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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	32 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	8 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 10 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 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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

Filed by Ykantor on 18:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• Trahelliven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

user:Trahelliven deleted quotes (footnotes). Once he was asked for the reasons, he replied with strange / bizarre reasons. e.g.

• He deleted "Lapidot1994p52" since this RS is based on one of the sides only. Well, this is not true, and even if hypothetically it was correct, the RS is allow to use such a document.
• He deleted quotes because they partially support the article, and does not support it fully. Even if this is correct, he could ask for better quotes but it is not a reason to delete quotes.
• He delays the discussion by avoiding replying to some points, give partial explanation, try to retard the discussion by "We need to take this one step at a time.". I feel like being in a war of attrition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain myself and replied to his bizarre notes, but during each round he comes with a fresh story.

How do you think we can help?

by convincing either of us, that he is wrong.

Summary of dispute by Trahelliven

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

Ytantor has made several edits to Reports of pressure against the Plan in the last few days. I shall therefore comment on the article as it now stands.

1 Similar to what in the opening sentence?

2 The phrase, The Arab states threatened that creates appalling grammar, syntax and structure.

3 When there is no indication of where or when, or the circumstances in which the various statements were made, it is impossible for anyone even to look for evidence to discredit them. If Muhammad Hussein Heykal made his remark when addressing the General Assembly, in his case, a reference to the transcript or to another UN document would help. According to xx or yy should be added.

I shall now go through the other quotations.

4 and 6 The reference to Muhammad Hussein Heykal and the 1,000,000 Jews is duplicated.

5 Can Jack Brian Bloom be regarded as a Reliable Source. (Also see 3 above.)

7 The opening sentence by Malka Hillel Shulewitz? is just speculation.

At least one quotation (8 -Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). has not been reinstated. Can I take it that its deletion has been conceded? Trahelliven (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I shall explain the reason for the deletion of the four (4) quotes.

ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>

The quote does not support the part referenced.

ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>

The quotation refers to the rejection of a specific plan of partition: the article generalises to mean the rejection of any plan of partition. The quote talks about certain Arab leaders: the part referenced generalizes it to The Arabs.

ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>

This quote does not give details of where or when, or the circumstances in which the remark was made. It is impossible to investigate whether the comment was or was not made. At the very least, it should be prefaced with According to Benny Morris,

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

The quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. The Memorandum is hardly a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussion

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

Hello User:Ykantor and User:Trahelliven. I have read the case above and examined the relevant sections of the article talk page. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

It appears that English is not Ykantor's first language. Therefore his English grammar is sometimes imperfect. I don't see a problem with this as long as he is willing to clarify what he means if his/her communication is not clear on any talk page. Same for his/her contributions to the article. Those that have English as a first language etc. may make grammar and spelling corrections to his/her article text just as they would with any other editor. If this becomes a problem then it can be discussed and a solution found, but right now that is a separate issue. What we are concerned with in this case is a series of sources that Trahelliven has removed from the article and which Ykantor has questioned on the talk page. What I see mainly is that the past talk page discussion is jumbled and confusing and there has been no resolution. So let's begin here:

1. In this edit Trahelliven removed a citation and part of a sentence. The source is a book and appears to meet the criteria of WP:RS. Ykantor can you provide a quote from the book (page 67 I presume) that supports and verifies the sentence: The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but rejected by Arab governments and the Arab community as a whole?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have already apologized few times for my English. Sorry.
• Concerning the deleted phrase, it is a somehow funny that Trahelliven removed it's own words. It is not his first time to delete in stages. When a pro Arab guy want to avoid some embarrassing facts, it is convenient for him to delete / modify it in stages.

1. He does not like the factual phrase "Any form of partition was rejected by the Arabs" (my contribution), so he moved it from the header (where he should be) and minimized the surrounding words by writing "community as a whole.". [1]
2. His second stage is removing his own words "[and the Arab] community as a whole" [2], thus changing the sentence meaning. The Palestinian Arab rejection is not mentioned any more.

• Concerning the asked quotation of mine ( -ref name="morris2008p67"- ), it was deleted by Trahelliven too at line 418. Anyway, I repeat it here as well:"p. 67, "The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called “aggression,” “without mercy"'; p. 70, '"On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state". Note that this quote was initially added to other references (not mine) that were moved later by Trahelliven.
• Thank you for dealing with this dispute. I realized that an Arab- Israeli disputes are not popular among volunteers. Ykantor (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, please avoid making statements such as 'When a pro Arab guy want to avoid some embarrassing facts, it is convenient for him to delete / modify it in stages' - such statements are considered incompatable with the cility policy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, as I mentioned earlier we are not hear to discuss any editor's past actions, edits or behavior. This is a content only discussion. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, PhilKnight, I am sorry,. I could not resist it, looking at an absurd theater, where Trahelliven deletes his own words , because they are supposedly incorrect. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, in this discussion with Zero0000 he told you that "any form of partition" was not appropriate and it seemed that you agreed with it. On my side, I explained to you on that page that the Arab community could not be seen as one entity, ie "as a whole". Abdallah was happy of the Partition Plan and the Nashashibis were not totally opposed to it. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt again the DRN, as I will not respond to it. However, I reply here once only. "any form of partition" is correct (as you said ) and it is explained in your link. However, I tried to compromise and proposed less accurate alternative sentences, but Zero have not accepted them. Concerning "as a whole", it is a pity that you do not read before writing. Those are Trahelliven words. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the quotes provided by Ykantor I agree with Trahelliven's removal of the words "and the Arab community as a whole" as the source does not say that. However, the source appears to be relevant to the sentence and I'm wondering why Trahellivens' removed the citation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

response by Ykantor

yours:"I agree with Trahelliven's removal of the words "and the Arab community as a whole" as the source does not say that". But Trahelliven wrote these words and later deleted his words because they are supposedly incorrect. Is not that an absurd theater? The initial version of 14.6.2013( deleted by Trahelliven) was correct and well supported. Later I have added more support , but Trahelliven deleted it as well. In my opinion, Trahelliven's words "and the Arab community as a whole" are vague and nearly impossible to justify. I wonder if it is possible to re-use the initial words "Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League" of 14 June version? Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) more sources for the 14 June initial version: book|author1=Edward Alexander|author2=Paul Bogdanor|title=The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=oEGEBjk-6CkC&pg=PA107%7Caccessdate=13 August 2013|date=31 December 2011|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-0933-7|pages=82, 107 | quote="p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors book|author=Yoav Gelber|title=Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC%7Caccessdate=13 July 2013|date=1 January 2006|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-84519-075-0|pages=3| quote="the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians’ campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami, books.google.com/books?isbn=9004175342, M. Cherif Bassiouni, ‎Shlomo Ben Ami - 2009 - ‎p. 24 ; "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan decided by the General Assembly (Resolution 181), which the violently opposed. Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel, books.google.com/books?isbn=0520245571, Dan Rabinowitz, ‎Khawla Abu Baker - 2005, p. 31, "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute...The resolution by the U.N in favour of partition on November 29, 1947, triggered an immediate wave of Palestinian guerilla warfare against Jews, with hits and skirmishes in various parts of the country." Ykantor (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Ykantor, this wall of text (above) is not appropriate and is disruptive to this dispute resolution process. At the present time we are discussing one sentence and one source. Please stay within the parameters of this limited discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Part II

I agree that my edit of 16 June 2013 was not satisfactory. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] . This phrase, however, is too wide. It implies that every possible proposal was made, and then rejected.

