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, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	8 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 9 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

Talk:Battle of the Somme

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Keith-264 on 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battle of the Somme#Anglophone monoglots (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs)
• Thomask0 (talk · contribs)
• Rjensen (talk · contribs)
• The ed17 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Battle of the Somme A difference of opinion about language in the lead section between User:Thomask0 and me has got a little entrenched and several other editors have joined in, generating more heat than light.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page until it went in circles and attracted other editors. My revert of a Thomask0 edit (there have been some frivolous edits of the article reverted by me and other editors in recent months) was reverted, re-reverted and representations of points of view eventually followed on the talk page, which have got nowhere. At present two more editors have joined in and The ed17 has intervened (warning me but not the others).

How do you think we can help?

Clarify with each editor that they are applying the same criteria re: edits and discussions, clarifying with each editor that Article layout priorities and due weight are being given and gaining a neutral opinion over good faith.

Summary of dispute by Thomask0

In my opinion, the dispute centers on the accuracy, style, and appropriate position in the article of certain points. The article is it stands at the time of the edit lock is pretty much as it should be as far as I'm concerned. Comparing it with the prior state, I have the following criticisms of the contested matter:

1. The contested matter makes an unsourced claim; namely that it is significant to the article's overall subject that certain English-only speakers are unable to access certain non-English documents. There is no mention of how many such people there are, nor who they may be, nor of why their language and/or cultural position is significant.
2. The above claim is made using extremely obscure phrasing -- "anglophone monoglots" -- obscure to the extent that the phrase has had to be wikilinked. The phrase in question produces only 500 hits on a General Google search, 53 on a Google Books search, and zero on a Google Ngram search. Given the size of Google's search bases, those numbers are extremely small. This problem is made worse by the fact that in the context of the matter concerned, the phrase "English-speakers" is a suitable and easily understood alternative.
3. Overall, even if the above two points were corrected, the contested matter itself is not sufficiently significant to merit a position in the article's lead. As it stands (with the material moved further down), the lead gives an accurate precis of the article's subject. Moving the contested material into a dedicated "Historiography" section, with removal of the obscure prose and either removal of unsourced propositions or provision of sources, solves the problem

Summary of dispute by The ed17

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

I am involved in this only in my capacity as an administrator. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of the Somme discussion

