one by one) with detailed edit comments on each. Greyshark does not comment on any of the outstanding reverts which s/he has been asked numerous times to explain. 24 Jan - Oncenawhile reverts the 19 Jan reverts with the edit comment "Adding back edits made between 7 Jan - 19 Jan, removed by Greyshark without comment or explanation. It has been 5 days since Plotspoiler and Greyshark reverted again, without still no comment." 26 Jan - Greyshark reverts again, including reverting Oncenawhile's targetted reverts of Greyshark's small edits on 22 Jan, with the edit comment "mind the majority and wait for answers on talk page with specific suggestions rather than 3-4 pages of monologues (including my talk page)". Greyshark makes talk page comments which are not related in any way to the content in the reversion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking on the article talk page, and on the users' talk pages

How do you think we can help?

Any ideas to break the roadblock would be greatly appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Plot Spoiler

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Bongaigaon

– New discussion.

Filed by AshutoshRoyBijni on 09:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bongaigaon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AshutoshRoyBijni (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Just to update you that photos uploaded by User:Simanta5000 listed below is not his own work, all the photos have different owners. He violated the copywrite of our community page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Chilarai_flyover_bongaigaon.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mayapuri_Cinema,_Bongaigaon_City.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bongaigaon_Metropolis,_Assam,_India_-_783380.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewBongaigaonRailwayJn.jpg

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested to use original work . No editing and deletion of owner stamp from the photos

How do you think we can help?

These pictures are private picture, so please remove

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Bongaigaon discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.