I do not like the use of the phrase, the Arabs opposed, when they really mean Arab leaders opposed or Arab governments opposed (regardless of what the sources say). The Arab community, as against their leaders and governments, was not consulted. Trahelliven (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trahelliven, thanks for your honest assessment of your edit. What I suggest is the we reinsert[ion of] the citation and adjust[ment of] the text to accurately reflect what the source says. Would that be agreeable to you? If so, what text would you suggest? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

People are welcome to follow your suggestion. But in the last weeks, several editors have been hauled by Ykantor to DRN regarding these articles. The problem is, what is the function? If there is a resolution between Trahelliven or any other single editor taken here by Ykantor on one or two words, in several of these issues, that dispute is not resolved, technically. It only translates as resolving a dispute between 2 of several editors. If Trahelliven can agree with Ykantor on how to phrase this, it, yes, will have a certain binding value between them, but is not binding for the others, and you risk creating a merry-go-round. In my own dispute, I declined to use this page, and said to Ykantor and the mediator, that the whole issue or any issue Ykantor raises there should be left to the talk page. So should this, surely. If not, then to avoid endless one-on-one negotiations that skip WP:Consensus on the talk page, the efficient method is to ask Ykantor to iron out his disagreements with all editors, at the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani and thanks for your comments. I understand your frustration. What I am doing here is responding to a case which outlines a dispute between two Ykantor and Trahelliven. Its a narrow scope, two people and four diffs. If those parties are interested we can go through those four diffs and attempt to resolve those 4 edits. And you are correct it will only create and understanding between the two of them and the result is not binding for the article. Just as any noticeboard discussion is not binding. The final word is the talk page consensus. Also the purpose of this noticeboard is to attempt resolution over issues of content. It is not a place to discuss editor behavior. So if you, or others, feel that an editor is being disruptive and has violated some of WP's behavioral policies than there are other venues for that such as WP:ANI. Meantime, if Ykantor and Trahellivan wish to end this resolution attempt and prefer to move discussion back to the talk page, I would certainly support that. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Commendably intelligent.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• If possible, I prefer to continue here, since the talk page consensus is always against me, as I am the only regular Israeli guy there. Nishidani knows it, and naturally prefer the article talk page. (Interestingly, he previously gave other reason for his avoidance of the DRN / Mediation, which was a lack of spare time.)

• As you, Keithbob said, "Its a narrow scope, two people and four diffs". It is preferable to solve it now, rather than trying to adapt the solution to other editors taste. I do not see any advantage in a talk page endless discussion, with a war of attrition tactics e.g. not replying to my points, replying to what I have not said, attacking me personally, breaking WP "Petit" rules etc. I am able to provide examples for those applied tactics against me.

• I have proposed to return the 14 June version,(before Traheliven started his successive deletions). Is this proposal accepted? Ykantor (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not lack of spare time, if I recall. But desire not to waste time. I do wish you would not use the 'regular Israeli guy' thing (you come over as indeed a 'regular guy'). Consensus-building looks at source quality and WP:NPOV. Zero is his own man; Pluto and I have disagreed in the past. I haven't edited with Trahellivan. The ethnicity or nationality of a person is irrelevant. Just to clarify on the methodological objection. If you see a consensus against you, it is not sensible to choose one editor of several, time and again, and refer to this page, because, as I stated above, the end result will not be binding on others, whatever it is. It functions when only two people are on that page. Secondly, part of the reason you have problems on the talk pages is that your passion for the subject leads to WP:TLDR length-comebacks. Most editors strive for reasonably to the point brief arguments (I in the past have erred in this sense too), because life is short. IF you were more succinct,you'd probably get better feedback. As it is, the style of intensive bullet-point screeds begging for equally lengthy rebuttals, just turns editors off. It looks, to use a word you employ below, 'attritional'. There is no 'tactic' involved, that I can see, adopted against you from other editors. It is sheer fatigue with trying to cope (WP:AGF) with the prolixity of your passionate pleading for a version of history as the truth, which most editors learn to realize is not what wikipedians do. I for one have no intention of taking you to court over this. You are undoubtedly passionate and sincere and hardworking: it's just it is totally incompartible with WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we return to the 14 June version, but only as the basis for discussion. We should include the first two sentences in the discussion:-

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

I have three problems with these two sentences:-

1 The absolute statement was accepted by the Jewish Agency doe not reflect the reservations in the first sentence in the section - Reactions: Jewish reaction.

2 Regardless of what the sources say, how do we know any acceptance was sincere?

3 While we can say the Arab leaders rejected this Plan, how do we know that they would reject every other possible plan. Trahelliven (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, it appears Yanktor and Trahelliven have agreed to "return to the 14 June version". We also note that Trahelliven has specified that this agreement does not preclude further discussion on the article talk page about ways to further refine or amend the sentence(s) so that it most accurately reflects available reliable sources. Is this agreeable to both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the 14 June 2014 version is in order, provided it is open to further discussion. Trahelliven (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keithbob: I am sorry that I continue to bother you but it seems that Trahelliven want to continue his war of attrition tactics with bizarre claims, restarting claims that have been already discussed etc. I would prefer having a solution here, if possible.
• Concerning Trahelliven last comments:

1. "was accepted by the Jewish Agency ". This is the stable version (i.e. before our argument) and justifiably so. The overwhelming majority of the Yishuv (the Jews in Palestine) rejoiced the partition decision. . Trahelliven claim is bizarre since most of the agreements between nations / ethnic groups are supported by a majority and not by 100% of the population. According to Trahelliven claim, Wikipedia should specify small opposition groups whenever an international major agreements is mentioned !
2. "Regardless of what the sources say, how do we know any acceptance was sincere?".
   1. Trahelliven claim is bizarre since it is relevant for every agreement between nations / ethnic groups. So should Wikipedia discuss it every time?
   2. "Regardless of what the sources say" . It seems that Trahelliven prefer a wp:or ??
3. "the Arab leaders rejected this Plan, how do we know that they would reject every other possible plan.". Restarting claims that have been already discussed? The Arabs said openly that they would accept a unitary state only. It means opposing any alternative like a partition of the country (The partition size does not matter ). I have quoted a lot of wp:rs (in this discussion as well). Ykantor (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: This is not a big deal, but could everyone be careful to avoid putting an edit or post in the midst of another editor's edit or post? It makes the discussion very difficult to follow by the volunteer (and everyone else) and makes his work harder by forcing him to have to go to the history page to make sure he understands what's right. It's fine, of course, to insert a response between two prior complete posts, so long as the new post is properly indented and signed, but it's not okay to do so in the middle of someone else's single posting. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, You mentioned at the start of this case that some of your prior case requests had been ignored. I'm beginning to see why:

1. You have been asked, more than once in this discussion to avoid name calling and personal attacks, yet you continue again and again without provocation: ("it seems that Trahelliven want to continue his war of attrition tactics with bizarre claims"). We are here to discuss content only. If you make one more mention of any editor during the remainder of this discussion I will immediately withdraw from this case and leave it to other editors to take over if they chose to do so.
2. Nothing that is negotiated here is binding to the article or talk page and all WP content is subject to discussion and change at any time. With that in mind you said: "I have proposed to return the 14 June version". Trahelliven has agreed to your request, so I consider the matter of edit #1 to be closed. Would you like to proceed to a discussion of the next edit? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion belongs on the article talk page