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

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't claim to know anything about the Battle of the Somme other than that it was part of World War One and was extremely bloody. I will state a few ground rules. Statements should be concise and civil, and should focus on article content, not conduct or contributors. What does each of the parties want with respect to the article? What sections of the article are involved, and what are the content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continuing in later rounds Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First statement by User:Keith-264 Thank you for taking the trouble. As it happens an assisted dialogue has reopened on the talk page, which promises to make this request redundant if the others agree. Perhaps you could drop in Talk:Battle of the Somme to see the state of play? Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:Thomask0 I agree with Keith, in that it might be worth a quick look towards the end of Talk:Battle_of_the_Somme#Recent_edit_warring where we may be converging on some kind of consensus. If further statements of opinion are needed, fair enough, but the aforementioned assisted discussion may obviate that. (And I reiterate Keith's vote of thanks for your help.)Thomask0 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon, unfortunately I have to rescind the above note about convergence. Apparently we are going to need your help after all. I've provided my editor's statement on the Talk page as requested. Just FYI, note that although this is pretty much a two-position dispute, there are three editors involved at this time; myself, Keith-264 above, and @Rjensen:. I thought I should point that out because only two of us are represented on this WP:DRN page. Thomask0 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:The ed17 Second statement by volunteer moderator I will restate my opening statement. I don't claim to know anything about the Battle of the Somme other than that it was part of World War One and was extremely bloody. I will state a few ground rules. Statements should be concise and civil, and should focus on article content, not conduct or contributors. What does each of the parties want with respect to the article? What sections of the article are involved, and what are the content questions? I don't see any reference in the current article to "Anglophone monoglots", which is a strange phrase in context anyway, since it refers to English-speakers, presumably who are not fluent in French or German, but it is itself just barely English, being partly Greek. Discussion should, in general, be here rather than on the article talk page, just so that it doesn't get all spread out. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Keith-264 The developments on the article talk page are what I thought I was asking for, when I requested dispute resolution and it seems pointless to continue here, since it looks like it's in the bag. If the others agree I'd like to withdraw the request. ["I don't see any reference in the current article to "Anglophone monoglots", which is a strange phrase in context anyway, since it refers to English-speakers, presumably who are not fluent in French or German, but it is itself just barely English, being partly Greek." Do you consider this to be fact or opinion? English is full of loan words.]Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Thomask0 I should say (with only the mildest trepidation :-) ) that I agree with Keith in that we were almost there and I don't object to him withdrawing the request. The reason you (Robert) can't find "anglophone monoglots" is simply because the page was locked mid-dispute, and it just happened to have been locked in a state where the phrase had been removed. You may already have noticed that since I see you struck out your comment about not being able to find it. Thomask0 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Rjensen One of the problems of the article is the thin attention it pays to the British Empire. I propose to expand the historiography to include the Australian and Canadian experiences and interpretations. Let me quote two standard histories of Australia and Canada: Australia: “the passage of time, the reduction of the British and German empires to mere memory, the spread of pacifism, mass immigration, and participation the disastrous Vietnam War, together began to extinguish the view that the great war, however horrible, and been worth the cost....By the 1990s it was a commonplace that the war had been a tragic and purposeless waste, and Australia's part of it a case of mistaken willingness by Australians the fight other people's wars. Many scholars shared those views [but not all]." The Oxford Companion to Australian History (2001) p 699 Canada: "those trapped in the slaughter of the Somme...had only contempt for those who sent them. Their disdain has been transmitted to the rest of us by war poetry and memoirs, and by generations of derivative textbooks. To soldiers, too, the difference between a good and a bad shell was the butcher's bill: the Somme was bad indeed. (The book goes on to attack Haig's profound mistakes.) Desmond Morton, When You are Numbers Up: a Canadian soldier in the First World WarIs (1993) pp 153-4 Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:The ed17 Third statement by volunteer moderator Discussion about the content dispute that is within the scope of this dispute resolution should take place here, not on the article talk page. While discussion on the talk page may be useful, it will not be taken into account in trying to reach consensus via moderated discussion. If all of the editors agree that this discussion has been resolved, this dispute will be closed as resolved. Otherwise we should continue discussion here, not on the article talk page. I am copying the statement by Thomask0. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Threaded discussion in response to moderator's question - Threaded discussion not permitted here - Comment in own sectionRobert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Not sure about the protocol here; is it OK to comment or ask/answer questions within another editor's statement on this page? Assuming it is (feel free to move this if not): my feeling is that almost all of the dispute has been resolved, but one point remains to be concluded. I think the unresolved point concerns the "English-speaking world" caveat -- both that lack of French/German language, and "insularity" render this a controversy that is restricted to the "English-speaking world")-- Keith wants mentioned in the lead. As to the factual validity of that, I have no clue (although the "insularity" aspect sounds both implausible and difficult to defend). However, Rjensen, who I suspect is better informed than me, has pushed back on the caveat, saying that the "insularity" component is simply not true, and on the language side noting that it is common among history academics to have translation work done when needed. Pinging @Rjensen: to encourage him to clarify that on this page. Thomask0 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "... the Great War was seen by the vast majority of British people as a just and worthwhile war. There is evidence too, that such attitudes continued to hold sway in the immediate aftermath of the war." "There were of course exceptions." "The same is true of many war memoirs.... Why then did popular opinion undergo such a dramatic change?" "The dam finally burst in 1929." Forgotten Victory Sheffield, G. D. 2001, pp. 5-11 "By the 1920s and 1930s the Official Histories were no longer alone...." "The accounts of... witnesses... and participants.... Wider historical works too... helped to reinforce the great cultural mythology of the war as having wasted an entire generation of British manhood." [French, Churchill, Lloyd George] "Motivated in the main by self-justification, these works advanced, through their accusation and acrimony, this sense of large-scale loss and waste and blame." p. 2 Green, A. (2003). Writing the Great War: Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories 1915–1948. London: Frank Cass. ISBN 0-7146-8430-9. "... Moreover, although almost all of these [German sources] are accessible only to German-speakers.... (Foreword R Holmes p. 6) Sheldon, J. (2005). The German Army on the Somme 1914–1916 (Pen & Sword Military 2006 ed.). London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 1-84415-269-3. "English-language historians.... However their research is too often written from the perspective of one side only. It pays little or no attention to the sources available to the Germans...." Foreword: Strachan p. xiii "For monoglot scholars, this translation will be a boon beyond measure." p. xiv Humphries, M. O.; Maker, J. (2010). Germany's Western Front: Translations from the German Official History of the Great War. Waterloo Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-1-55458-259-4. Have these sources on the talk page been overlooked? Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I have nothing to rebut the above, so unless Rjensen wants to weigh in, I think Keith's "English-speaking" caveat should be considered justified. I'd give @Rjensen: the rest of today to respond. If he doesn't I think we're probably there. Even if he does, I personally think the above sound sufficient to permit mention of the "English-speaking" caveat in the Historiography section. But also, lacking any opposition, it sounds like we're good for it to be in the lead too. (However, we should stick to the agreed brevity and avoidance of obscure language.) Thomask0 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I think that Keith-264 badly misreads the historiography. Here are some examples: the source says "English speaking" but Keith-264 reads that "can not read German or French." My main point is that the German and the French sources do not discuss the failures or achievements or achievements of the British high command. They focus almost exclusively on the performance of the German and French armies, so they are of little use in evaluating the British. The whole point of this debate is evaluating the British. When a source says that the after the victory in 1918 the Great War had popular support, Keith-264 reads that is saying the Somme was not seen as a horrible disaster. Edmunds in the official British history that appeared in 1938 did not call the Somme a great victory (Simkins pp 19-20). By the 1930s (historians agree) the "donkeys" theme was dominant. The official Australian history made it explicit that the Somme was a terrible disaster. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (I don't know if I'm supposed to comment here, if not please move this to the talk page). Hi Rjensen - in my view the point made by the "revisionist school", and which can be found more or less in the Sheffield reference Keith posted above, is twofold. First, they observe that "evaluating the British" is a common approach from British historians, but necessarily an incomplete one. Second, the evaluation made by the French and Germans contains evidence about the correct interpretation of the British. To put it crudely, German sources saying "the Somme was a disaster for us" provide evidence that was nor previously included in the prevailing British interpretation (and which, coincidentally enough, supports the arguments this school of historians are making in reassessing the battle). The Land (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I'm really not equipped to adjudicate between the respective positions of Keith-264, and Rjensen, but the fact that there is a difference shows that we have a controversy about the controversy. To me that says this point -- "English-speaking world" yada yada -- simply does not belong in the lead. And in that respect I, as the least subject-matter qualified of the three of us, am in fact the *most* qualified to say what a non-expert would expect to see in the lead. The mere fact of the controversy -- that opinions differ on the historiography -- is a lesser matter, barely worthy of mention although I've already said I would not object to it being mentioned briefly. But the controversy over the controversy -- that the difference in opinion is in some way to do with an insular attitude and lack of English translations -- is to me, *an expert in being a non-expert*, utterly minor. So my vote would be to restrict the lead mention to the controversy's existence and, if required, the key players. Something like: "The battle has been the focus of controversy since 1916, over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in which are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George." (I'm only maintaining the three names there because Keith-264 inserted them. I don't really know who was prominent and, as a general reader looking at the lead and expecting to see information about the battle itself and not the arguments over the next 100 years, I don't really care. I know I can look to the Historiography section if I want more details.) Thomask0 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) What insular attitude? Look the word up in a dictionary, as I pointed out above it's not there as a pejorative term. Remember how as you tried to reword the sentence to increase precision, you added words, got your tenses tangled, committed pleonasm and used "controversy" twice? This often happens when we write using a small vocabulary and second-guess a hypothetical reader, which is why I'm picky about prose. A general readership is not necessarily ignorant or stupid and wikilinks and notes sections are available, to avoid long-winded explanations and digressions. I think that a note of caution in the Lead, that the battle is obscured by concerns local to the British and a lack of information about 2/3 of the participants, is unavoidable. "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect." How about this? Jensen is treating revisionist English-language writing about the battle as if it's definitive, when a comparative point of view is necessary to avoid an insular history of the battle, which ignores two of the three armies. Philpott (2009) has an aftermath chapter (15) pp. 539–594 on the early period ("remembrance") but then wanders into digression and the Franco-German experience ignored by the British revisionists. Chapter 17 (Memory fades) pp. 592–593 on AJP Taylor and the 60s zeitgeist then refers to Winter and Prost who see three overlapping "configurations". First: post war diplomatic and military history and a battle of the memoirs (much of it bent) and official histories intended to be useful for the post war armies. Second: 1960s everyman and anti-boss class. Third: The Somme as cultural phenomenon and social conflict. Pp. 619 [The Somme] ...Dyer has suggested, "deeply buried under its own aftermath." Pp. 622 "These are all British myths: an Anglo-Saxon Battle of the Somme, not the complete three empire encounter." The point of the quotations is to cite what I'm on about rather than making inferences about hypothetical readers and their literacy. The quotations show that at least some relatively recent (post revisionist) historians think that English-language histories of the battle are incomplete, without a history of the German and French battles (and the place of the Somme in the general Allied offensive of 1916) - it's not just me riding a hobby-horse. Compare the depth of information available about the Germans Second Battle of Artois here, because of the Canadian translation of Der Weltkrieg for 1915 and Sheldon. Keith-264, it's a shame at this late stage that you indulge in less than useful criticism of personal writing style. So far I've been discussing what should be said in the lead section, not (yet) how it should be said. If there is indeed a problem it's that I'm trying to squeeze into the lead something which doesn't really belong there. Given your snide remarks, it's probably easiest if I return to my original and preferred position: I object to this controversy being mentioned at all in the lead. If you and the other editors disagree, you can argue over what goes in there. But once again, your uncooperative and insulting attitude is serving to move us away from, not towards consensus. Thomask0 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) We've been discussing a form of words, having agreed to put something back in the Lead, so what else is there to discuss? "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect." I addressed your point about the personalities by taking them out. My comments were not snide, they were sincere and I'm disappointed that you think different, particularly given that I owned them. This often happens when we write using a small vocabulary and second-guess a hypothetical reader, which is why I'm picky about prose. If I'd wanted to hurt your feelings, I would have insinuated that you have a fat arse.Keith-264 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "...a form of words, having agreed to put something back in the Lead...". Well you've successfully managed to convince me that that is a bad idea after all; I've updated my third statement accordingly. (I hope my use of "that that" isn't me committing yet more pleonasm.) Thomask0 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Fnar! No but successfully managed is. To reiterate, I was describing my reasons for the form of words I suggested, bearing in mind your point of view about the names and explaining why. I'm not Inspector 264 of the Pleaonasm Police and claim no precedence, only the right to an opinion. It's 12:57 p.m. here so I'll look in tomorrow morning. Keith-264 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Keith-264 I think that the deterioration of the article was temporarily arrested by the edit lock but to give a little to get a little, I would support the return of a form of words like this to the Lead "The battle is controversial [or has been controversial since 1916] in the English-speaking world, over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in which are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George." rather than "This battle was and continues to be controversial over its significance and necessity. At the center of the controversy are the actions of Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George." because it ignores the insularity of the controversy, was and continues mixes tenses, center is in American English and controversial appears twice. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Thomask0 (Someone -- I'm guessing Robert McClenon -- inserted text here on my behalf. I think they were copying from my list-of-questions summary, but they only copied part of it. Given more recent discussions, I've replaced that insert with my current views.) The century-old and still ongoing historiographical controversy should remain exclusively in the Historiography section. It is not appropriate to be mentioned in the Article's lead, nor is there any need to mention it in the Aftermath section, which should be reserved for, as the name suggests, the aftermath of the battle. Mention of an alleged "English-speaking world" caveat should be deleted unless more rigorous backup can be provided. Even if such backup is provided, the point should be made without recourse to the obscure phrase: "anglophone monoglots". Thomask0 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Rjensen Third statement by User:The ed17 Fourth statement by volunteer moderator In looking over the lede section of the current version of the article, I don't see a statement about the interpretation of the battle being controversial. Is the question about the lede whether to add such a paragraph and what its wording should be? If so, is the controversy in particular in English-speaking countries and/or in historiography in the English language (as opposed to in other languages such as French or German)? If so, why is the controversy limited to English historiography, other than that the individuals mentioned were British? Also, there has been a spelling question raised. Is there any objection to slapping a British English tag on the talk page and enforcing British spelling?  Done Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I would like to focus first on the lede section (top-down), and to defer any changes to Historiography and Aftermath until the lede is resolved, unless other editors would prefer to go bottom-up. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Keith-264 The word insular can have pejorative connotations but it is being used literally here; much of the history written in German and French has not been translated. If it had (like some of it in Duffy, Philpott and Sheldon for e.g.) or not been lost in 1945, the context in which English-language writing has taken place would be different. The Butchers and bunglers revisionist school would have given way to a historical view of the battle. Despite the changes made by research into contemporary records of the BEF and the beginning made in resurrecting the role of the German and French armies in the last three decades, the pop-history view of the battle is still probably the most widespread in the English-speaking world and I think it helps to refer to this in the lead. The French and Russians had been fighting battles like this since 1914 and 1 July wasn't exceptional for the French except for the magnitude of their success, which with the British success in the south, means that the first day wasn't an unmitigated success for the Germans [but a big defeat]. This can be quite startling for readers (according to several who have commented on it). Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Thomask0 There's a tiny danger we're going over well-trodden ground here, and re-hashing points that Keith, Rjensen and I have discussed in depth on the article's Talk page. However, to clarify: The reason you can't see the statement about the controversy in the article is because the article was locked mid-dispute. See an earlier revision for an example of the contested matter (last paragraph in the lead) The lead aspect of the dispute concerned three things: whether to mention the controversy at all in the lead (I think we now all agree we should); whether the idea was valid that the controversy was restricted to the English-speaking world (this is still disputed); and whether the length and prose style was suitable (I think we've agreed on this too). I have no objection to having this tagged as British English. Focusing first on the lead seems sensible. Now you (Robert) ask: "If so, is the controversy in particular in English-speaking countries and/or in historiography in the English language (as opposed to in other languages such as French or German)? If so, why is the controversy limited to English historiography, other than that the individuals mentioned were British?" Those are still open questions. Keith believes the English-speaking caveat is both true and significant. Rjensen has said he doesn't think it's valid. For my part, I really don't know. I do think that the caveat Keith is making is slightly stronger than this being an English-speaker issue. I think he's saying it's a function of British insularity -- maybe not as strong as a "Little Englander" accusation, but heading in that direction (Keith?). Thomask0 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Debate about "donkeys and lions" is exclusively in the English language materials ( British and Australian, and also American), Because it deals exclusively with the British generals. The debate does not concern the German and French generals. The German and French writers pay much less attention to the Somme in general. They ignore the British role for the most part. To be specific: no one has quoted any German or French source that deals with the "donkeys and lions" debate we are now engaged in.Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) For a German view of Australian soldiery in 1916 see here Battle of Fromelles. If you don't read German or French how do you know? [1] you could count the pages on the Sommeschlacht here. You could also point out that with bigger armies, which had been fighting mass warfare since 1914, it's inevitable that the debut of the British continental-sized army in 1916 wouldn't be the shock to them as it was to the British. To be specific: you agree that it is an insular debate and that access to French and German writing about the other 2/3 of the participants, necessarily puts that debate into a comparative context. (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits) "At the end of the year the German intelligence officers concluded that 'the gigantic dimensions of the Battle of the Somme have put the events of the war before 1 July 1916 so much in the shade that in Britain they reckon that the real war began only from that time." "Most of the front-line soldiers too are extremely proud of what they have achieved so far. Again and again we hear from prisoners the self-satisfied question: 'Don't you think we have done very well?'" p. 328 (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits) Duffy, C. (2006). Through German Eyes: The British and the Somme 1916 (Phoenix 2007 ed.). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 978-0-7538-2202-9. (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits) This was one edit.Keith-264 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Rjensen Copied to here by moderator One of the problems of the article is the thin attention it pays to the British Empire. I propose to expand the historiography to include the Australian and Canadian experiences and interpretations. Let me quote two standard histories of Australia and Canada: Australia: “the passage of time, the reduction of the British and German empires to mere memory, the spread of pacifism, mass immigration, and participation the disastrous Vietnam War, together began to extinguish the view that the great war, however horrible, and been worth the cost....By the 1990s it was a commonplace that the war had been a tragic and purposeless waste, and Australia's part of it a case of mistaken willingness by Australians the fight other people's wars. Many scholars shared those views [but not all]." The Oxford Companion to Australian History (2001) p 699 Canada: "those trapped in the slaughter of the Somme...had only contempt for those who sent them. Their disdain has been transmitted to the rest of us by war poetry and memoirs, and by generations of derivative textbooks. To soldiers, too, the difference between a good and a bad shell was the butcher's bill: the Somme was bad indeed. (The book goes on to attack Haig's profound mistakes.) Desmond Morton, When You are Numbers Up: a Canadian soldier in the First World WarIs (1993) pp 153-4 Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:The ed17 Fifth statement by volunteer moderator Threaded discussion is not permitted. This is a moderated discussion, not an article talk page. Threaded comments will be moved if feasible, and hatted if moving them is not feasible. Commenting on other editors is not permitted. Comments on other editors will be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I will be asking you to repeat some of which you said in the fourth round, because the fourth round exchange became chaotic. Exactly what changes do each of you propose to the lede section of the article? Please be concise and propose specific wording. Is there agreement that something can be said to the effect of: "This battle is controversial, at least in English-language historiography" ...? Is the reason why the battle is more controversial in English than in French or German because it was the first battle in which the British and their Commonwealth allies had deployed the sort of enormous army that the French and Germans had already deployed in 1914 and 1915? Should that reason be mentioned? Do the participants in this discussion agree to refrain from editing the article while moderated discussion is in progress? If so, can we request the locking administrator to unlock the article to permit other editors to edit, and to permit the moderator to insert any changes resulting from consensus? Since we are deferring discussion of the other sections of the article, does that mean that discussion of British Commonwealth participation can be deferred? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Keith-264 Apologies Robert, we're all new to this. "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect." This will satisfy me as regards the Lead. I have conceded that a "Historiography" section has been added over my objections and that my hands have been tied and the same goes for "anglophone monoglots" (can anyone offer two words or fewer which means the same thing?). There is commentary in English-language sources that has been cited, which puts the battle in a comparative context, notes that mass casualties were unsurprising to the continentals by mid-1916 and that much of this context appears in German and French writing which has not been translated. Writers in English have been cited and quoted, some of whom are French- or German-speakers and have added detail on the French and German experiences, from official histories, monographs and archives, which have a bearing on the British experience and writing on it since. (Comment in the Lead about this was an early casualty of the revert frenzy.) Rjensen [An editor] has added other concerns about the article since discussion began; I am willing to discuss them wherever and am sure that other people are too, which might make the talk page a better venue. I suggest that a general inquiry on the milhist notice board, for opinion on Australian and Canadian writing about the battle and whether it is satisfactorily represented will help. [all one edit] Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Thomask0 I don't believe anything should be changed in the Article from how it was in its recently locked state (with the possible exception of some rationalization of the Historiography section) I don't object to the locking editor being asked to unlock and I agree to refrain from editing during this moderated discussion I don't object to the discussion of British Commonwealth participation being deferred Thomask0 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Rjensen Fifth statement by User:The ed17 Sixth statement by volunteer moderator Can we get agreement that the lede can include: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Details of the controversy can be discussed in Historiography (and are deferred). Do the participants in this discussion agree to refrain from editing the article while moderated discussion is in progress? If so, can we request the locking administrator to unlock the article to permit other editors to edit, and to permit the moderator to insert any changes resulting from consensus? Are there any other issues about the lede section? Sixth statement by User:Keith-264 "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated. Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I undertake not to edit the page except via a moderator for the duration.Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Thomask0 I'm unsure of what the state of resolution is. The questions being asked in this sixth round seem almost identical to some of those of the fifth round. My answers are therefore pretty much what they were in that round: I do not agree that the proposed statement should be added to the lead; I don't believe its content is significant enough to be in the lead at all. Overall, in the context of the dispute, I don't believe anything should be changed in the Article from how it was in its recently locked state (with the possible exception of some rationalization of the Historiography section, which we are deferring) I don't object to the locking editor being asked to unlock and I agree to refrain from editing during this moderated discussion I believe that the lead could benefit from further simplification, but that's unrelated to and of much lower importance than this dispute Thomask0 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Rjensen Sixth statement by User:The ed17 Seventh statement by volunteer moderator I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no. We have three options. First, Keith-264 can agree (concede) to leave the lede as is, and we can move on to discussion of the rest of the article. Second, the two editors, Keith-264 and Thomask0, can agree that the question of the inclusion of that sentence in the lede can be decided by a Request for Comments. In that case, either we can proceed to other sections of the article, or we can close moderated discussion. I realize that discussion of other sections of the article may be dependent on the issue of the lede. Third, if the parties do not agree to an RFC, I can do a general close of moderated discussion. Those are the three choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by User:Keith-264 "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated. These amendments are essential if the quality of the article is to be maintained. If necessary I will abide by a majority decision obtained by a request for comments. Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by User:Thomask0 There is a fourth option. I would not object to the addition of the following to the lead: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect" Failing that, I agree to the request of and would abide by WP:RFC. I note, however, that until only very recently, we had three editors involved, in which case WP:3 could have been a simpler and quicker route to resolution. Is it worth waiting a day or two, or the moderator pinging that third editor in case he is only temporarily absent? Thomask0 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by User:Rjensen I Support "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) As for Day 1, I'm not sure who would call it a defeat for the Germans. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by volunteer moderator

I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no.