Edit summary introducing the RS above ('Gelber; The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be') Ykantor's background principle 'This article (together with other Arab- Israel conflict articles), has a lot of built in anti Israeli propaganda. It looks like in some aspects , it is re-writing the history .(e.g. trying to thwart Arab leaders public declarations concerning driving the Jews to the sea, promising a bloodshed etc.). It is very frustrating.' The specific textual issue must be understood in the light of the larger background, both of what Ykantor is pursuing in his edits, and his selective use of documents to write into the narrative a non-neutral partisan 'truth' which he thinks must override the 'mistakes' in the other POV, the Arab version.(By the way Paul Bogdanor above is not RS for any serious historical discussions.) Take one example, one of the several variations of the theme he cites above:- the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. He backs that up with gruesome quotes "On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state". See also the Azzam Pasha quotation (and compare the point made re Arab rhetoric vs absolute lack of any intention of acting on it in Eliezer's comment below). Well, yes true. All your sources say that, using Arabs and Jews, which is of course wholly inappropriate (the Palestinians were never consulted, for one thing, in any formal sense). But it cannot be introduced into the text as a narrative truth. It must be contextualized neutrally to show that it is a POV, even if a fact. Many sources will also tell you that there are many ways to read that 'fact' in the light of another fact:'For copious evidence that, even in the absence of Arab aggression, the Zionist leadership never intended to respect the 1947 Partition Resolution borders, cf. Ben-Eliezer Making pp.144, 150-1.(Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso 2003 p.201 n.21) Uri-Ben Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism, Bloomington 1998 pp.150-1 reads: Even if the Jewish leadership accepted ostensibly the partition resolution, in truth it did not think for a minute of leaving the establishment of the state and the demarcation of its borders in the hands of the United States and the Great Powers. .. The true intention was disclosed in various forums. Thus Ben-Gurion promised the Histadrut Actions Committee in early December 1947:"There are no final arrangements in history, there are no eternal borders, and there are no ultimate political claiums. Changes and transformations will still occur in the world." A week later, at a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat, Ben-Gurion said he agreed with the complains being voice in his party that the partition plan was a setback to the aspirations of the Zionist movement and that the proposed borders were unsound politically and militarily. He also assured his listeners that the boundaries of Jewish independence were not final. The importance of these statements is that they anticipated any substantial confrontation with the Palestinians. They were intended to prepare the ground for the possible use of military force as a means to obtain control over the whole Land of Israel and to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in any part of that territory. Perhaps the major characteristic of the period is that its reality was determined by the military modes of operation which had been forged through the decade. It was not policy that determined the military operations but the opposite: those modes gradually became the policy.A first hint of this was apparent at the beginning of the war. The Arabs objected vociferously to the partition plan and threatened to take military action to block its implementation. In practice, however, they made hardly any preparations, and certainly took no actions to realize their threat. The Jews, in contrast, made no declarations about war and even said that they were willing to accept partition, but in practice they began to prepare, energetically and comprehensively, to prevent the resolution's application.' Anyone neutral party measuring your several sources against this will immediately appreciate that Ben-Eliezer's ostensibly makes the meme about 'overwhelming' Jewish endorsement and 'unanimous Arab rejection' somewhat simplistic. The good guys are for the UN Plan, or a compromise, the bad guys are 'unanimous' in their rejection. In Ben-Eliezer's contextualization, the Jewish approval of the plan was tactical, and there was no intention of honouring the borders established there; to the contrary, military preparations foresaw a conflict, and the aim was to invade areas beyond those borders, and to deny the Arabs, who in the plan were accorded territory, any land.The Arab leadership's rejection was unanimous, threats were made, but no serious plans were made to follow them up. This is the problem with the edits he is making successively. The only way out is to get him to understand that POVs have to be cancelled out in the narrative, by showing, (and it is extremely difficult), how RS treat the various positions. Simplistic memes consisting of (a) the Jews accepted the UN Plan, the Arabs opposed it and (b) when the State of Israel was declared, 5 Arab armies invaded Israel is radical POV pushing (that meme is not consonant with a strict topological reading of the conflict's outbreak). Sources do say that, but they are repeating an Isrelocentric perspective. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Nishidani's thesis is supported by the demographics of the Partition. I cannot see how you could have a Jewish state where 45% of the population was Arab. Of course that would be fixed when the Holocaust survivors and those living in the neighbouring Arab countries started to arrive. Where would they all go? Easy! Into homes and land vacated by departing Arabs [3] - THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE - ILAN PAPPE . Trahelliven (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Well, not so much mythesis, but the kind of perspective missing when one simply adopts a phrase 'rejection'/'acceptance' with an undertone of one side's compliance with the UN deliberation and the other's stubborn defiance. The point also it, 'Israel' was not invaded, and the Arab armies basically took up positions in the land assigned the Palestinians. You can tilt anything anyway with selective use of sources. Pappe is not acceptable (personal sympathy for him and his work apart) on this page, as Karsh from the other side isn't. We need mainstream historical accounts and specialists.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I would like to reply, but not here at the DRN space. Will it be possible for you to continue at your (or mine) talk page? BTW Once we look at facts (and not talk or even RS interpretation) you will see for yourself. Ykantor (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I prefer to make notes here. It is true that Jewish leaders thoroughly approved the UN resolution and their Arab counterparts rejected it, for the simple reason that the PP assigned 56% of a land that had been overwhelmingly 'Arab' to a recent 30-33% immigrant minority, while giving the indigenous people who were about 66% 44% of the land. So a sentence that makes the unanimous yes by Jews, and unanimous no by Arab formulation (a cogged rhetorical meme using one of many facts) requires contextualization to avoid the subtextual implication that one of the two sides was ultramontane or irrationa. It was absolutely rational for the Arab leadership to reject the plan - no plebiscite had taken place, no consideration of local feelings taken into account, the best agricultural land, overwhelmingly registered under Arab title, fell, by imperial decree, into immigrant hands. That complexity is one reason why singling out edit conflicts one at a time with now me, now Trahellivan, now Pluto, now Zero ignores the issue of narrative NPOV. It is paragraphs that have to be crafted, with scrupulous balance to the perspectives of both sides, and your procedure systematically ignores this by its patchy, sentence by sentence drift where you successively push for an Israelocentric narrative slant. When you speak of 'facts' (as in the hasbara 'fact sheets', you should remind yourself of the 12th proposition of ch.1. of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:'For the totality of facts determines what is the case, (and also whatever is not the case).' Since you come to DRN every other week with someone, it is best to iron out this problem once and for all here, rather than exhausting everyone piecemeal. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Menahem Begin who was an important Jewish Leader, rejected the Partition Plan (see Menachem Begin, The Revolt',, 1978, p. 412.) Abdullah I of Jordan, who was maybe the most important Arab leader, was very satisfied of the Partition Plan even if he was sometimes ambigous on the question (see Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, 2003, chapter 4.) The first opposed to it. The second one didn't oppose to it, on the contrary. So, per WP:NPOV, etc. But Ykantor is perfectly aware of all this. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC) This discussion belongs on the article talk page not here at DRN. Please continue it there (you may cut and past this portion of the discussion there if you wish) Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

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

Filed by 2Awwsome on 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 2Awwsome (talk · contribs)
• Toccata quarta (talk · contribs)
• 178.222.192.243 (talk · contribs)
• Nihil novi (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute about whether Chopin was Polish or Polish-French. The first compromise was reverted and sources not supporting the view that he was Polish removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, sources found, compromise in the article saying it is disputed (which was reverted and sources removed).

How do you think we can help?

Create a compromise, or find the generally accepted nationality

Summary of dispute by Toccata quarta

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

Summary of dispute by 178.222.192.243

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

Summary of dispute by Nihil novi

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

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Frédéric Chopin discussion

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

Please note: I have added @Volunteer Marek: to this DRN as it is clear he should have been listed by the filing party as involved. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see this has been a bit of a back-and-forth for a while. Lets, for the sake of discussion, clear the slate and work from the ground up. There seems to be two camps:

1) That Chopin was born in Poland and is thusly Polish with Polish-French ancestory. He also aquired French citizenship through his father however he was still, in terms of national identiy, Polish.

2) That Chopin was born in Poland to Polish and French parents and is thusly Polish-French. The fact that he was also a French citizen confirms this.

Is that a fair assessment of the situation? If so, I'd ask proponents of either side to state and cite the case for their view in the areas below. Please try avoid commenting directly on the opposite views, discuss below if necessary. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Please see my comment under the "Polish-French" heading. Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The case for Polish

In google books:

Chopin "French-Polish composer" - 23 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen.

Chopin "Polish-French composer" - 53 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen.

Chopin "Polish composer" - ... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... 8420 hits. And for this one I subtracted off the hits which include the words "wikipedia" or "llc" (but not for the above to searches).

So in sources Chopin is more frequently described as a "Polish composer" relative to other phrasings by a factor of 110. Or in percent terms, about 10900% more.

There's just no comparison. There is no reason for controversy. There's several pages of archives of the talk page where this has been discussed. To death. Consensus has been reached. It is a complete and utter waste of time to open this up again on a whim of a single random Wikipedia editor. Who apparently can't be bothered to read the archives, even after he's been directed towards them. Or maybe has read them but suffers from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Volunteer Marek  07:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The archive you directed me to had consensus for Polish-French, it's you who isn't hearing it. If him being just Polish really is believed by the vast majority of people, it should be easy to find sources, you're just selectively picking one from the three already there. And a Google search is not a reliable source. See WP:RS, which is a policy, and WP:GHITS, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, although is also relevant elsewhere on Wikipedia. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the archive you are discussing. Can I ask that when people refer to past discussions, sources, etc they provide a link at the same time to ensure complete clarity in what is being referred to. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's one of the many discussions [4]. Note that the user there got banned [5] as a sock puppet. There are other discussions but that was most recent. Volunteer Marek  13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That one seems to be 3 vs 3, plus the sockpuppet. Note that the sockpuppeteer was not involved in it with any other accounts. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Out of those "3" one got convinced the other way, one was a bit vague, and one was a sockpuppet of a disruptive user.

And what part of 23/53/8420 or 10900% is so hard to understand?  Volunteer Marek  18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding words greatly decreases the number of Google search results. And there were 4 people, 1 was vague, one ended up getting convinced the other way, but only one of the sockpuppets was involved 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So? That's what " " are for. What's your point? And 76 vs. 8420... you're gonna have to spin much harder than that to close *that* gap. Volunteer Marek  07:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The case for Polish-French

Per WP:OPENPARA he should be described as Polish-French, because he spent much of his life in France and was a French citizen. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Such questions of nationality are seen very differently now from how they were seen in the 19th century, when most Europeans were "subjects" rather than "citizens". The fact that after some years in France Chopin was issued with a French passport is interesting, but it seems likely that he could have got a Russian or Polish one if he had wanted to. I don't think Chopin's birthplace is the real issue, either. He was born in 1810 in the Duchy of Warsaw. Was that Poland? In a sense it was, in a sense it wasn't. Chopin grew up (after 1815) in Congress Poland, which was a largely Polish-speaking puppet state of the Russian Empire. In the lead of the article he is now described as "Polish", with a link to Poles. That suggests he was ethnically Polish. In fact, he was ethnically half Polish, and half French. "Polish-French" seems to me correct from two points of view, that of ethnicity and that of his right to live in both countries. Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NB, the Frédéric Chopin article of the online Encyclopædia Britannica has "Polish French". Moonraker (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Britannica also describes Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer" [6] but a vocal group of editors at Wikipedia absolutely refuses to even consider putting that in that article. Volunteer Marek  07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you trying to change the article to say that Chopin is Polish then?. See WP:POT. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

? I'm *not* trying to change Copernicus to "Polish astronomer". What you said makes no sense. Volunteer Marek  13:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I was talking about 'Chopin' makes it pretty obvious that I am talking about the Frédéric Chopin article. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're still not making sense.  Volunteer Marek  18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer: why are you trying to change the Chopin article so that Chopin was Polish, contradicting Encyclopedia Britannica, but you make an off-topic comment about 'a group of vocal editors' refusing to put Encyclopedia Britannica's opinion of Copernicus's nationality. See WP:POT 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To illustrate the point that EB is only one out of thousands of possible sources we can consult and not deciding factr. And out of those thousands, only 70 or so use your preferred formulation while the rest - thousands - use the current one. Volunteer Marek  07:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The ODNB states he was a composer and pianist, was born at Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw... the second of Frenchman Nicolas (Mikołaj) Chopin...basically it presents the facts and lets the reader decide. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If stating the facts, as Tommy Pinball has suggested, isn't an acceptable solution then it seems this is the type of situation where entrenched views are unlikely to be swayed. The established consensus, in my view, seems to be to list him as 'Polish' and make mention of his French citizenship also. If this is the case, why not run an RfC to get an outside view from those not as connected with the article? What do those involved think of an RfC? If one is held it could be used to demonstrate consensus in the future and stop the discussion coming up repeatedly. Thoughts? Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing the mention of the nationality would be a good idea, I have tried to say in the article that his nationality was disputed but it kept getting reverted and sources removed by Volunteer Marek. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's about 8000+ sources which call Chopin a "Polish composer". There's about 70 that call him "French-Polish". As far as sources are concerned, this is a non-issue. And what's the point of holding an RfC just because one disruptive editor suffers from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?  Volunteer Marek  13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Because that 'one disruptive editor' is you. And reliable sources are more important than Google search results. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 15:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Pashtun People

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Observerpashtun on 01:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Pashtun People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Observerpashtun (talk · contribs) Fareed30 (talk · contribs) Daonguyen95 (talk · contribs) 184.175.27.29 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview For a little over a month, there is being a concerted effort made to increase the number of Pashtuns in India from 11,000 to 11 million. For the many years that these articles have been in existence, there has been no issue with the population number. For some reason, the number of Pashtuns in India has gone up by a factor of 1000. I belive there are ulterior motives at play, and that some users are trying to form some form of deep online association between Pashtuns and India. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Edit battles have taken place. Much discussion conducted between the parties involved in the talk page, Administrators have come in as well. How do you think we can help? Bring in neutral parties to look at the competing claims. I will check in periodically and try and respond in as efficient manner as possible. Summary of dispute by Fareed30 Pashtuns are known by 2 other names (Pathans and Afghans), the ones in India are referred to as Pathans so please stop using Pashtuns but only use Pathans. Pathans are strongly connected to India by history and everything else. This is not something new because people from India and Pathans from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region have moved back and forth for over 1,000 years, without requiring visas or permits. In fact, Pathans even ruled India. 11,000 Pathans in India (a country home to 1.2 billion people) is outrageous; the 11 million is realistic although needs to be researched; it's consistent with the 50 million total population of the entire group. There are people who believe the actual number is twice that number. [7] Btw, I didn't add the 11 million, Krisxlowry did so why is my name added in this? Also, who is this Observerpashtun person? Another editor's newly-created additional account? The person behind the anonymous IP from Ontario, Canada?--Fareed30 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Daonguyen95 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 184.175.27.29 Im sorry, but just because you say it "seems reasonable" to conclude there are 11 million Pashtun in India, is not sufficient. You cannot just introduce a number like this. Then you claim, it is recorded in the Indian census. I checked and it is not true. There are a small number of Pashtuns in India. You are here because you and Daonguyen95 keep reverting back to that page. Fine, I will add Krisxlowry to this discussion as well. P.S. Yes, this is an IP from Ontario Canada. 184.175.27.29 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Pashtun People 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.