It is now proposed that the mention of English-language historiography be deleted, and that a statement be added that the battle has been controversial since 1916 over its necessity, significance, and effect. That sounds, to the moderator, who hasn't read the historiography, like a compromise. Will the editors agree to: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect"?

Third Opinion has been mentioned. The Third Opinion procedure is not applicable after moderated dispute resolution begins, but the opinions of other editors are welcome.

We now have at least three options. First, if the editors agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language, that becomes the language of the lede. Second, an RFC can be published. Third, I can do a General Close. I am optimistic that the third option will not be necessary.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Keith-264

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" This is the minimum I will accept.Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Thomask0

I agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language. Thomask0 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Rjensen

Yes, I can agree with "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by volunteer moderator

In the absence of agreement as to whether "especially in English-language writing" should be included in the sentence about the controversy over the battle, I have opened a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Please provide your arguments in favor of or against inclusion of the phrase as the rationale for your Support or Oppose !votes. (I wasn't able to provide those arguments. I am not an expert on the historiography of World War One.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Keith-264

Even a brief acquaintance with the non-English-language writing about the battle where passages have been translated or second-hand commentary has been written by the likes of Hew Strachan Chichele Professor of the History of War who even uses the term "monoglots", Sheldon (a German speaker), Sheffield etc, demonstrates that the controversy about the battle is peculiarly English. Ignoring this basic fact when it hangs over English-language-writing like a shroud, is mistaken and will add to the deterioration in the quality of the article. I notice that the passage has already been edited and some of the sense lost. Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Thomask0

Oppose: The caveat that the historiographical controversy (over necessity etc.) exists "especially in English-language writing", while not necessarily false, is itself controversial. Even in the context of this dispute, sources have been offered to back both positions in what is effectively a "controversy over the controversy". And so if the "English-language" claim over the historiographical controversy is mentioned, then accuracy would demand we also mention that the "English-language" claim is itself controversial. In other words, we'd need something like the following:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. It is claimed by some commentators [citations] that the controversy exists especially in English-language writings, however that claim itself is controversial [counter citations]."

That serves to underline the fact that the "English-language" claim is not a claim about the Battle of the Somme (e.g. "Lots of men died"). It is not even a claim about a claim about the Battle (e.g. "With respect to the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over necessity, significance and effect"). It is, instead, a claim about a claim about a claim about the Battle ("With respect to the controversy over necessity, significance and effect of the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over the significance of the lack of English translations of French and German documents"). Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, that is clearly too detailed a point, on too minor and editorially controversial an issue, to merit inclusion in the lede. If it needs to appear, then it (and the controversy around it) can certainly do so elsewhere in the Article. I would not object, however, to inclusion in the lede of the non-controversial, more significant, and clear-cut assertion that the necessity etc of the battle has been and remains controversial. The previously proposed wording is an example of what I would support:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect".

Thomask0 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just to pre-empt a possible misconception. It is of course conceivable that the bulk of commentary on the Somme has indeed been produced in English, given the dominance of that language in general. And so in that case it may literally be the case that the historiographical controversy exists "especially in English-language writing", but only in the way that commentary on anything in which the UK or US have a prominent role will stand a good chance of existing "especially in English-language writing". If that were all that were at stake then while the "English-language writing" caveat may be true, it would be trivial and unnecessary. It would be like saying "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in writing by authors over the age of 18, over its necessity, significance and effect." But of course that is not the point at stake here. This specific aspect of the dispute is really whether the overall historiographical controversy (over necessity etc) is in some way represented differently by British commentators when compared against their French/German counterparts specifically because those of the former who can read only English are unable to get access to certain non-English writings. My position is that that assertion, however stated, is too controversial and too minor to go into the article's lede. Thomask0 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Rjensen

The German and French authors do not say much one way or the other about the British battle. Somme did not have a major impact on the psychology of Germans or the French (or the Americans). The battle was a major psychological shock to the British (and to the Australians and Canadians) from which the civilians never wavered--it was and is today a central element in their interpretation of the horrors of the war. The revisionists argue the generals did the best they could and therefore are not donkeys. That argument has not resonated very well with public. The idea that the British generals in 1916 2 years into the war still did not understand modern warfare is a shocking admission by Revisionist historians; add to it the notion that the same generals failed to use their new gained knowledge for two more years, and the British generals look pretty stupid. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by volunteer moderator

An RFC is in progress as to the qualifying phrase about the language of historiography. We do not need to discuss that issue further on this board. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other issues about this article that need discussion, or should I close the dispute resolution as about to be resolved by the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 - Since the article is not protected at this time, you can revert the edit (the removal of a flag), but use an appropriate edit summary and discuss on the article talk page. If the editor who removed the flag wants to discuss, we can add this to the topics for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by User:Keith-264

OK but User:Omnisome‎ has committed what looks like a nuisance edit, can we remove it or do we go through you? Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Twobells on 12:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding .27International Co-Production.27 Issue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Twobells (talk · contribs)
• Drmargi (talk · contribs)
• Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Battlestar Galactica 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by the numerous legitimate citations, editors have employed increasingly desperate measures to prevent the article reflecting that. They have employed Original Research, disputed straight forward citations and after extensive discussion refuse to be guided to neutrality and revert any edit that includes citations confirming the show was a UK-US international production. One editor has then taken upon themselves to follow my edits around wikipedia onto another Anglo-American TV co-production and started reverting long-standing consensual articles there also.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Everything, talk history discussion, users page discussion and 3rd party discussion including admin. I agreed with admin to come to DR to resolve this nasty situation before it becomes even worse. I admit to stupidly losing my temper and committed along with other editors 3RR at one point, luckily admin agreed I was working towards article neutrality rather than being NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that DRN moderators can review the evidence and determine a solution as discussion is getting nowhere, I wish the article to reflect the UK's contribution as reflected by the citations, not NOR and that's it. Not a lot seemingly but one impossible to resolve without moderation it seems. I would also like to get a policy ruling at some point on international co productions and how they are presented on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by DrMargi

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

Summary of dispute by Drovethrughosts

Your intention of what exactly you want in the article is still very unclear, which makes this difficult to resolve. When you added the co-production content to the article, I did not disagree, I simply tweaked it for the better ([2][3]). You talk about NPOV, but you continually tried to push Sky1 and the UK's involvement as if it were more than the main series producer, Universal Television, by always placing their names first, giving the impression of more importance, which is false ([4][5]). As long as you're fine with this version of the article (which mentions the co-production, but in factual manner), we should be good. Other notes: the UK is not country of origin with the U.S. (though I'm still uncertain if you're still fighting for this), because the UK or Sky1 holds no copyright to this series in any way–the copyright holder to BSG is Universal, which I've said several times to you, but you never acknowledge this piece of information in the previous discussions. As for the lead, the only way for it to read "is a co-production television series" (or whatever wording you want) would be if the Sky1's involvement was for the entire series run, but it wasn't (it was one season out of four). Anything else would be giving more credit where it isn't due. On a personal note, I'm going on vacation for a week in two days, so I don't plan on any further involvement with this. I've said everything I've had to say on subject, all my comments can be read at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#US/UK co-production revisited and Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding 'International Co-Production' Issue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say consensuses has been reached just yet, because I am not in favor of it saying co-production in very first sentence. The series is of American origin, thus that's how it should be described. It can be in a separate sentence like I how I had originally, which would read something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". The UK is listed in the infobox under "first show in" and Sky1 could be added as a producer with the seasons it produced in parentheses; however, the UK does belong in country of origin. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twobells

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

I must say that you Drovethrughosts have been the more reasonable editor and that it is my belief we can work together. Actually what I want is simple and always has been, the attempted sophistry has never come from my side, essentially it is extremely straight forward, that like all other wiki co-production tv shows the info-box and lede reflect the contribution, that's it, nothing confusing about that and never has been. The issue isn't about copyright, the issue is about international co productions, in that production companies produce a tv show together as reflected by the citations and the info-box which is standard wiki practice on all international co-production TV shows. I have never wanted to push one network over another, all I've ever wanted is the article to reflect the citations, that BSG 2004 originally was a Anglo-American co production. Yes, the lede should read 'co-production' not mash-up country abbreviations like 'UK-US' and have UK, US in the info-box (that is purely alphabetical not pov!) However, I am more than happy for the info box to read 'US' first if thats the issue? Twobells (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• note, it looks like consensus has been reached with one editor at this very late stage, it is my hope that Drmargi can agree, resolving the issue. Twobells (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production discussion

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

Coordinator's comments: Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Please refrain from discussing the case until such time as if and when a volunteer chooses to accept the case and opens it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteer's comments

Hello, I'm pcfan500. I accept this case. pcfan500talk|my contribs 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the evidence, I think that maybe User:Twobells's addition of the fact that the show was cancelled should be referenced with a reliable source. Don't re-add it until you have a reliable resource. References are required on Wikipedia. pcfan500talk|my contribs 10:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any POV pushing occurred, just some unsourced edits. I agree with Twobell's idea of putting the TV studios in alphabetical order (this improves the flow).

Suggestions

• Twobells, you keep saying that the show was cancelled. Please give a source. Don't re do the edit. Just reply with the source and I will tell you if it's fine.
• It doesn't matter with putting whichever TV names first. It does not really give an impression of importance or violate NPOV.
• Drmargi, you haven't given a summary of the dispute; please do so. Thanks.
• Please reply here with suggestions or what you think about these. Remember that dispute resolution is about compromise. pcfan500talk|my contribs 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The show being cancelled or ending is not a problem, I have no idea where that idea came from or how you viewed that as an issue, as it was never mentioned here. Production companies are usually listed per credit order, like everyone else in the infobox (cast, producers, etc.); thus should be consistent. And yes, being listed above another does imply more importance, that's why we list actors per their billing order and not alphabetical. I feel my comprise above if the best way to go, as it adds what Twobells wants, but presents it in the most factual way possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, User:Drovethrughosts, yes, we will list them per billing order, as is common with movies. We wont be adding the fact that the show is cancelled unless we have a source (WP:No original research). Reply back if you agree. And I would like User:Twobells to respond as I haven't heard from this user regarding the possible compromises.

Given the above, I have contacted TransporterMan and requested he review the comments and competence of the volunteer for this case. Pcfan500 is an editor of less than three months' experience, far too soon to be handling a case such as this, which should have been declined. His apparent inability to understand the nature of the issue at hand, much less to see that Twobells has both misstated consensus and has filed this case in an attempt to get around consensus on the article, both of which are sufficient cause to close the case, is extremely troubling. Moreover he appears unaware of the practices regarding discussion of editors v. the subject, and has done nothing to remove Twobells' personal attacks in the filing. Finally, he/she appears to think they can simply issue mandates as to what will be done, not act as a mediator indicates he/she is not competent to handle this case. I will not participate in this discussion under the current conditions, nor will I be bound by any outcome resulting from it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I will leave this case and I will gain more experience before coming back, OK? pcfan500talk|my contribs 01:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: I note the volunteer's withdrawal and will seek a new volunteer. Please discontinue all further discussion (except at the article talk page) until if and when a new volunteer takes the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) PS: If Drmargi intends to participate here, it would encourage a replacement volunteer to take the case if s/he would make a summary in the space provided above. I did not mean to exclude that by asking for discussion to cease. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by replacement moderator

I will be taking over moderation of this dispute. I have no particular knowledge of this show; it is the job of the participants to inform me about the show and the issues. I have no special authority or power, and cannot resolve the dispute, but have the job of trying to help the participants resolve the dispute. (If you want the moderator to take "your side", dispute resolution does not work that way.) I will insist that participants discuss content and not other contributors, and that participants be civil and concise. Without those preconditions, this case cannot be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have some opening questions. I understand that there is a dispute about whether the show should be listed as US, or as US-UK. Would each participant please state what their opinion is, and why they hold that opinion? It appears that there may be an issue about whether the show was cancelled. Is there an issue? If so, will each participant please state what their position is?

Are there any other issues that require moderated discussion?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Twobells

Thanks for your help Robert.

Primary 3rd party, secondary, and tertiary sources all confirm that BSG 2004 was a US-UK co-production, that the country of origin is the US and UK as reflected by the source material, Sky1 co-produced season 1, season 4 and the spin-off 'Razor'. I include the citations here:

References

I wish the article to read like this:

Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is (I agree with Drovthrughosts re WP:TVLEAD) a military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise. The show was developed by Ronald D. Moore and co-produced by NBC-Universal TV and Sky1 as a re-imagining of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica television series created by Glen A. Larson.

'UK' would be added to the info box after 'US' and Drovethrughosts and I will pen a section on 'Production', laying out the details of the production showing the contribution made by each network as (very unusually) the article has no 'Production' section. Also, while there is a single mention of Sky1 being the first country to broadcast the show (part of the co-production agreement) there is no reference anywhere in the article referring to Sky1 and the networks production contribution. Unfortunately, the disagreement came about when WP:NOR was employed referring to entirely un-sourced 'copyright' and 'Berne Convention' claims suggesting that the show was purely an 'American' production while numerous external sources and other articles exist state the show was an international co-production. Subsequently, in the article only the 'USA' is mentioned as 'country of origin' and any sources disproving that have been reverted. However, standard policy dictates that the 'country of origin' is the country that produces the show, in the case of international co-productions both countries are listed, usually in the info-box and the word 'co-production' is used in the first sentence leaving out either country; however, on some articles either 'Anglo-American' or 'UK-US' are used (the 'UK' comes before the 'S' alphabetically and is not bias) and I have absolutely no issue with 'US' being listed first.
,
Until we have consensus I suggest adding WP:CONLIMITED and POV check to the article and NPOV-section after the word 'American' to ensure article neutrality, hopefully the tags will be removed once the article is improved.

Also, somehow an editor has made the assumption in good faith that there is a question over the show being cancelled, I have no issue with that either way, as far as I know the show came to it's conclusion due to cost and was wound up.

Comment on content, not on contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In closing, unfortunately the discussion on the article talk page has moved from achieving consensus to Tendentious Editing. In that 'One who deletes the cited additions of others (See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) Editors delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.' There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from an editor before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Twobells (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

First statement by User:Drmargi

Some of us are working gobs, and can't hang out on Wikipedia all day. I've just seen this for the first time, and have not been given an opportunity to weigh in, nor will I have time until quite late this evening Pacific time. I find it inappropriate that we're moving on to round two and declaring agreement before I've even had a chance to read, much less respond to what's been posted. I request the opportunity to do so, particularly given the tiny window of time that's passed since the other two editors posted, before any agreement on anything is determined. --Drmargi (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement:

There are two related issues:

• The question of the origins of Battlestar Galactica (BSG) for the purposes of referring to the show in narrative.
• The question of the country of origin for purposes of identification in the infobox.

There is long-standing, stable consensus of some years that BSG is an American show produced by Universal Television (now known as NBC Universal) for the USA network (mini-series) and SciFi (SyFy) channel (both owned by NBC) on American television. Its first season included some limited financial participation by the British network Sky1 in exchange for right of first broadcast of the first season of episodes, after which Sky1 had syndication rights, as did Space in Canada and a sizable number of other channels world-wide. The recent attempt to represent the show's five seasons as an international co-production based on Sky1 having made up the difference between the funding Universal is ready to provide and what the producers needed to produce the first season (and only the first season) of the show the way they wanted (I have a source for this but have to find it online) entirely mis-represents the origins of the show. BSG is an American television show whose first season was produced with the participation of Sky1, which can be, and has been, noted in the lede of the article. Its country of origins, as Drovethrughosts has detailed below, is the United States of America. That is noted in the credits of each episode, and the infobox should identify the country of origin as the U.S. and only the U.S. per long-standing consensus. There is no foundation for change, and characterization of the five-season series as an international co-production based on Sky's limited funding of the first season is both inaccurate and misleading, grossly overstating the the short term, limited involvement of Sky1. Identifying the UK as the country of origins (much less use of UK-US on the specious ground of it being in alphabetical order) is wrong. Period.

The effort to make these changes has been presented as adding some sort of equity or balance to the article, and to somehow remove POV editing is absurd. In fact, the opposite is true. The filing editor has attempted this kind of change in at least three other articles, with consensus clearly in opposition each time, and seems to be interested in using these articles to press a specific agenda. BSG is not an Anglo-American show; it is an American show with some short-term, limited term participation of Sky1 which should be entirely addressed in narrative using language indicating show was produced with the participation of or in association with Sky1 (followed by a parenthetic note regarding it being limited to season 1) is acceptable. The proposed language, removing mention of BSG as an American show is not acceptable, nor is any reference to the UK in the infobox.

There is precedent for handling BSG in this way. There are a sizable number of British television programs produced by ITV or the BBC in collaboration with the US network PBS for the Masterpiece anthology series, with WGBH's (the station which produces Masterpiece) Rebecca Eaton listed as an executive producer; see for example Downton Abbey with ITV and The Paradise with the BBC. PBS and Eaton are identified as a producing network and an executive producer in the credits of each season, a far more comprehensive role than that of Sky1 in the production of BSG. In the articles for these shows, each is described as a a British series produced in collaboration with PBS, Eaton is listed as an executive producer in the infobox and the country of origin is the UK. In each of these shows, the involvement of PBS is far more significant and is for the entire run of the series (in her book, Eaton describes the process by which PBS was approached by ITV as a potential co-producer of Downton Abbey), yet the shows are still described as British since the primary production company, Carnival for ITV in the case of Downton, is located in the UK, and is physically responsible for the production. This accurately and proportionally represents the participation of PBS with no POV pushing. In the case of BSG, NBC Universal and David Eik's production company, both incorporated in the U.S. are responsible for the physical production of BSG, and per MOS-TV, BSG is an American show, with a country of origin the U.S. and only the U.S.

We are here because one editor and only one editor wishes to push the POV that any limited participation by a British entity makes the show an international co-production, and the country of origin UK-US, a proposition for which there has been no support by other editors.

The present/past tense is a minor issue, limited to pointy editing. We use literary present tense to refer to shows that have been canceled, an issue that is not disputed, so the MOS resolves that problem.

As a side note: In the run-up to this filing and in the days since, I have been subjected to a number of personal insults, mischaracterization of my motives, and general assumption of bad faith by one participant. I request that the moderator be very clear that the level of abusive editing by this participant is not acceptable here. I will only be party to, and thereby respect the outcomes of this process, if all parties remain civil and refrain from the kind of sweeping bad-faith editing seen in the last several weeks. If that cannot be accomplished, I will contact the two administrators who levied recent blocks and request further such action.

I also wish to reiterate my dismay that the moderator, for whom I otherwise have great respect, moved ahead to what he terms "round two" in a matter of a couple of hours, before I was given an opportunity to participate in this round of comments. As I noted above, which I stopped to do when I was taking a brief break at work, some of us work; I am a professional, and I work long, demanding days with irregular hours (I worked 12 hours today), and that must be respected in this process. I should not be excluded because of the time zone in which I work, and the time demands of my job, but rather should have my status as a volunteer with finite time to respond respected. I request this statement be considered in the notes below, before I make any statement in what he terms "round two". --Drmargi (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Drovethrughosts

That new lead you wrote is fine, however, it should read "is", not "was" per, WP:TVLEAD (which I've linked you to and told you about several times). I'd rather omit "co-production" or US/UK is the opening, as I've said several times: Sky1 only co-produced a single season; if they co-produced the entire series alongside Universal, I'd be 100% fine with it saying that (because it would be factual), but that is not the case with this series. It should be noted what season(s) Sky1 produced in the lead, otherwise, it gives the impression it produced the entire series, which is false and definitely not a neutral POV. The UK is already in the infobox under "first shown in", they are not country of origin because the series did not originate there, it originated in the U.S. and Universal holds the copyright to the series per the end credits and the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under), which literally defines "country of origin" as country of first publication (not to be confused with air date) which is the U.S. (again, per the series end credits). Anything else is OR unless you can provide a source that specifically states otherwise; the sources you provide say nothing of this, so taking away that co-production = country of original is WP:SYNTH. In all the many years I've edited TV series article, I've never seen a TV series article state "is a co-production television series", the country of origin is always used to describe it in the lead. Or, point to a guideline saying otherwise. My preferred version of the lead would basically be what it is now, but just adding a sentence about the production companies, including Sky1's co-production of the first season. And infobox additions would be Sky to the production companies with the season(s) they produced in parenthesis. Can we please just end this headache... Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is a response to what Twobells added to his original comment: I'm sorry, but the series end credits themselves and copyright laws are not "unsourced". You place things in quotes like I'm making them up, do you not know what the Berne Convention is? I will supply you with the link yet again: [6]. It's annoying to have to constantly repeat things over and over, but I understand this is for DNR, so here we go. "Country of origin" is defined by the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under, per the series end credit) as "The country of origin shall be considered to be, in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country", which is the U.S. as the credits specifically state "Country of first publication: United States of America" and giving sole copyright attribution to Universal. That is as official as you can get and any external sources by some journalist do not trump something such as official as that. Again, it is WP:SYNTH to attribute limited funding as country of origin, because those sources do not specifically state anything regarding that. Drmargi, above, gives a perfect example regarding Downtown Abbey which is produced by Carnival Films in association with Masterpiece Theatre (PBS), but is of course only listed as British (which I would never argue to be American in any way); because it originates from the UK.

Second statement by replacement moderator

Okay. First, we are in agreement that the lede will refer to the show in the present tense. Second, please be concise. Please break up statements into paragraphs separated by blank lines so that the moderator can tell what is proposed text and what is rationale.

Do not even suggest the addition of tags to the show. The purpose of this dispute resolution is, among other things, to avoid tags.

Would each party please state what their position is about the national production status of the show, and, in a separate paragraph, what their reasoning is?

Is there an issue about cancellation of the show?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Drovethrughosts

What do you mean by "tags"?

The opening sentence of the lede would remain the same: Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is an American military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise.

Rationale: "American" because it's the country of origin, and that is how works are described. Not "Anglo-American" or "UK-US" because that is not accurate as the series was not equally produced between the two countries.

A sentence could be added to the lede regarding production companies, saying something like: The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season. A possible following sentence could state the series debuted in the UK first, which could be clarified because of Sky's co-production deal of the first season (with a citation).

Rationale: Some of this content is missing from the lede, such as the actual series premiere date (it just mentions the miniseries), and all of this info is factual. It mentions it debuted in the UK first in the Broadcast and release section, but never clarifies why it did, which is needed, as anyone would think "why would an American series debut in the UK first?".

More info regarding Sky's co-production is welcome to the article, as it's not mentioned, but needs to remain factual and NPOV (as in, not placing Sky1 in front or above Universal).

Cancellation? I seriously have no idea where pcfann500 got that from. It was never a topic of discussion here or on the talk page. The series ended, maybe the article could have more info about that, but, it's not a topic of discussion regarding this DNR. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Joan

– New discussion.

Filed by 189.8.107.196 on 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pope Joan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 189.8.107.196 (talk · contribs)
• Farsight001 (talk · contribs)
• Cuchullain (talk · contribs)
• 191.222.109.81 (talk · contribs)
• Kansas_Bear (talk · contribs)
• 177.76.41.164 (talk · contribs)
• Scolaire (talk · contribs)
• Wetman (talk · contribs)
• Ian.thomson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The fact that one Catholic pope in the Dark Ages would have been a woman in disguise (commonly referred to as Pope Joan) has always been a controversial one - but this article's non-neutral POV makes it seem like no such controversy exists, and gives the Catholic Church's current official position as a true, undispustable fact.