1948 Palestine war

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Ykantor on 15:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The main dispute seems to be on the above page, but it seems to have also spilled over into the following pages:

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Israeli-occupied territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• Pluto2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear volunteer, the dispute is simple and could be decided on the spot, without digging in the article.

Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?

There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement and deleted it . I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).

He does not agree (I suspect that he does not have a RS). He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.

This dispute is a restarting of the previous session which expired and the volunteer could not continue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It is discussed in the talk page.

I have asked at the help desk as well: Help desk

How do you think we can help?

I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Summary of dispute by Pluto2012

When I see Ykantor writing "I suspect he has no WP:RS" and knowing the existence of this section several months old and that was endorsed by all the contributors who commented it, I have no idea what to do. This is maybe the 4 or 5th time and/or place where Ykantor wants to re-discuss the issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war discussion

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

Mostly conduct allegations. If you wish to pursue these, consider doing so at RFC/U or SPI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani This is getting to be a rather exhausting, attritional and pointless exercise, though I have no doubts as to Ykantor's sincerity. He just can't see what policy entails, or why other editors, of different backgrounds, should contest his approach. 'Each side should accept his wrong doings. Wikipedia should be correct. The Arabs has attacked the Jews at 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 and at 1948 too. Ykantor (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Hmm. Each side did wrong, but the 'Arabs' attacked the 'Jews' throughout the modern period, and that is how we should rewrite wiki articles, blaming 'them'. Persisting in this kind of editing will probably lead to sanctions, because he is pepossessed by a conviction he has the truth on 'his side'. (Most people, Arabs and Jews, just happened to find themselves caught up in complex conflicts of which they had little understanding other than their dreams and lives might be at risk. Strategy from the top is one thing, how populations experience the realities another, and each side is quite entitled to think its existence was at risk). Wars are started or triggered by decisions, anticipated, preemptive actions made by directive elites, not by 'Arabs' or 'Jews'. Ykantor thinks (has often stated) there is one only truthful version of history, that this truth coincides with an Israeli or rather 'Zionist' narrative, and that, as here, he, as someone trying to comprehensively rewrite this and other pages, need only give the 'true' Israeli version on key events, since the versions of the other parties (Palestinians/Arabs) are mistaken. WP:NPOV counsels editors to ensure that descriptions of conflict over which sources disagree are neutral to both sides. Above Ykantor says any other editing point of view than the one he adds is a mistake. He therefore has absolutely no grasp on WP:NPOV. His repeated recourse to these forums is to try and argue past policy. The result is endless talk, and no improvement to the articles. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Comments by Pluto2012 As answer to the material provided here above 2 months ago, Ykantor wrote : ""I am a lone editor here, and I do not know what would be the final Wikipedia decision, but I know that there is only one correct description- The Arabs has repeatedly attacked. Ykantor (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)"" He engaged in WP:FORUM, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:Forum shopping and now he is engaging in WP:HARASSMENT in re-starting this DRN the day of my comeback after a wiki-break. He also openly refuses to comply with WP:NPOV in providing all the points of view on issue given he thinks he knows the truth. His process is to claim as biaised all the sources that do not comply with the point of view he considers to be the good one. That is not manageable and this has lasted for 6 months now. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by Trahelliven I have currently a DRN with Ykantor on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine opened on 16 October 2013. The discussion on this page and the talk page on the article has been one of the most exasperating experiences of my my life. He seems incapable of understanding even the simplest argument that you put to him. I will not bore you with the details. Res ipsa loquitor Trahelliven (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

After being closed for several days, and after some requests on my talk page, I have reopened this to make some comments. Here's how I see this. Every editor has a general good faith obligation to write from a neutral point of view and, indeed, the NPOV policy says, in so many words (in the "Writing for the opponent" bullet point here), that one frequent, but unacceptable objection to the obligations of that policy is:

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

So, the first point is that, yes, Wikipedia editors are expected to write from a balanced point of view and when there is no one clearly-correct (that is, reliably-sourcable) position are expected to include all positions in their writing, supported by reliable sources, including those to which they are personally opposed. The problem then arises that an editor may say, "But there is only one point of view, or only one which can be supported by reliable sources." What then? First, we must assume good faith and refrain from inquiring into the editor's honesty or motives. (It is a well-established principle here, however, that an editor can over the course of time and editing demonstrate that he or she, either generally or in particular topic areas or circumstances, is so dishonest or one-sighted that they no longer deserve that assumption. In those cases, the proper remedy is to seek blocks or bans through ANI or ARBCOM, frequently preceded by a RFC/U. Since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN, I will wholly refrain from commenting or implying whether or not such action is called for in this instance, and express no opinion about it.) Since we must act in good faith and since the model of Wikipedia is collaboration, not competition, the good faith response to an objection that there is only one position is to demonstrate through the citation of reliable sources that there is a second position which must be reflected in the article. There may, of course, then be a dispute over the reliability and weight of those sources, but once that has been resolved, then it ought to be clear whether or not there are one, two, or more positions which must be reflected in the article to achieve NPOV. Where we may be in reference to this dispute is that Pluto is asserting that he has, in fact, done that, that is, has provided reliable sources to demonstrate a second point of view, but that Ykantor has failed or refused to address those sources, or possibly that Ykantor is asserting that those sources are not reliable. Is that, in fact, where we are? Or are we at the point that Pluto and others are no longer willing to assume good faith about Ykantor's honesty or ability to be neutral? If the latter is the case, then let me remind everyone that no one is required to participate in content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. If you do choose to participate, then it is incumbent upon everyone to do so without reservation and to assume good faith, not to do so half-heartedly. Pluto, if you feel that you can no longer assume Ykantor's good faith then I would suggest that you say you do not want to participate here and consider RFC/U and/or ANI. If you do not wish to Participate here, Ykantor may then consider a regular content RFC to try to get his desired edit into the article. If you do wish to participate, Pluto, then do so with the understanding that discussion of Ykantor's good faith, bias, etc., cannot play a part in this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (As a personal matter, after hitting "save" on this edit, I will probably be offline until at least sometime next Monday, so another volunteer may choose to take this up if they care to do so.) — TM

we are here and we come from there.

I am happy to discuss any of both these points under the supervision of a mediator.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia

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

Filed by Jingiby on 07:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kingdom of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several changes were made a lot of days ago by User:James Lindberg on the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He insisted on the existence of ethnic Macedonians and separate Macedonian language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but they (the edits) were simply unsourced POV and thus I have removed them. I have provided reliable sources and discussed the issue on the talk page. On the next day the changes were reverted by User:Direktor. His motivation was very strange: "Eveybody knows all this, Jingiby, but to put it simply: we don't write our articles with contemporary terminology - we use modern, up-to-date terms." I have explained that even sources that were in the article do not support the changes made by User:James Lindberg, etc. My exoplaination was followed by several reverts made by the same User. Even the tag added by me on the running dispupe was removed. The answeres I have received on talk page were like: 'I am not going to waste time here" and "I am very familiar with this issue". No one source was provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided a lot of additional historical academic sources on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute can be resolved on the base of the historical leading view with the help of provided sources and NPOV can be reached, I belive.