It's a fact that it was widely believed for centuries, including by catholics, that the female Pope had existed - a statue depicting her, labeled Pope Joan, has been displayed among other Pope statues in the Italy's Siena Cathedral until 1700 (when the then Pope ordered its removal); she is depicted in works of art, theatre and literature from all around Europe, and even though the Vatican has finally stated that she was only a fictitious legend, she continues to this day to attract the interest of millions around the world, including authors like Peter Stanford and Donna W. Cross who deffend she might have existed.

As controversial a topic as it is, the article on it should of course reflect that - but, as can be seen throughout all the article's history, it's been noted for years, by many different users, that its full content reflects purely the Catholic Church's POV and was anything but neutral. However, an active team of engaged editors has through the article's history always been very quick to counter-edit any such edits, threatening the dissonant voices with bans and until now preventing even a broader discussion regarding the neutrality of the article from taking place.

A neutral article needs at least mentioning who deffends her,what they argue, even if one then counterbalances each of them with supposed explanations and concludes that there's not sufficient proof that she ever existed (what is NOT at all the same thing as saying that there's sufficient proof that she did NOT exist). People have tried doing so/making the article neutral for years, but each of their editions has always been reverted without real discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ongoing debate in the appropriate Talk page. The discussion, however, is going in circles and nowhere, since the users who have for years edited out all mentions that do not follow 100% the Catholic Church's POV will simply discredit every single source that contradicts them as being not even worthy of having their existences acknowledged.

How do you think we can help?

It'd be helpful if simply more people were to read the topic, read the Talk page and then comment on whether they find the current text neutral. The topic itself offends some people's personal convictions, and it happens that these are almost the only people who care about the topic enough as to write on it and discuss it and they end up tiring away the less engaged casual passers-by. Simply having more neutral outsiders read, comment and rewrite the text in a neutral POV should solve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Farsight001

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

Summary of dispute by Cuchullain

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

189.8.107.196's summary shows that much of this dispute is behavioral, not content-based. The accusations that there's a conspiracy of editors enforcing the "the Catholic Church's POV" and quashing all discussions are totally baseless and out of line. Whatever neutrality concerns exist in the article just get clouded over by the anon's edit warring, comments about contributors, and battleground behavior.
The anon elides the fact that their complaints largely focus on the lead section, and that the rest of the article is in a poor state. Rather than fix the body, they've initiated an edit war over the intro. None of the article's problems will be resolved this way, or any way beside rewriting the body with the best available sources.
This has caused considerable confusion. Below, 177.76.41.164 writes that editors are "deliberately omitting" certain facts, such as details about Siena Cathedral's bust of Joan. There's been some dispute over how this material (which I added) is handled in the intro, but despite 177.x's claims, the details are already in the article body. Again, what the article needs is an overhaul in the body.
I tried to rewrite the intro using standard academic works on Pope Joan. These sources speak to a consensus among scholars that Pope Joan is a myth. There are a few writers who still claim she was real, but they're basically a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. As I said on talk, Diana Cross is a fiction writer, and Peter Stanford isn't a historian, he's a journalist. More to the point, Stanford's book on Joan has been harshly received by historians.[7][8] It can't be used to override cited claims from respected sources.
As a final point, Scolaire says that some folks want to keep out all mention of Stanford and Cross. This isn't true. It's perfectly fine to include them in the article body (with the necessary explanation to how they're viewed by the experts). Adding them to the introduction, however, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Again, what we need is better treatment of the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 191.222.109.81

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

Summary of dispute by Kansas_Bear

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

Summary of dispute by 177.76.41.164

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

The page could indeed be rewritten in a more neutral way. I don't know much about the topic itself, but as others have said, when you dedicate some time going through the page's edits history you end up finding out a lot of valid and pertinent and documented data that indeed was removed from the article for no given reason, and all said edits are indeed always favoring a position that the story is complete bogus. I myself quite think it is actually bogus, but rather than allowing me to reach that conclusion after giving me all the history of the issue and even the conspiracy theories, the page indeed shoves into the reader's face not gently at all what the editors/writers' point of view is, deliberately omitting even interesting facts regarding the story which, even if not proving the conspiratiotists' theories, isn't well regarded by the Vatican (like the fact that there was a precise date when a Pope declared Pope Joan not to have existed; and the fact that it was only after that and at the Pope's request that Joan's bust was removed from the papal busts collection at the Catholic Cathedral of Siena; also, there aren't mentions or images to the numerous images of a female figure in full papal style, Papal tiara included, to this day displayed even in the Vatican, which, even if having different explanations, are indeed one of the arguments used by the conspirationists.

Simply put, the OP does seem to have sort of a valid point when saying that the page's edits history does reveal engaged activism / permanent watch by a group of users who seem to be way more interested in deffending the current official position of the Church than in having a good Wikipedia article.

And finally, the fact that the opponent editors managed to get the OP banned from Wikipedia for no reason other than reverting unwelcome edits (well referenced and pertinent edits the OP had made in other sections of the article that were not directly related to the disputed topic were deleted without justification by his opponents among the edit war) kind of adds weight to his/her accusations of censorship... 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Scolaire

One side wants to state as fact that there is an ongoing controversy over the existence of Pope Joan, citing Peter Stanford and Donna Cross. I don't see any ongoing controversy in the real world, and those two authors are not suitable sources for that claim, because they are not academic historians. However, the other side does not want those authors' views to be considered at all, which I think is going to the other extreme. It was a revelation to me, on reading the reverted, but sourced, edits, to find that there are people notable enough to be published who say they believe in the legend at least to some extent. Therefore I think it is worth a brief mention. This is consistent with WP:DUE. It would also, without making it appear that there is a lively academic debate going on, at least answer the people who say that the minority point of view is being censored, or that the article is written solely from a Catholic Church POV. I am not arguing that she existed, only that is worth mentioning that a couple of people do. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wetman

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

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson

• (Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observer): "The fact that," "widely believed," and borderline accusations of Catholic censorship... A completely non-neutral summary that argues against WP:GEVAL. I'm seeing one side cite a number of academic sources, and the other citing tabloids. Please snow close this. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved at TransporterMan's request, as I've started responding at the talk page. I stand by my observation that one side is citing academia, while the other is citing tabloids, conspiracy theories, and innuendo of Catholic censorship. I can only find one user involved who identifies as Catholic, who is not listed here because that involvement is only one post that sticks to the policies and guidelines. If anything, the legendary side is mostly users who would be sympathetic to the idea of Pope Joan but realize that it's fantasy. While I agree that that a few non-historians insist that Joan existed (which would be a few sentences later in the article, dismissed as WP:FRINGE -- Oh, wait, the article already does that), that's different from downplaying (if not whitewashing) the clearly cited academic consensus and the addition of badly sourced revisionist claims to the lede. As with other fringe authors, I do not mind including Stanford if properly labelled as a non-historian and presented alongside any counter-arguments directed at his work. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that 177.16.62.71 geolocates to the same location as 189.8.107.196, who was far from uninvolved. 177.76.41.164 (who filed this request) geolocates to the same location as 179.148.187.148, and these two addresses are just down the road from the first two. I do not believe we have more than two individuals posting from all four IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers): I am Catholic and I'm currently graduating in History - which makes me specially appaled by the arguments in the original Talk Page that Peter Stanford's opinion should not even be considered and that it is okay to say that ALL historian agree on something even if Stanford does not. He is a Historian, he is a religious historian, he is indeed a Catholic historian, and it is also true that he is the only person who has even been called an "expert on Pope Joan" in the world, and he is indeed currently the only person so recognised by the search results in Google.

So that means I believe Joan existed? No, not at all. I am 100% convinced that Stanford, as well as Cross, do not even believe that themselves, and only play along. Why? Because conspiracy theories sell, that's why, and they're both millionaires nowadays, only because of pretending to believe that there was once a real female pope.

But that does not, absolutely, mean that these two authors do not exist; or that their opinions can be concealed, or disregarded, or even given little to no proeminence in the Pope Joan wikipedia page. Please, Pope Joan *is* a conspiracy theory story. Even if Stanford was not a serious Catholic editor and scholar and historian, even if he was just a crazy dude who decided to say that Pope Joan was real, as long as he's successfully published a worldwide bestseller with his theory, and become one of the most famous "experts" on the topic, it is obvious that his opinions and claims should be given appropriate space and credit. Wikipedia does *not* prejudice against conspiracy theories. The World Trade Center article brings in it text and references to the conspiracy theories according to which the US itself exploded the towers. It is a repugnant theory, one that literally disgusts me and millions of other even to be read, but it is there - and, you know what? It ought to be. That's what Wikipedia is about. It gives people information, and allows people to make their own conclusions with all the opinions given, and all the conspiracy theories, and all the interesting trivia and photos and art (which have all been in my opinion incorrectly cut off the Pape Joan page by fellow editors who, like me, seem to agree that most people who "like" the story of Pope Joan, do so only because it "hurts" the image of the Church; but actively editing out the various sculptures and art depicting a female figure wearing the papal tiara, which is what has been done for years, is hurtful to the story of our Church itself. Pope Joan was believed for a long time by the Church itself, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging it; we also thought for centuries that the Sun orbited the Earth, and, hey, we were wrong, that is okay, information was scarce before the internet - that does't mean we ought to just pretend it never happened...)

Even the Jesus page here in Wikipedia admits that it is not a 100.000000% consensus that He ever existed. So how can the Pope Joan deniers intend to be so arrogant?

Shortly put, and even if I am 100% sure that the "story" of Pope Joan is pure conspiracy theory, I will have to agree that while reading this article I actually thought for a minute that I was reading the Catholic boards I normally access, rather than Wikipedia.

Having spent the past hours of my day reading into every edition that has ever been made to the page (and all the reverts made by the same handful of pals), I would actually go as far as saying that the page needs urgent rewriting - and that it needs be done by a large group of uninvolved, preferrably from different backgrounds, group of users. And I would suggest that the users here involved, including those who have been "protecting" the page from all "external" interference for years, completely refrained from this whole process, in everyone's (and specially the page's) best interests.

177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Joan discussion

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

• (Another previously uninvolved non-volunteer observation): I gave the article a *quick* lookover, so take this with as much salt as you like. At the surface it seems balanced and gives the general message that Pope Joan is fictional but that there was a time when it was believed otherwise. However, a second pass with more attention left me with the slight smell of failure of WP:NPOV (in the direction of a vague desire to shove the "legend" in the face of any passing Catholics). There's a fair sprinkle of what I think is weaseling e.g. "..said to have reigned...", "Most versions of her story...", "The one most commonly cited...", " It has been speculated ..." and so on. And there are multiple assertions with no RS offered whatsoever. Little snippets of colloquial speech also raise a grin: "during the pontificate of 'Pope Agnes ... [the Church] got on quite well." (emphasis mine).

I don't like that "legendary" in the first sentence. Judging by the rest of the article, it looks like the adjective being sought after is supposed to say that the stories are false, but "legendary" does not necessarily convey that. "Mythical" would be no better. Perhaps the simple "fictional" would work?

Finally, I'd also like to see some sources for the first part of the lead's penultimate sentence: "The legend was universally accepted as true until the 16th century, when a widespread debate among Catholic and Protestant writers called the story into question; various writers noted the implausibly long gap between Joan's supposed lifetime and her first appearance in texts". It's not clear that the two sources already provided are covering not just the assertion that the story is no longer accepted, but also the assertion that it once was "universally accepted". Thomask0 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

All parties have been notified as of 13:30 UST 25 January 2015 — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC) There's a problem there, because the filing editor has just been blocked for 72 hours. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) No longe a problem: all users mentioned by the OP who had not yet posted in here have just received personalised messages by me, in their own personal pages, very directly and succintly telling them they have been included as parts to this discussion, with pertinent link provided. Xox177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've formally notified all parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's notes 2: I'm still not taking this or opening it for discussion, but some comments are in order:

• @ the previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers: Thank you for your comments, which are entirely welcome here, but if there is any possibility whatsoever that you're going to continue in this discussion here at DRN or at the article talk page, please list yourselves as parties, create an initial summary section for yourself, and move your comments there.
• @ the IP editors listed as parties and the IP editor who made an entry in Cuchullain's summary section, above : If you are a user with an account and just accidentally edited without logging in, please remove the IP listing from the user list, substitute your username if it's not already listed, and only edit in this discussion while logged in. If, on the other hand, if you're an IP-only editor, please consider creating an account and doing the same. It's really confusing to the volunteers when a number of IP editors are involved in the discussion.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar

– New discussion.

Filed by HistoryofIran on 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ahmad Sanjar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)
• Qara xan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The problem started like this: I expanded the Ahmad Sanjar article a bit by adding some information - some of it stated that he was the longest reigning Muslim ruler until the Mongol invasions (the information was sourced). However, Qara xan then suddenly changed the sourced information by writing that Al-Mustansir Billah was the longest reigning ruler. But that is impossible, since according to this source [9], Sanjar ruled from 1097 until 1157/8 (which i added in the article but Qara xan removed it for no reason). Al-Mustansir Billah ruled from 1036 to 1094. Now, let's do some simple math; That means that Sanjar ruled in 60/1 years, while Al-Mustansir Billah ruled only in 58 years.

However, this guy simply won't accept such a simple fact and keeps denying the truth/simple fact and thinks that Britannica is a reliable source. Even if he added a reliable source, it would make no difference since it is clearly clear that Ahmad Sanjar ruled longer if we do some simple math.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but what can i do when he denies such a simple fact and keeps reverting me?

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong (read the everything i have written then you will understand what i mean), since he ignores what i say, so i think it would be good if someone else also did that, since it seems that no baths an eye on the edits he have made and the things he have said lately.

Summary of dispute by Qara xan

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

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar discussion

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you for notifying me about that :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Obi2canibe on 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Northern Province, Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:Obi2canibe additional discussion

Users involved

• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• 4frans4 (talk · contribs)
• UMDP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The lead of Northern Province, Sri Lanka stated that it was known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country and provided a RS. This was removed by 4frans4 without explanation. After a couple reverts I re-inserted the content with several additional RS. In the mean time a discussion has been ongoing on my talk page in which I have explained why the content should be kept but 4frans4 refuses to accept that his removal is against Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on my talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree. A third party editor has tried to reword the content to make it acceptable to 4frans4 but he has reverted this as well.

How do you think we can help?

Confirm the content complies with Wikipedia policies and that 4frans4 is not justified in his removal.

Summary of dispute by 4frans4

He obi2canibe wants to include the phrase that the Northern Province of Sri Lanka is known as the tamil country of Sri Lanka, apparently due to the large number of Tamil demographics presence in the area. Although it may be the case, in an official capacity from the Sri Lankan government or even from a provincial council capacity. The Northern Province isn't named as the Tamil Country. With regards to this Obi2canibe's reason if Northern Province is Tamil Country due to large presence of Tamil People, is Uva Province the country of Sinhalese? Is Eastern Province the country of Muslims. Plus by naming a single province as certain ethnicities' country isn't it the root cause of 3 decade Sri Lankan Civil War? For a tamil separate state? Just because a large number of an ethnicity's presence doesn't justify the cause to name a certain state, region or province as it's country unless it is defined in an official capacity.

 : is Tamil Presence in Tamil Nadu justify to call Tamil Nadu as Tamil country of India? 
 : is Malayalam Presence in Kerala justify to call Kerala as Malayalam country of India? 
 : is Assamese presence in Assam justify to call Assam as Assamese country of India?

I took India as an example due to the close resemblance of this case between India and Sri Lanka. Finally Obi2canibe recognize himself as a Tamil Eelam sympathizer. Tamil Eelam peoples' sole purpose was to create a separate tamil state in Northern Area of Sri Lanka, in which their dream was crushed by the May of 2009. Naming the province as Tamil country also hurt the reconciliation effort being carried out in Sri Lanka. 4keven4 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by UMDP

Obi2canibe has confused things. There are many provinces or areas that are referred as "countries" in Sri Lanka like "Up Country" but there is no such thing as the "Tamil country" in Sri Lanka. Even the sources he posted doesn't explain anything and doesn't give any direct meaning. It looks like they were written in a figurative sense. While the Northern province has a large Tamil majority it is never called as the "Tamil country" officially and even if people call it as the "Tamil country" unofficially there are no reliable sources to prove it .UMDP (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka discussion

I'm now looking into this matter. I will report back in half an hour or so, once I'm up to speed. Please keep discussion to a minimum in the meantime. SPACKlick (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I can see that this has been quite a short back and forth with only little discussion. The dispute seems to involve the claim that there are RS that refer to part of Sri Lanka as "Tamil Country". Whether that place is the same as "Northern Province" and how to feature any of that in the article. I think you could resolve this if we try to keep the animosity to a minimum. To note the discussion of whether a source is official is a sidetrack. Official isn't the standard Reliable is. So if @Obi2canibe: can post some of the sources would you be willing to discuss if they are reliable and if they refer to the Northern Province @4frans4:? SPACKlick (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to mediate @SPACKlick:. On your first point, yes, the discussion was less than one would normally expect before a DRN is filed but given 4frans4's responses I didn't think we would be able to resolve it between ourselves. Here are some sources you requested:

1. BBC News - "A trip to Sri Lanka's Tamil country. A sudden phone call gave the BBC's Sri Lanka correspondent Charles Haviland rare access to the the war-battered north of the island."
2. The Independent - "We arrived at Colombo airport in the sticky still of night, struggling with the driver to tie a surfboard to the roof of his saloon, before setting off for the north: Tamil country."
3. New York Times - "FOUR years ago this week, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam announced that their struggle for an independent homeland in northern Sri Lanka had “reached its bitter end...Today, great sections of Tamil country are still a scene of devastation."
4. Daily Telegraph - "Immigration Minister Scott Morrison arrived in Sri Lanka yesterday and flew to Tamil country on a military helicopter to meet with the Northern Province governor G.A. Chandrasiri to talk about Australian aid programs."
5. Asia.com: Asia Encounters the Internet (page 184) - "Information out of Jaffna, the heart of Tamil country, and the center of the war zone, and which has no working telephone lines, is passed through word of mouth, ham radio and via the Tamil Tigers' clandestine radio station."
6. Times of India - "Samanth visits an army-built war museum in the former Tiger zone - the heart of Tamil country -- that has signboards only in English and Sinhalese."
7. UNHCR/Documentation Réfugiés - "The source also mentions the town of Vavuniya as an LTTE area of influence. Documentation Réfugiés describes it as the beginning of "Tamil country.""--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, any author, any painter and any mother could call another man donkey. From an insulting manner to giving praise. But regardless, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia like this should emphasis it in our article. As I said, If naming Northern Province as Tamil Country is justifiable due to the large presence of Tamil Population, then what about the states in India? Isn't it the true essence of Tamil Eelam? Isn't it the root cause of Sri Lankan Civil War we experienced for 30 years because some messed up psychopath wanted to create a separate tamil state? I'm not sure if @SPACKlick: gets the real gist of this discussion. This is not about just a name for the province. This so much more larger than adding the phrase tamil country to the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Please try to see it @SPACKlick:.

emotive and not relevant

This is an issue about ethnicities. An issue about race. An issue about languages. An issue where innocents were blown to bits by suicide bombers. An issue where blood has spilled in my motherland for 30 years. Where the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack was occurred. Where terrorists gunned down pilgrimagers at Anuradhapura massacre. Where terrorists killed hundreds of muslims praying in Kattankudy mosque massacre. Please try to consider the seriousness of this issue @SPACKlick:, if he ""@Obi2canibe:"" wants, as a person who is supporting for a separate tamil state in Sri Lanka.

He could add the phrase "Northern Province is known for its large presence of Tamil Population". Thanks I rest my case here. 4keven4 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@4frans4:, While any man could call another man "Donkey" and that would not go in the article. If reliable sources refer to him regularly as "Donkey" that would need to be noted. Just as it is with England's Black Country, irrespective of the amount of coal mining there, it is commonly referred as such.

Your suggestion that the page could note that the area contains a large Tamil population is a sidetrack because the page already says that and it isn't relevant to whether the area gets referred to as "Tamil Country". . The sole question here is whether "Reliable Sources" refer to "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country". I would like you to come back and discuss what the sources say.

@Obi2canibe:, on the sources specifically I've changed your bullets to numbers for ease of future reference. SPACKlick (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Northern Province is not called the "Tamil Country" but the North and East are sometimes called Tamil Areas of Sri Lanka. I wonder how the authors of the articles got the word "Tamil country". It seems they didn't literally mean it and they kind of compared the North to Tamil Nadu which is the Tamil Country of India and called the Northern Province the "Tamil country of Sri Lanka".UMDP (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@UMDP: Stating your conclusion as fact does not help build a consensus or an encyclopedia. If you wish to get involved in this dispute please refer to the sources provided or bring new sources to the table. SPACKlick (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: I was doing my research but I don't think finding sources that explain what authors meant by the "Tamil country" is possible. The Closest thing to a "Tamil country" that covers the Northern province is Tamilakam which not only means "Tamil Country" but includes the North and that is the only answer that has sourcesUMDP (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@UMDP: If you are joining in the dispute it is worth you adding a short summary of your position to the section added above. I don't think understanding "Why" people call it tamil country is a relevant discussion at this point, if at all, because the question currently is "Whether" people refer to the "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country" in a sufficient Weight of Reliable Sources. Until the answer to that question is agreed the discussion cannot progress. SPACKlick (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If English isn't your first language it is quite understandable that you would believe that the term "country" only means an independent sovereign state. In fact it has other meanings as both country (a country may be..a geographic region associated with sets of...differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics) and country (a set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc) make clear. So it may mean a geographic region associated with a particular people/language/race (e.g Basque Country), occupation (e.g. cowboy country), species (e.g. cattle country) or even a region of a sovereign state (e.g. west country). In the case of "Tamil country" it is the first of these i.e. a region associated with a particular people/language/race. This is what the authors of the sources given above meant by using the term "Tamil country", they were not implying that it is, or was ever, an independent sovereign state.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the important things to consider in this manner is how controversial this tag "Tamil Country" is, which in turn refers to as Tamil Eelam.

Discuss the content not the contributor
Who this @Obi2canibe: openly supports so. With regards to that, the mediators should be made aware of @Obi2canibe:'s intentions. Mediators should not be fooled, decepted by @Obi2canibe:'s view. Well, it is quite understandable for a person who is in @Obi2canibe:'s place to call the Northern Province the Tamil Country.

With regards to his source articles every single one of those articles has the face of either tabloid, gossip or tourism value. None has any official news value and none of those articles are backed by the Sri Lankan government officials or even the people of Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, calling the northern province as Tamil country is almost as Taboo. Since there are Americans involved in this discussion let me put it this way. Just because there are many Hispanics and Spanish language being spoken in New Mexico, is it suitable to call the state of New Mexico as the Mexican country of USA. Just because the state of Mississippi has a large proportion African Americans, does it make sense to add the phrase, Mississippi is also known as the Black Country in USA. Please try to see it that way. Tourists, Tamil Eelam sympathizers may call the Northern Province as Tamil Country. But it doesn't alone justify to add the phrase "Northern Province is known as Tamil Country"4keven4 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the Upper country (or Up country, locally known as Uddarata) word uses in modern Sri Lanka. It does not mean that Upper country is a sovereign state. But it (like Rajarata) comes from historical region/kingdom. Likewise, Northern province has historical link as Tamil country too. Also, Unofficial differential can be heard by the words "uddarata peolple" still in Sri Lanka. Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka locally known by Up country Tamils, and it does not mean that they are belonging to difference country. Those who involve in the discussion should stay calm and speak from the reliable facts. Calling "Tamil Eelam sympathizer" seems to divert the discussion or attack the user and this logic can back fire as "Sinhalese sympathizer". It does not bring solution, but dragging further.--Anton^Talk 03:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@4frans4: please avoid commenting on the motivations of other contributors and focus on their contributions. Whether or not it is taboo to call northern province Tamil Country can be noted in the article but if it is indeed often referred to as tamil country, the article should reflect that. Your counter examples from the USA don't quite work because it's not common to call them that, if several sources referred to new mexico, or one county of it, as hispanic country then the new mexico article should reflect that. Your comments on the sources themselves were.