Summary of dispute by Director

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

Jingiby appears to be very proud of the fact that he understands some basic facts about the emergence of the modern Macedonian nation, and occasionally likes to lecture people on how Macedonians didn't really exist until relatively recently. He doesn't seem able to understand that, if the Macedonian nationality didn't officially form prior to a certain date - that certainly doesn't mean we're now going to effectively erase mention of the nationality up to that point. Very few nations can be said to have existed in the manner discussed by Jingiby prior to the age of nationalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries; and in interwar Yugoslavia (the subject of the dispute), no nations (including Serbs, Croats, etc) officially existed besides the enforced "Yugoslav nation" and the "Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene nation" (singular).

Frankly I am very concerned what damage of this sort Jingiby has done all over the project, and am tempted to start following his contribs. His edits and POV-pushing run essentially in-line with Greater Bulgarian claims on Macedonia, and are targeted towards downplaying the independence of the Macedonian nationality (as separate from Bulgarian nationality).

The sources quoted by Jingiby are reliable and fine, but all they do is explain how and at what point the Macedonian nationality formed. And none of that is disputed. What is disputed, however, is Jingiby's insistence that here on Wikipedia we must effectively erase mention of Macedonians as a nationality prior to when it was officially recognized (i.e. replace it with some OR term like "Macedonian Slavs"). And for the record, I'm not Macedonian... :) -- Director (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia discussion

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

Trick or Treatment

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Johntosco on 08:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Trick or Treatment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Johntosco (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Bobrayner (talk · contribs) Blackguard SF (talk · contribs) Pcabotto (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe I am being harrassed unnecessarily by Alexbrn who has deleted my contribution to the "Trick or Treatment" page. It is a statement of fact about the book's website. We have discussed it on the talk page, but he refuses to compromise in any way. I believe my statement of fact is important because the article says that the book evaluates the scientific evidence for ... I think that to evaluate scientific evidence, you need to know where that evidence is (i.e. references). There are not many in the book's website as I was pointing out in my contribution. I am willing to change the wording of my contribution to make it as neutral as he wants, but he refuses to even include any comments about the fact I was pointing out. The contributions of Bobrayner and Blackguard SF are also a problem. Bobrayner was the first to undo my contribution with a laconic "not an improvement". So far, he hasn't given an explanation of why it is not an improvement to explain, clarify and point out that a book which says it is evidence-based doesn't provide much evidence, even when I asked him why in the "Trick or Treatment" talk page and in his own talk page. Blackguard SF has undone my contribution with an "original research unsupported by third party source" 1) As I have explained, anyone can look at the book's website and see that my contribution was accurate and truthful and 2) He is not telling the truth. Itis not original research. The lack of references for most of the chapters in "Trick or Treatment" was pointed out by the book "Halloween Science" by William Alderson in 2009. It is also freely acknowledged by the authors on the website, which was mentioned in the article before I tried to contribute. Johntosco (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on the talk page How do you think we can help? By evaluating my contribution and helping me change the wording, if necessary, so that it is acceptable to Alexbrn and Bobrayner. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Trick or Treatment discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I'm going to recommend to Johntosco, the requesting editor, that you ask for help with this at the Teahouse. John, I'm telling you this from an entirely subject-neutral point of view: You're struggling with basic Wikipedia policies and principles; the other editors are very close to being 100% right and you are very close to being 100% wrong. You're interpreting terms such as "reliable source" and "original research" using what you think they mean from just basic English, but they are in fact very specifically-defined Wikipedia terms with very specific meanings. Until you learn those meanings — and they're very basic, along with a few other policies, to how Wikipedia works — you're just going to become more and more frustrated. It's not just a question of rewording: many things which people feel are Unquestionably True and Vitally Important cannot be included in Wikipedia at all due to Wikipedia's basic restrictions on reliable sourcing and original research. The folks at the Teahouse are experts at helping newcomers deal with the intricacies. Give them a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) TransporterMan. Thank you very much. I thought it would be impolite not to reply, and this is the only reason I am doing so. I do not intend to continue with this farce. They have won. I have granted them the victory. They have managed to keep a simple and verifiable truth - for personal reasons, I think - out of wikipedia. I couldn't care less right now. Liepedia, as it should be known, doesn't interest me any more. I am writing about the subject. It is much more interesting and rewarding than presenting simple truths which are rejected because "it is not an improvement". This is what Bobrayner said, isn't it? He never mentioned why it is not an improvement - even when I asked him - and no doubt you will enlighten me on the meaning of improvement in wikipedia. I already have one publisher interested in my writing. I have decided today to include a chapter about how liepedia - oops sorry - wikipedia is about power and not truth. The talk page can reveal what I mean to the whole world. If I took your advice about basic meanings, I could erase the words "and briefly covers 36 other treatments" and " the authors conclude that the dangers of these treatments outweigh any potential benefits." in the article since this could be considered original research - according to wikipedia principles - and has not been confirmed by an independent third party source. Which third party source says that the book says that? Why is not included in the references? I know when I'm beaten. I know when people have friends in liepedia - oops sorry again - wikipedia who have power, they must love it. Bye, bye. Johntosco (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry. TransporterMan. I forgot to point out something which wouldbegoodfor the public at large to know. Wikipedia's definition of original research means that if a journalist prints a lie such as "The book presents evidence for ..." when the book doesn't, I can write it in wikipedia. I have - according to wikipedia - a "reliable source". But I am not allowed to say that the book doesn't provide references - the truth - because no journalist or writer has printed the truth. Bravo wikipedia! Let everyone know. In fact, I have come up with a much better name than liepedia, liemedia. Should I set up a blog about it? Something like wikipedia is about the power of the media. Johntosco (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shiva article

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Eshwar.om on 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Shiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Discussion going on the Shiva articles talk page.user Abecedare unnecessary wasting my time even i given reliable source. but he removed the content and unnecessary he wasting time in talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i given enough explanation but he is going his track only How do you think we can help? see the reference what i add.then do the need full.stop him and his supporter from my editing. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Shiva article 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.

Major film studio

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Spshu on 17:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Major film studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Spshu (talk · contribs)
• 99.46.224.199 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some how the IP editor thinks that I am claim that Liongate Entertainment Incoporated isn't not the subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation and the parent of Liongate Films. In edit summaries and at the talk page, I indicate that there isn't a dispute over that matter and that his reversions are also removing other corrections and a simplied table structure.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made a request for page protection which was denide with a recommendation for sanctions. Requested -help me- to figure out where I should file for sanctions with the responding admin locking the page and directing me here.

How do you think we can help?

Don't know. I was direct here. Perhaps if some one else tells the IP editor there isn't a dispute over content, they might listen. Otherwise, I am at a loss.

Summary of dispute by 99.46.224.199

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

Major film studio discussion

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

Hi folks, page protection has been granted for one week. As User:Darkwind has instructed please refrain from editing the article while this dispute resolution process is underway. We will talk together, come to a consensus and then make changes. I also remind both editors to please remain civil and to discuss content only, not editor behavior. Now.....which editor finds the current state of the article objectionable and why? Please be succinct and provide sources. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is it okay to make my reply here?

Spshu wants things done his way instead of trying to work things out with other users. I cleaned up his mess at what he did on Major film studio because it looks so confusing. Conglomerate and parent company should “not” be listed under the same column. There is a huge difference between both distinctive names and Spshu failed to look them up and compare and contrast both names for ownership of companies or studios.

As I told him, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation is the corporate parent and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. is formerly known as “Artisan Entertainment, Inc.”. I don’t know why he added those names under each other on the table under the same column where it doesn’t need to be. He said that his version is proper, where it’s not proper, where it’ll lead to a whole mess of confusion.