• The pieces were tabloid, Gossip or Journalism
• None of them were made by Sri Lankan Officials
• None of them were written by Sri Lankans

The first of these may speak to the reliability of the source but it could go either way. On the one hand it might make them less editorialy reliable and on the other it does mean they have little political motivation to use a term advocating a specific point of view. The fact that these are not official sources from the government doesn't make a difference but if they are all outside sources it may be worth noting in the article that it is known as Tamil Country only outside Sri Lanka if you can find a source to support that claim.

@Obi2canibe: Do you have any response to the above comment from Keven? SPACKlick (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@AntanO:

Not again frans. Please refrain from commenting on other editors
Motivations dictate individuals actions. Hitler's intentions were to create a supreme German white race, and he saw romani, jews as inferior so he massacred them. First understand the fact that motivations of an individual do dictate an individual's actions.

Yes in Sri Lankan rural society and in feudalist society up country sinhalese were sometimes referred to as Udarata Sinhalese. Hence up country sinhalese. But in modern sinhalese society we do not refer to them as Udarata sinhalese anymore unless by an uneducated, bigoted conservative person. As you said Northern Province has never been recognised as Tamil Country in a historical context. see [[10]] Just so you may not know, did you know in ancient sinhalese, sinhala people used the word "Demala" (Tamil Person) to refer to enemies, someone who is hostile, someone who is an adversory. Why? well because almost all the invaders to Sri Lanka during that time are Tamil Chola Kings. Well even in ancient Khmer it was the same Now should we mention it in an article somewhere in Wikipedia? Well no, because it taboo. :@SPACKlick: And no, Northern Province doesn't refer to as Tamil Country outside of Sri Lanka unless of course a person who is referring to it as such have no knowledge of Sri Lanka and its People. Like I said, if I could roam the internet I'm pretty sure I may be able to find reasonable sources that refer to Tamil Nadu as Tamil Country and Malaysia as Malay Country. It would be ridiculous now wouldn't it? 4keven4 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@4frans4: To your question: it wouldn't be ridiculous. If the sources exist showing verifiably that people referred to those places in those ways then it would be warranted to include it on wikipedia.

to note: You have several times mentioned that things are taboo. Wikipedia is not censored. If something is taboo in a social context then that in itself might be noteworthy but it is not a reason not to report on the fact itself. However that discussion is several steps down the road.

You have been asked several times to comment on the content and reliability of the sources rather than give your opinion. You have not done so. You have been asked several times not to comment on editors. You still persist in doing so. Please engage in the discussion at hand.

• Whether those sources provided are reliable as defined in wikipedia policy
• Whether they report that Northern Province is called Tamil Country to any extent (what extent and how to phrase it is a later discussion).

Please do so. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: No can seriously describe BBC News, The Independent, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times of India or UNHCR as tabloid, gossip, tourism or unreliable. They are unquestionably WP:RS. The sources provided are news reports or feature stories, they are not editorials/opinion pieces and are therefore reliable for sourcing statements of fact (as outlined in WP:NEWSORG). The remaining source (no.5 ) is a book written by Shyam Tekwani, an academic from Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, part of the United States Department of Defense. This is also a reliable source.

As you have stated Wikipedia does not rely government/official sources but on reliable sources and I have provided numerous reliable sources. Nor we do we only rely on sources from the topic's country. As long as they are reliable we can use sources from any nationality.

4frans4 and UMDP have not brought forward any argument based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines which would prevent inclusion of the content. Instead they are repeating the same arguments: the content is not supported by official sources and that articles for other regions with specific ethnic groups don't mention the term "country" (a variation of WP:OSE).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Source Reliability

@SPACKlick: Regardless of whether it is BBC, New york times or anything, those papers do publish tabloid articles. You can not argue the fact that those sources are reliable to 100%.

Off Topic

Of course you know about UNHCR. Bringing the US and its Allies' agenda to disrupt Sri Lanka's friendship with China and Russia. Why can't amidst all the atrocities at Israel, UNHCR bring a resolution against Israel. Well that's why?. Let's see what the UNHCR and India's position on this march. You'll be amazed as what would happen to the resolution. @Obi2canibe:'s ideology and his positions are important to consider his opinions. Please listen @SPACKlick: to this, would it be possible to believe if Hitler said that Jews and all other races are equal. Would it be possible to believe if Bin Laden said that, United States and Israel are friends of Islam.4keven4 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Discuss on the subject regarding to local context. This is about Sri Lankan province, not USA or Hitler. BTW, This is just placed "without references". --AntonTalk 04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@4frans4: Firstly 4frans4 please avoid going off topic, discussing opinions or editors. This dispute can only be resolved by discussing the content and wikipedia policy. Your opinion that the BBC article is tabloid doesn't outweigh their longstanding history of editorial rigor for which they are known on Wikipedia as a reliable source and I recommend you read the linked policy to understand why. Your contributions to the discussion so far make me think it might be worth also reading this essay. Your opinion, my opinion and Obi's opinion don't matter it's only what can be verified through reliable sources that matters by the policy of this encyclopedia. Here is how I would approach the sources provided by Obi2canibe.

• I would check the date because referring to an area as Tamil Country during the conflict could be challenged as not showing the area is still referred to that way
• I would check the general reliability of the source, using the reliable sources noticeboard where necessary.
• I would check precisely what claim is made and in context what that claim means.

Below is my analysis of the 7 provided sources.

1)[August 2009] Source is reliable, it's the BBC Travel section. Source makes it clear that there is Tamil Country in Sri Lanka. It implies that the Tamil Country is in the North, but doesn't say where. Does make it clear the "Tamil Country" exists beyond the 2009 end of conflict.
2)[January 2014] Source is reliable, it's the independent Travel section. Makes it clear that there is somewhere referred to as "Tamil Country" in the north of Sri Lanka and that this exists after the 2009 end of the conflict. Indicates Trincomalee is part of Tamil Country.
3)[May 2013] Source is OK not great, it's NY times but the opinion section. Makes it clear that some area of Tamil Country was referred after the 2009 end of conflict no indication of where.
4)[July 2014] Source is reliable, it's the Daily Telegraph News section. Makes it clear that Tamil Country existed as referred after 2009 end of conflict. Implies it is within the area of responsibility of the governor of Northern Province.
5)[Sep 2003] Source is pretty reliable, Published by Routlege. Refers to Jaffna as the heart of Tamil country. It is however discussing prior to the 2009 end of conflict and therefore probably not useful in this context.
6) [Nov 2014] Source is Ok, Times of india book review. Some information comes from the book, some from the reviewer. Refers to an Army Built War museum in the heart of Tamil Country (probably Puthukkudiyiruppu but saying so would be original research).
7) [July 1993] Source is good UN Refugee agency report. Uses a 1992 reference to indicate Vavunis is the beginning of Tamil Country. Probably not relevant due to age.

So we can see that there are reliable sources here which do make it clear that some part of Sri Lanka is referred to as Tamil Country, however none of them make it clear where that is. Source 4 is probably the clearest indicator that it refers to at least a part of the Northern Province. While looking into those sources I also found;

8) [May 2014] IBN live, news section in reasonably reliable source. However, in a conciliatory gesture, Rajapaksa today tweeted that he will ask Wigneswaran, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, also known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country, to join his delegation. Which would seem to support the inclusion of the material.
9) [Jan 2015] Salem News, OK source. In fact Tamil country includes both of Sri Lanka's northern coastlines. So not specific on location but gives a general area.
10)[July 2014] Saturday Paper, don't know this source but it quotes Trevor Grant of the Tamil refugee council as saying There’s land theft, military in schools – all designed to change the face of Tamil country. I would dig further into this source if others proved unreliable.

In 8) we have the first source that equates the two terms directly. So in light of that analysis could you answer the following question.

Do you agree that it can be concluded that at least part of the northern province is verifiably referred to as "Tamil Country" (in reliable sources) per the linked policy?

If you disagree please refer to the policy areas not satisfied by the provided sources. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by PeterEastern on 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PeterEastern (talk · contribs)
• Trackinfo (talk · contribs)
• Anmccaff (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two long term editors (myself and User:Trackinfo) are not able to work constructively with a recent contributor User:Anmccaff even after very very long discussions on talk. Since backing off from the article he has made changes which he is convinced are accurate and which we believe to be lacking balance. Further discussion on talk has only convinced us of the need to seek outside help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Conversations on his talk page. Backing off from the article for a number of weeks to give him space to develop it in peace.

How do you think we can help?

Anmccaff is certainly very knowledgeable and committed, I respect him for that, however I am coming to the view that he is unable to work constructively with others to create a balanced article.

I would like you to first provide an outsiders perspective on the situation and then make recommendations to the individuals concerned as to how to proceed based on experience with similar situations elsewhere.

Summary of dispute by PeterEastern

I have been editing WP since 2007, and using this username since 2009. I became aware of this article back in 2010 following a visit to Detroit which led to me adding a comprehensive history section in the Transportation in metropolitan Detroit article. The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article at that time claimed that Detroit was one of the affected cities (which is wasn't). The more I looked into this article and the subject generally, the more confusing it seemed. The article was poorly written, poorly source and subject to frequent POV arguments, however virtually everyone else who wrote on the subject in books and on the web also seemed to be pushing one POV or other or unawarely peddling a myth as fact. It became a bit of a mad mission of mine in late 2010 to create a definitive document in WP which would get as close to the truth was was possible. Given that not everything could be discovered so far after events that were not well publicised at the time, I did what I could and created a 'myths and mysteries' section to itemise those claims that could not be substantiated. My clear conclusion, was the simplistic stories on both sides are too simplistic.

As a transport profession and academic I am well aware of all the other reasons for the changes towards the car and was pleased with the article which seemed to tell the story in balanced way by early 2011. Over the years since then I have kept an eye on it, while taking care to not dominate, and had a principle, that whenever the article was changed, even where this was clearly in a negative direction, that I would try to create better content rather than simply revert. The article is very well used, with some 100,000 page views a year and was not majorly challenged in those years.

In the 7 years I have edited WP I have never had to resort to this sort of dispute process. I have my scars for sure, battling with Defacto on issues relating to road safety was tough, and he has subsequently been permanently banned from WP, but I learnt from him that some of the best WP work is done when working within the rules with people we opposing views. That worked well until recently.

Regrettably, with Anmccaff I concluded that it was impossible to get to a conclusion on anything. His use of talk pages, his abrasiveness and obtuseness, his habit of dropping discussions half-way through and starting another one was too difficult. In parallel I noted a reduction in the number of people engaging with the article, and indeed other articles on WP, to an extent that I find concerning. Anyway.. on 17 November I concluded that for my sanity and to ensure that I was not part of the problem, that I should disengage from the article and see what happened. Until Trackinfo made his post on talk on the 24 Jan I didn't once even look at the article or what was being done to it.

I am not sure how we move forward. I realise that this board is a place to discuss content and not individuals, but I feel that it is important to have put the above on the table and say that the most serious issue is that communication between the parties interested in this article has broken down and I am not confident that it can be repaired. From here on though I will discuss only content and take advice on how to deal with personality issues separately if necessary.

My concerns with the article are very much the same as those of Trackinfo. I note the inclusion of phrases such as 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize ...', 'While conspiracy theorists focus on ...', 'While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories...' and 'Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss...' which Anmccaff added and would no doubt defend but which I oppose.

There are then the unprovable generalisations such as 'Most transit scholars say that..'.

However I am as concerned about the addition for a huge amount of detail in the Background and Early Years section which is a distraction and will turn people off of article which should be about the 'conspiracy', and not the history of streetcars more generally. A great way to neutralise an article is to add irrelevant content, and I am concerned that that has happened here.

Conversely, having provide a lot of relevant new and very pertinent information on talk here, he has chosen not to add it to the article in the past 2 months.

For the record, you can see a summary of changes made, mainly by Anmccaff between 17 Nov and 24 Jan here.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TrackInfo

This article has suffered from lack of broad attention, even I have failed to monitor it daily. Since Peter Eastern's one man defense of the content of the article was put on hold, Anmccaff has taken full control of the article, rewriting the article with his POV. Going back to his initial contact here he has started off with what seems like a prejudicial tone toward the original content of the article; Everything you know is wrong. What concerns me is the subtle writing in wikipedia's voice, to push his POV wishing to refer to this as an urban legend, essentially making this a lecture as to how what was the previous version of this article is discredited. Each interaction in Talk has been confusing at best, with his demand to call things matching his opinion as "facts" while existing knowledge is debunked by these "facts."