I added the following on the talk page:

• First source
• Second source
• Third source
• Fourth source
• Fifth and final source

He's quick to ask for a page protection for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.199 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Sources:

• Bloomberg BusinessWeek -- Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.
• SEC filing 2012 for Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• SEC filing 2013 (via Yahoo) for Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• Reuters Profile on Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• Forbes profile on Beeks; COO of Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one confused. I have multiple times indicated agreement in regards to the Lionsgate conglomerate's structure.

• first time] "LGEC/LCEI relation doesn't change their order" (OK, not very clear)
• second time: "My edit matches the above sources if you bother to look. Also, my previous edit indicated there was no change in LGEI's position to LGEC & LGF. "
• third time: "TWICE I have said that LGEI is the subsidiary of LGEC. You still act like I oppose that."
• fourth time: "Some how the IP editor thinks that I am claim that Liongate Entertainment Incoporated isn't not the subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation and the parent of Liongate Films. In edit summaries and at the talk page, I indicate that there isn't a dispute over that matter ..."

This will be the fifth time, there is no argument over Lionsgate's corporate structure. I told you that not all mini-majors (only 2) have parent units and they are easily represented where they do by the "double stacked" field. It also makes the tables more difficult to see all at once with more columns. His reverting continues to reintroduce errors. For example, DisneyNature (nature), Lucasfilms (sci-fi) and Marvel Studios (superheroes) are all genre labels for Disney, but his revisions remove them from that category to the "other" category. But some how, the Lionsgate corporate argument some how dictates Disney's genre brands not being genre brands?! Spshu (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I remind both parties in this dispute that we are here to discuss content and sources, not what another editor has done in the past. Please do not personalize your comments. Just discuss the content and sources. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 99.46.224.199, Spshu says that he agrees with your statement that: "Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation is the corporate parent and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc" the subsidiary. So there is no dispute there. What is the next issue we need to discuss?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Part II

Disney's and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions film brands' classification. DisneyNature (nature), Lucasfilms (sci-fi) and Marvel Studios (superheroes) are all genre labels/divisions for Disney, but his categorizes them to the "other" category. Not sure how the Liongate source negate those classifications.

Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions film brands although have genre and Arthouse/"indie" brands, some how they are "other" brands via the Lionsgate sources. The Lionsgate sources are the only sources given to supposedly refute these edits. Spshu (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can I say something about this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do, but please be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~, even if you're editing without signing in. (Better yet, create a logon and sign in and sign them with your login.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Hi Spshu, thanks for your response. Is this the chart we are discussing? If so, is the discussion concerning the content in the lines (left to right) that begin with Walt Disney? and Sony/Sony Pictures Entertainment?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean to be mean, rude, or anything, but Spshu likes to start edit wars with users so he can get it his way instead of everyone's way to work it out at the same time. I've been watching him ever since I've started contributing here for a while this year. He want to get others in trouble just like how he's doing right now. For instance, and forgive me for bringing up the past: he started an edit war over the Tribune Entertainment page saying that it was renamed to Tribune Studios. Two other users told him on Talk:Tribune_Entertainment, which is still on-going, saying it's not and there are sources out there indicating it's not the same company. And about the Major film studio table? I saw Spshu messed up the table where it was properly fixed by another user in which he's getting told on in this discussion. Every time when something like that goes on with other users, he asks to have the page protected because of edit wars and then sends a warning to other users about edit warring. I think he had one registered user blocked for a few days months ago because of an edit war. But back to the Major Film Studio discussion, the way how it was fixed by a non-registered user made sense and it was less confusing, but Spshu on the other hand messed it back up instead of looking in other pages on different words. Again, sorry about all of this, but Spshu should point the finger(s) where it needed to be pointed at and I think he should be banned from this site. Thank you. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HI IP 99.46.224.17, this noticeboard is for the discussion of content only (just like article talk pages and many of the noticeboards) if you have an issue with an editor's behavior you may want to consider filing a case at WP:ANI. Therefore, ranting about another editor in this forum is especially unproductive and has the flavor of a personal attack which is prohibited on WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Keithbob. Spshu (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK good. Have you or IP 99.46.224.199 located any relevant sources that uphold your respective views of which companies or subsidiaries are related, and in what way?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since, the different conglomerate have different structure, the Conglomerate-Parent unit-Major studio unit is really the only structural part of the table which isn't in dispute in this issue. The rest of the columns deal with other units that also produce films with in the conglomerate and are sorted by type. Beyond, the Lionsgate source, no, the IP editor has not offer any. DisneyNature, Marvel Studios and LucasFilms seem so straight forward that they are genre film units that I have only request why he thinks those are not genre units but "other" units or indie/arthouse for DisneyNature. 224.199 has only indicated that the Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions (SPWA) banners shouldn't be list any where but "other" because they are SPWA units/banners. SPWA was place in its "sub"-row position of major studio of Sony given the diversity of its hand full of divisions/banners but with paranethis () to indicated that it isn't a major film studio but hold the other divisions.

• Disneynature Disney gets back to nature: "Disneynature to make feature-length documentaries about animals and the environment."
• LucasFilms How Disney Bought Lucasfilm—and Its Plans for 'Star Wars': "Beyond the movies, Iger needed to know Lucasfilm had a stockpile of similarly rich material—aka intellectual property—for more Star Wars installments. As any serious aficionado knows, there were always supposed to be nine. But how would Disney assess the value of an imaginary galaxy?" Clearly Sci-Fi.
• Marvel Entertainment/Studios Marvel to Make Movies Based on Comic Books: "Look out, Red Skull, the company that owns Marvel comics has raised enough money to fund a movie about your archenemy, Captain America, and nine other superhero adventures."
• "AFFIRM Films is the industry leader in faith-based film with such upcoming and recent releases including Abel’s Field, The Note 3, Soul Surfer, Courageous and The Bible Collection ..." faith based genre label
• Stage 6 Films Sony launches new production division Stage 6 Films "Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group (SPWAG) has officially moved into production with the formation of Stage 6 Films, a new division that will acquire and produce genre films with an eye for sequels and prequels of existing properties." Genre films but unspecfied.
• Desination Films sonypicturesworldwideacquisitions.com/about/: SPWA "acquires and distributes films under the TriStar, Stage 6 Films and AFFIRM Films labels." So Desination nor Triumph doesn't seem to operating any more. Sony Pictures Entertainment divisions: Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group: "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group (CTMPG) encompasses Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics and Screen Gems in addition to releasing groups, Sony Pictures Releasing and Sony Pictures Releasing International" Spshu (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a lie. Destination is still in operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I found is this. It may not be news source, but that's evidence that it is still in operation. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Z07x10 on 09:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Z07x10 (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Julian Herzog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The original press release stated the maximum speed of the Eurofighter as Mach 2.0+ in 2003. Several magazines and other sources have reprinted this figure in the interim. These do not class as secondary sources in my view because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 From from the above: "Characteristics of a secondary source: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia." The mags fulfill none of the criteria mentioned above wrt the Typhoon Mach figure and have remained stagnant (not updated) since 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain: "Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source? The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources." More recently the Austria Airforce has quoted the Typhoon at 2,495kph at 10,975m. This calculates as Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions (see old DRN). This capability has been confirmed by the manufacturer Eurofighter GmbH as possible with a given fuel load etc. (see old DRN). In light of the fact that these are two good primary sources and in the absence of any true secondary sources (with independent analysis or verification) I move to edit the Mach figure '2.35' or add a note added explaining that 2,495kph@10,975m calculates as Mach 2.35. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Previous DR which was archived before resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon How do you think we can help? By looking at this from the perspective of new information from a valid source verified by the manufacturer rather than simply counting reprints of legacy data. Summary of dispute by McSly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Julian Herzog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Eurofighter Typhoon 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.

Ghouta chemical attack

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Blade-of-the-South on 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blade-of-the-South (talk · contribs)
• EkoGraf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi I hope this is the right place. We are discussing whether Face Book is an RS. I say no. Has this been covered before, surely it has but I cant find it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking.

How do you think we can help?

Clear cut policy ?

Summary of dispute by

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

There is a reference SOHR [8] on a Face Book page. I thought its not good enough for WP. People need an account to see it for starters. It seemed to me to be not notable.

Ghouta chemical attack discussion

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

Has FB been generally covered in RS policy? Can someone help clear this up?

Facebook falls under the self published sources umbrella = generally NOT reliable, except for accounts that are known to be official representations of the individual (or sometimes organization) which is the subject of the article they are being used to source, in which case the posts can be used ONLY for content that is ONLY about the subject of the article and is not unduly self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, just to clarify one point: Was this usage not RS: In this case the FB ref in WP article was used to talk about a specific event that occurred in Syria, (Gas attack) while the FB page talks about Syria in general. Is that what you were saying? Usage like that above is not RS?

One other problem I just found while looking around the SOHR FB page was the specific point (Gas Attack) on the SOHR FB page is now gone. Is that part of the self published sources FB problem? Things come and go. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved editor here. A WP:DEADLINK is not the same thing as failed verification; the source still exists even if it is not available online. TRPoD, in this case the cited statement is the SOHR's death toll estimate (I think, pending confirmation from Blade or Eko), which identifies the source as SOHR in the infobox. This seems like an acceptable use of a primary source to me provided the authenticity of the FB account is not in question, correct? What is the actual diff being supported by the primary source? VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, Eko said he has given up trying to use SOHR FB as an RS. Since we had dispute over it, and others did earlier as well I said to him I will find out the Status of FB as RS. Im fairly happy now its self published sources umbrella = generally NOT reliable. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Except for certain statements about itself; the context still therefore matters. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

well no ones using it for now, so Im not sure what you are referring to. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting on FB as a RS but on SOHR FB, on which multiple Syria war editors agreed to use as a source, since they were official posts of a reliable source and not individual ones of unknown individuals. In any case I withdrew my insistance on the introduction of the source, for now, so the discussion is moot. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: If I understand what Blade is saying, it would appear that this listing is moot since the Facebook source is no longer being put forth. EkoGraf was not, however, formally notified of this dispute until I did so just a few seconds ago. Unless someone objects, this listing will be closed as moot after 14:00 UTC on 1 November 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (as current DRN coordinator)

Republic of Kosovo

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by IJA on 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Republic of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IJA (talk · contribs)
• Neljack (talk · contribs)
• Danlaycock (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Cognoscerapo (talk · contribs)
• Silvio1973 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute has arisen over the lead sentence and it has gone on for far too long and I think it is time for admin intervention to help mediate. Certain users have been over looking what has been suggested and avoiding commenting on things they don't like which have been brought up on the talk page as it doesn't fit in with their argument / opinion.

My view is that it is POV to say that Kosovo is a "Sovereign State" as that is disputed and Serbia contests this. However the term "state" means "a community living under a government" therefore it isn't POV to use the term "state" as many things can be a "state" such as a country, a city, a province, a territory ect. I propose that we use the "Politic State" as it is status neutral as it shows to our reader/ audience that there is a "community living under a Government" (regardless of whether that Government be autonomous or independent). Also with the use of the word "politic" it doesn't take into account or leave out the disputed "sovereignty" or hegemony". I feel that uses here seem to think that users in this dispute seem to think that the word "state" only means "sovereign state" and that is not the case. A "sovereign state" is a country under international law, this is why Serbia disputes in international law that Kosovo is a "state". When it says "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law" it is fairly obvious that it is in the context of a 'sovereign state' as a "A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system" Other states don't claim to exist under international law. Only sovereign states claim to exist under international law. I think it would be POV to describe Kosovo as a sovereign state in international law but it is not POV to portray Kosovo as a community living under a government aka "state". And to distinguish "state" from "sovereign state" I have proposed the status neutral term "politic state".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It has been discussed thoroughly for ages and many propositions have been made. No success.

How do you think we can help?

Just general mediation and guidance.

Summary of dispute by Neljack

I thank IJA for bringing this here, because it feels like we've been going round in circles and not making any progress. My position is that we cannot say that the Republic of Kosovo is a state because that is a "seriously contested assertion" and therefore not NPOV (see the sources that Danlaycock has helpfully provided). The current wording that it is a "partially recognised state" suggests that it is a state, albeit one that isn't recognised by some other states. Therefore I believe it violates NPOV.

It feels like we're often being talking past each other. One of the problems, I think, is the ambiguity of some of the words involved. For instance, IJA has argued that "state" means something quite different to "sovereign state", whereas I would say in this context it would usually be taken as meaning "sovereign state".

Compromise proposals I've made are:

• "The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a state by the majority of countries."
• "The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto independent country located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe. It is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world."

I've made a real effort to compromise and I believe others have made a good-faith effort too, but despite seeming close sometimes we've never managed to come to agreement.

Thanks, Neljack (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Danlaycock

The first sentence currently describes the Republic of Kosovo (RoK) as a "partially recognised state". The problem is that RS make clear that whether or not the RoK is a "state" is in dispute:

• "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law"
• "Kosovo is such an example. With 98 recognitions to date, it is impossible objectively to determine its legal status. For some it is a State, for others it is not."
• "...Kosvo's statehood does not seem to be disputed only on the basis of the absence of the consent of the parent state and lack of universally-granted recognition. It is also obvious that Kosovo does not satisfy all of the statehood criteria and that it was created not as a fully sovereign but rather as a protected state"
• "Before the number of recognitions was granted, it was clear that Kosovo was not a state. This is now unclear and remains unclear even after the Kosovo Opinion"
• "it is at least debatable whether Kosovo is a state"

The government of Serbia, which still claims the territory for its own, has argued that "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State". Many other states support Serbia on this position.

Since there is a dispute among sources whether the RoK is a state, WP:NPOV demands that we should not claim that it is without some sort of qualification to give WP:DUE weight to the alternative POV.

This argues that "'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories."

Britannica uses "self-declared independent country"

Other suggestions I have made are the more general, status neutral polity. TDL (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bobrayner

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

Summary of dispute by DIREKTOR

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

Summary of dispute by Cognoscerapo

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

Summary of dispute by Silvio1973

I have bumped in this discussion almost by chance but honestly I cannot resist to get into it. I must be very ignorant because in my eyes the issue here is very clear. Perhaps its semplicity is not to everyone's taste. And when it comes to the Balkans there is too much politics to make things simple.

The Republic of Kosovo (ROK) is at least a state with partial recognition. Very simplistically because over 100 states in the world recognised it (including three of the five countries of the UNSC). How can be proposed that the ROK is anything les than a state with partial (or limited) recognition. It is not a self-recognised state, such as the Republic of Northern Cyprus (should I remember the UN considers it as territory of the Republic of Cyprus under unlawful Turkish military occupation ?). Indeed, technically the ROK is even more recognised than the Republic of Taiwan, which is formally recognised only by a handful of (small) countries.

I respect the position of Serbia, but this position cannot be stronger than the position of over 100 countries considering Kosovo a sovereign country. Someone might claim there is the issue of OR in my approach. Well not less, that in the other proposed formulations.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo discussion

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

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)