After writing my disgust at the direction of the article, I started off trying to fix the article, to make it more neutral at least in wikipedia's voice, removing "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events" and peacock phrase like "popular" that are intended to hype credibility. I couldn't even get past the lede when [11] [12] these were reverted in less than 10 minutes. So essentially this foretells that Anmccaff is taking ownership of this content.

I expressed my concern that the conspirators have a commercial interest in making this negative publicity go away. I'm not the only one to bring this up, going back to the first talk archive, there are clear efforts to push POV dating back years; the Cato Institute, non-credible, Koch brothers funded corporate shill, is identified as leading this cause, which would be consistent with the various corporations wish to rewrite history. They can't make the actual conviction go away. That was made by people who were involved at the time. This is historical. Nobody here was involved in 1949. We all are dealing with third hand accounts. We shouldn't just examine this from our recent perspective.

The lede is quoting Guy Span (c.2003) saying Bradford C. Snell (c.1974) "fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions" which certainly serves to discredit him. An accusation like that in a WP:BLP would have to be much better sourced.

So I had to ask; who is Guy Span? Anmccaff's response, like so much of his communication in talk, is less than coherent, but it does not mount anything positive to say about this non-notable individual's credibility to be the authority on this subject. Span's own claim is that he was the editor of the blog where this was posted, so its a self-source. Looking down the references, Span is quoted and sourced some 15 times in the article. Removing the peacock term calling Span "noted" is one of two clean ups I have successfully made. The other one was a spurious (empty) heading "Cracks in the Facade" which is about as POV oriented a title as can be created.

I also called out a factual error regarding San Francisco's continued use of ground level streetcars, which I personally documented as recently as 2010, again my edits were reverted. So it is clear we do not have a collegial attitude happening here. This is a clear effort to push this POV. Trackinfo (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Anmccaff

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

There are fairly deep divides here not merely on matters of opinion, but of matters of fact as well; it would be useful if any volunteers had decent access to a library in a major US or possibly Canadian city, or an academic library focused on ground transportation. I think the article is loaded with weak references -several self-published- selected to fit a pre-existing narrative, and edits made to "balance" whenever the factual underpinning of the selected story was weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion

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

Coordinator's note: Hi PeterEastern. I am not taking this case, but there are a couple of things that need to be fixed. First, could you specify exactly what the disputed changes are? It's rather difficult to have an orderly case if no one is sure what exactly is being disputed. Second, please notify all parties by putting {{subst:DRN-notice}} on their talk page. Thanks. --Biblioworm 02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do. By way of context, although I have edited WP for many years, this is the first time I have actually been involved in this process. PeterEastern (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, to what extent do you want discussion here, now, before an actual DRN volunteer takes this on?

And, perhaps more importantly, is there any more manageable way to notify interested parties? There are a great many more people than us three involved here.Anmccaff (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now added the requested details above in a new section 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a DRN volunteer and I am opening this case for discussion. Please do not comment about motivations or behaviour of other editors. This is a content based discussion. If after this DRN one or more parties wish to question the behaviour of another editor, then Administrators Notice Board is one option. If the parties would prefer to discuss issues of consensus, this is not the proper forum, again I would suggest the Administrators Notice Board. Please answer the inquiries succinctly. Questions which are not raised in initial discussion may be raised by the parties after some basics are out of the way. I do ask that each of you respond to each inquiry. This is a structured process to try to bring the parties to an understanding if not agreement. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 1

Please list the five facts in the article (or recently in the article, Oct. 2014 to date) that are most contentious. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe my dispute is with facts. Frankly, I do not know enough of this historical information from personal knowledge to state what is a true face and what is false. I was not in those boardrooms in the 1930's. My objection is with the directed conclusions from this information, the structure of the writing to guide a specific narrative from the information presented. A lot of people present a lot of theories and can post revisionist statistical information about what occurred before the conspiracy and after the conspiracy. Everything may or may not be a factor. Did the conspiracy's thumb on the scale cause events to occur, did it hasten what was already set in motion, did it embed its result more firmly for decades? Nobody really can know the answer, so wikipedia should not be drawing a conclusion that one set of facts are valid and others are discredited. Trackinfo (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As Trackinfo said, facts are thin on the ground. We have claims and simplistic conclusions aplenty, mainly in two flavours to suit ones politics. If I was to boil this issue down to one disputed fact, it is that the impression that the article gives currently that the conspiracy theory is a folk-tail and myth. What I believe we should be saying is 'actually, it wasn't that simple, there were many contributing factors to the decline of the streetcars in the USA'. Personally, I am reassured when people from both sides complain that the article being biased away from what they know to be true! PeterEastern (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

When I began my efforts to clean up this "tone" issue, the first thing I removed was the deliberate, discrediting, lede statement of this being an urban myth. Its immediate reversion stated volumes as to what resistance I was going to get from the opposition and set this dispute in motion. Trackinfo (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo. I know you are frustrated, so am I, but let's take this slowly focus on the questions being asked. I think we have captured our view of the dispute fact in this article, and agree that there is only one of these. PeterEastern (talk)

Inquiry 2

Please list up to five of the most unreliable sources in recent use (Oct. 2014 to date) in the article, together with one sentence for each as to why it is unreliable. If any source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard please so note and provide a link. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a slightly nerdy distinction in relation to reliability of sources before we respond to this. The subject of this article is the conspiracy (or not), and is not the history of streetcars int eh USA per se. As such, I think we would agree that the official 1974 Senate Hearings documents are a reliable source for the subject, and also for what was said in the hearings of that year.

I am also reasonably confident that we will agree that we need to be very cautious in regard to treating the claims made by individuals during the hearings as evidence of what happened 30 years before the hearings as facts in themselves, and in particular we have agreed to discount claims made by Snell in this regard. What we are short of are sources that we can rely on for what actually happened during the period 1938-48 and what the key players did and did not do in that time.

Have I captured the distinction correctly and is that useful?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

• Lovearth.net Site of Mark R Elsis: There isn't a single conspiracy theory he doesn't support. Holocaust denial to Pearl Harbor and 911 conspiracy theorist, his websites cover them all. Cites Guibault and Snell.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We only rely on loveearth as an accurate source of what Snell said in 1995, 'Snell, Bradford (1995): The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit'. We have already agreed this and other works by Snell should only be used as evidence of what Snell, who is notably for the subject said, not as evidence of what happned. I have just noticed at least one place where we take what is written as fact and would support a rewording to say 'Snell says...' or an alternative source or remove the content. Given that Snell writes from a conspiratorial perspective, is it not to be reasonable to reference such a site as evidence? PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Anything by Louis Guilbault: Self published; one on the "cites" given here is, in essence, a copy of a letter to the editor. Has published a vanity book on the subject.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we cite him only once (cite 17 currently) for a minor point of fact that we can surely get from other sources. If this bothers you then I would support your replacing it with an alternative. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Anything by Brad Snell: Snell has a deservedly low reputation on questions of fact, and repeatedly made assertions which are either outright lies, or a sign of a very poor memory. (Snell repeatedly comments on the small size of fines levied against the NCL defendants, yet the Senate subcommittee papers make the reason for those token fines clear, and Snell was himself made directly responsible for seeing that was in the record, which must have stung.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my 'nerdy distinction' above, we have already agreed that what Snell says is notable, but is not reliable; it therefore depends on how he is used. Some time back I did a pass through the article when I attempted to remove all uses of Snell as a reliable source of facts. Have I missed anything? If so then do please fix it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Modern Transit" and Akos Szoboszlay. (at least on this subject.): Very, very close to self-published work. Blinkered partisanship, with obvious errors of fact.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we were using it as a source. It is only listed in 'external links' for 'Conflict of Transportation Competitors'. As such I don't this it is relevant to this process. PeterEastern (talk)

• Black, Edwin (2006): "10". Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. St. Martins Press. A well-known writer of sensationalist potboilers; often takes Snell et al at face value.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fellmeth, Robert C. (1973): Politics of Land: Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Land Use in California. Grossman Publishers. pp. 410–14. Assumes facts rather than investigating them. (The other side on this argument here likes this work so much it was put in the "further reading" twice.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3

Please list up to three of the most important reliable sources for the article. If you can narrow it to one that would be best. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No.no.Ten thousand times, no. There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here.

A first pass has to start with Hilton and Due, whose work Snell mis-cited.Anmccaff (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Amnccaff Are you saying that there is no reliable sources at all for this?!

Personally I am supportive of all the main sources used in the 'Footnotes/Citations' section as reliable sources as long as they are used appropriately. I have not reviewed all of the 'Notes' sources. The only source that is being challenged on talk at present is Span, Guy (2003) where there is a view being expressed that he is self-published and working under a pseudonym. This blew up only after I withdrew from the article so I have not followed the conversation in detail. What I would say in support of Span is that his work was hugely useful to me when I did my makeover of the article in 2010 in that his writing was one of the most accurate and balanced explanation of what had happened that was available to me at the time, other than Cliff Slater. It is my recollection that much of what he said as fact has subsequently been verified from other sources but I am happy to be proved wrong.

Breaking sources down, I think we should all agree that we have some excellent primary sources, notably transcripts of the 1951 court case and the 1974 Senate hearings. As noted above Snell is a fine source for what Snell said and claimed, but not of fact. I would suggest that Bianco, Martha (1998), Slater, Cliff (1997) are probably our best tertiary (or are they secondary?) sources. I would want to review the Span discussion on talk before discounting him as a good source.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sexism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Soundofyellow on 00:41, 28 January 2015 (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 Talk:Sexism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Soundofyellow (talk · contribs) everyone else on the talk page (talk · contribs) Dispute overview in the sexism page under the section "objectification" the opening sentence is "objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object". this violates the NPOV policy by stating a pov as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. the statement has a citation to a reliable source which contains the same sentence verbatim however the title of the article in the citation is "objectification in feminist theory" so it is only meant to express the pov of feminism. but on the Wikipedia page this pov is being represented as fact even though the article only makes this assertion but has no objective data to back it up so doesn't directly support stating it as a fact. according to the rules of Wikipedia, POV statements should be attributed to the author or group endorsing them in the text. so with that in mind I suggest either striking "usually woman" part, or rephrasing the sentence so it does not come across as an objective fact (as currently it is not verifiable as a fact), or we could even rename the subsection "objectification in feminist theory" since that is what that article actually covers anyway. the article in the citation (far from having objective data on the matter) actually goes on to admit that objectification itself is difficult if even possible to define in a universal sense. so representing that opening phrase as an absolute fact and w/o in-text attribution to feminism it is absolutely an unverifiable statement. at any rate the overwhelming consensus is against me on the talk page but I feel the wiki guidelines are not being adhered to. some input from impartial sources would be great, as I am concerned about the bias of the other editors affecting their judgment. Have you tried to resolve this previously? repeated discussion which admittedly has not been productive at all. but I can only articulate something so many ways before people get annoyed. never the less there is a neutrality issue there. How do you think we can help? need outside impartial editors to review the dispute. all the text should still be under the talk page and I can rejoin the discussion if needed. Summary of dispute by everyone else on the talk page Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Sexism 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.

Talk:Khatumo State#SSC_clans

– New discussion.

Filed by 86.99.102.81 on 14:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Khatumo State#SSC clans (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Middayexpress (talk · contribs)
• Acisdsnow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Users Middayexpress & Acidsnow are refusing to acknowledge a large clan that reside in the disputed Sool & Sanaag regions of Somalia. They keep on running on circles with very unreliable & parastrian sources. I gave high quality sources that balances the article but they keep on insisting it's not true. The Isaaq clan lives on the western portion of Sanaag region(including the largest and main city Erigavo & third largest city Eeel Afwayne), while the Darood live on the eastern side. But for years they claimed the whole region is "primarily inhabited" by the Darood which wrong. I ask any one to mediate between us and examine the given sources. Sanaag is a majority Isaaq and Aynabo district in Sool is also majority Isaaq.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried on the talk page, but they got me blocked over another dispute.

How do you think we can help?

It's my first time to ask for a resolution so I don't know what to expect.

You said you can't force any user to do anything, but I am positive you'll do something.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

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

Summary of dispute by Acisdsnow

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

Talk:Khatumo State#SSC_clans discussion

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