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)	31 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Shadowwarrior8 (t)	1 days, 11 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	7 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	11 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 18:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Example case

Spore (2008 video game) (Example case) (Example post) Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.) Me and Example (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about an article, Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable. Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Steven Zhang (talk · contribs), Example (talk · contribs) Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres. What can we do to help resolve this issue? Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... Discussion Resolution The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback

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. Heroes in Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gilgamesh in the Outback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A large, ongoing debate on copyright ownership issues regarding the usage of the terms "reprint," "first serial rights," and "originally published in" to describe a few stories (specifically Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep) in a larger series called Heroes in Hell is occurring at its talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz argues that these stories were reprints from a prior magazine publication based on the sources he has found (some unreliable like this: [1], but others reliable like this: [2] and the author of Gilgamesh's own website). On the other hand, several other editors have argued that the use of the term "reprint" or saying that it is "originally published" in the magazine is misleading and wrongly suggests the original copyright is not owned by the series author, Janet Morris. Editors argue more accurately would be to say that the magazine had "first serial" rights. However, as of yet, no source points to the magazine having any such rights. They also argue that the story was intended to be written for the series, and as such, the magazine article is merely promotional, but not copyrighted. All of these arguments, however, lack sources. It is unclear whether it is standard for primary sources to provide this kind of "first serial" copyright information. Edit warring related to the above issues have occurred in the past week on both pages: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) UrbanTerrorist (talk · contribs) I Jethrobot (talk · contribs) Bluewillow991967 (talk · contribs) Hulcys930 (talk · contribs) Guarddog2 (talk · contribs) Knihi (talk · contribs) NebY (talk · contribs)  Guarddog2 has said she is Janet Morris, the author of the series (Wolfowitz has challenged this claim) Bluewillow991967 has said she is Julie Cochrane, an author in the series Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, UrbanTerrorist, Bluewillow991967 have engaged in very, very lengthy debates. UrbanTerrorist's comments have sometimes been unreasonable "...I think you have are in a Conflict of Interest situation. I have no idea why you would be in a conflict of interest situation, but your irrational actions leave me no other conclusion." or just uncivil, "Wikipedia is always inaccurate until people like me step in and fix the problems. There's just too many idiots who think that they know what they are doing, and they to edit things.". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Bluewillow991967 have generally kept things cool, although it has been difficult to follow their arguments because of their sheer length and the number of other issues that are at hand with the article that I do not wish to discuss here. I Jethrobot is me, and have done my best to remain neutral in this argument. I am, however, responsible for merging the individual Heroes in Hell book pages to the main series page due to a lack of notability of the individual books and general consensus to do so. I do not claim to be have any expertise with the publishing process or of contract/copyright law. NebY, Hulcys930, and Knihi are only involved in so much as they have offered fair opinions on the discussion page and appear to have an interest in the page. Hulcys930 has made some edits that were justifiably reverted by Wolfowitz, but the edits were made in good faith. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? This issue has been debated endlessly at the talk page, among many other topics. I attempted to search for sources myself to support either side and also tried to clarify Wikipedia policies to participants (see [8] and Guarddog2's talk page. No resolution is in sight after I have attempted to make multiple proposals that were intended to avoid the contentious issues about copyright, the contentions over the use of "reprint," and even the order in which the story was published. These proposals had some initial consensus, but in my opinion, were appropriately rejected by Wolfowitz because of sources that support that these stories were originally published in magazines, then later printed within the series. How do you think we can help? I would like some consensus to be formed about whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased. Also, this issue seems to have been blown way out of proportion by several parties involved (myself included), and I am hoping that we can all work on trying to stay a little cooler in the discussion. There are so many issues involved with Heroes in Hell, that I cannot conceivably address them all here with any brevity. But I would like some help resolving this (and perhaps other) so that we can prevent any possibility of ongoing edit warring. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I happen to have a story in one of the recent volumes, but that's not at issue here. What most of you think you know about publishing is incorrect, and perhaps an article should be written to address that. You'll find that one of my three works for hire lists me as the (c) holder, even though Bill Fawcett and Assoc. owns the copyright. Publisher made an assumption and went to print. No one caught the error. It is also common for excerpts/shorts to premier in a magazine before official publication. In those cases, even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original, with permission secured per contract. This happens all the time. I am constantly amazed at how many WP editors and staff are completely clueless about publishing, and toss around sales figures, numbers and money and try to attach significance to them. During the webcomic deletion debacle for example, one of the comments raised was that a certain comic "couldn't possibly have more than 100K readers," as if such a number were insignificant or not notable. I will go on record here that the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues (such as regarding James Wesley Rawles, with hundreds of thousands of books in print, the go-to guy on disaster prep for CNN, the NYT, Fox, etc, whom a couple of editors persisted in WP:MOVINGTHEGOALPOSTS to try to claim was "not notable"). This is a repeat of that. Janet Morris is most certainly VERY notable in SF, and well-respected. Most, at the very least, of her works, are notable due to content, awards, sales figures, etc--certainly more notable than any of mine that have been contested and retained. There is certainly a personal bias here, which may be simply stubbornness on the part of certain parties. OrangeMike, despite his denials, has a very definite bias against her and should recuse himself from any discussion about her. To accuse her of not being who she says she is without checking first is hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, and pompous. Is it possible some of her lesser known works should be combined? Yes. Should any article be stomped on and erased within hours because some WPean can't be bothered to either aid in improvement, or do a little fact checking (rather than any BS about "consensus" from people demonstrably ignorant of the subject)? Not if this increasingly burdened and irrelevant bandwidth sink wants to retain any shred of credibility.Mzmadmike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC) "even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original". So reprints can take place before the original publication!? And TV shows can be rerun before they originally air. Let's do the time warp again! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I am Janet Morris (Janet E. Morris, Janet Ellen Morris) and I opened a new editor account only to deal with problems arising from the re-editing of a venerable series listed on Wikipedia entitled Heroes In Hell(TM). This series and franchise is my property and is a shared universe. I am not certain that it is appropriate for me to be here, although Jethrobot says that it is, since I am the proprietor of the Heroes in Hell series. I do feel it inappropriate for WP to be questioning my copyrights, contracts, and the terms and conditions of those contracts, some generated two decades ago and previously uncontested by principals. A debate over notability of various books in the series has morphed into one focusing on the articulation or purposeful obfuscation of the attribution of first serial rights, the deletion of a page called Rebels in Hell containing an award-winning story, and various disturbing and disparaging comments and unsupportable speculations from an editor called Wolfowitz: "By the way, Morris' ownership of the Heroes in Hell property couldn't have stopped Silverbob from writing the story without Morris's approval. She doesn't own all stories set in Hell, after all, just the original details that trademark the franchise. What she really owns via the franchise are some infernal bells and whistles and the occasional designer pitchfork." that show an intent to decouple certain works from the series that generated them (award-winning or nominated works with first serials) and minimize the importance of the series, which is listed on WP as "low" as opposed to some stories commissioned by me from various authors and written for the series, such as "Gilgamesh in the Outback" listed as importance "mid." Part of this dispute for me is whether or not editors with obvious, expressed biases (whether these biases count as COI in WP terms, I cannot say) against the series (or me) should recuse themselves from editing Morris/Hell pages. Please remove this comment if my participation is unwelcome. Guarddog2 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I am a neutral/clerk in this matter. The listing editor has limited the issues in this process to "whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased." 1. Do the other disputants have issues which must be resolved here? If so, please state the issue as succinctly as possible and say how you think that we can help. Please keep in mind that the primary function of this noticeboard is to offer neutral analysis, comment, and mediation and that we have no power here to issue penalties, orders, or binding judgments. 2. As for the copyright information issue: A. In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues? B. Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute? C. Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?) 3. Or have I entirely missed the point? Note to other neutrals: By requesting this clarification I am not "taking" or "reserving" this dispute to my care, but am merely trying to get some clarification for whoever eventually chooses, if anyone does, to work on it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Responding to the questions by TransporterMan that I am able to address: In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues? While the diffs do not explicitly mention copyright, the talk page of Heroes in Hell certainly does. See this section and this section for the copyright disputes. Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute? Yes. Wolfowitz had this to say in this diff... There is no longer any dispute that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and its two sequels, as well as "Newton Sleep," the other award-nominated story, were not originally published in the HiH series, but instead first appeared in magazines. ...whereas UrbanTerrorist has not agreed per this diff... In your mind there may not be [any dispute]. In words that even you can understand, a story doesn't exist without a market. Benford and Silverberg could not have written those stories without Heroes in Hell as a market. My understanding from Janet is that they were given permission to take the stories to the magazine market by her. In the magazines there was a good sized blurb about the anthology. It's called advertising. Free advertising. Do you understand the concept? ...and Knihi also responded to this saying the following in this diff, citing that we should not avoid differentiating between first serial rights & reprints, and also is concerned that the individual book articles were merged because of this concern over reprints (though there were other reasons why the merger occurred): I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it? To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable." Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?) I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Oh dear, it's late and I may not be writing very clearly, but I feel I need to put on record that I don't think the listing editor should have identified this as a copyright issue. Another editor thought the question could be answered by looking at copyright, but that was a red herring. The question is whether it's appropriate to use terms such as "reprinted" or "originally published in" to describe the work in question. Such terms may be at least neglectful and even denigratory. Yes, some books are collections of reprints, such as Best SF of the Year or Nebula Winners. Others such as Thieves World and its sequels contain work written for inclusion in those books. Such books are created with care in a creative process in which the individual authors knowingly collaborate, at the very least by working within parameters; they are not "mere" reprints. Yes, works are sometimes published in periodicals, in full or in abridged form, before they're published in their final or originally intended form. That does not imply that the later publication merely reprinted the former. It's normal practice and good money if you can get it. NebY (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Agreed, I think this better captures the debate here. I apologize for not quite correctly describing the solution, but there is so much going on here, my head is in a fog whenever I begin to write about it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations. The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike. Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article. List of relevant Hugo Award-winning stories Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip José Farmer(1968) Nightwings by Robert Silverberg (1969) Ill Met in Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber (1971) The Queen of Air and Darkness by Poul Anderson (1972) The Word for World Is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973) The Girl Who Was Plugged In by James Tiptree, Jr. (1974) Houston, Houston, Do You Read? by James Tiptree, Jr. (1977) Stardance by Spider Robinson and Jeanne Robinson (1978) Enemy Mine by Barry B. Longyear (1980) Lost Dorsai* by Gordon R. Dickson (1981) The Saturn Game by Poul Anderson (1982) 24 Views of Mt. Fuji, by Hokusai by Roger Zelazny (1986) Gilgamesh in the Outback by Robert Silverberg (1987) Eye for Eye by Orson Scott Card (1988) The Last of the Winnebagos by Connie Willis (1989) Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress (1992) Down in the Bottomlands by Harry Turtledove (1994) Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge by Mike Resnick (1995) Oceanic by Greg Egan (1999) Coraline by Neil Gaiman (2003) The Cookie Monster by Vernor Vinge (2004) Inside Job by Connie Willis (2006) All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis (2008) Palimpsest by Charles Stross (2010) We're dealing with organized promotional editing on behalf of Morris and her works, and quite a few of the users involved are writers who have sold stories to Morris, or hope to do so. Over the last few months, I've created dozens of articles concerning science fiction short stories and collections, and expanding scores if not hundreds of other articles concerning fiction in the genre. In virtually every case, if the information regarding original publication was not included in the existing article, I added it; and provided it in every article I created. Over many months and hundreds of articles, this has been entirely uncontroversial, because it represents basic encyclopedic information. The dispute here is manufactured for COI editors to disrupt normal editing and WP:OWN the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Wolfowitz, you assert that canvassing has been taking place on Baen's Bar. I'm a member there, and have not seen such canvassing. Further, several searches have failed to show any sign of it. Would you please show which thread in which sub-conference contains such canvassing, since I have been completely unable to find it myself? Thanks - Luke Jaywalker (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Mike's Madhouse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC) As a former moderator of Baen's Bar, I have to take issue with the totally unwarranted attempt to drag them into this mess. Personally, I'm a tad insulted that anyone would think that if there was actual canvassing of Baen's Bar there would be this poor a turnout. Don't drag them into this, it's not their mess. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC) See above. And if the thread should somehow disappear, I've got screencaps. Now do I get another apology? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC) For my not asking you where you were getting that, yes. For my thinking you're reaching looking for conspiracies, no. I feel you've overreacted to a simple issue of neutral point of view. The relevant stories were clearly developed in and for a shared universe and any neutral POV article would need to be consistent with that. Why that basic fact--that the stories were developed in and for a shared universe--seems to upset you I've no idea. All I can do is try to stay as civil as possible while we all look for some NPOV resolution. This will be my last comment on the matter. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Although I cannot debate armed with the intricate rules of WP, I want to bring up one point that has been missed that does relate to copyright. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a shared world or shared universe. This is stated on the original Heroes in hell WP page and elsewhere and no one has ever contested it. Shared worlds/shared universes are complicated collaborative undertakings and WP has an entire page on "shared universes/shared worlds. I recommend that anyone evaluation my concerns over copyright look at the shared universe/shared world page on WP, then check to see that live links between Heroes in Hell series page and that shared universes/shared world pages do in fact exist today. WP is an adequate source on how shared worlds work. Additionally, here are quotes from Heroes in Hell with citations from accepted sources quotes on the HIH page: "The shared world premise of Heroes in Hell is that all the dead wind up together in Hell, where they pick up where they left off when still alive.[1] The Encyclopedia of Fantasy states "In the long series of shared world adventures begun with Heroes in Hell, Hell becomes an arena in which all the interesting people in history can come together to continue the relentless pursuit of their various ends."[2] Brian Stableford commented that the series "adapted the backcloth of Dantean fantasy as a stage for violent adventures with ironic echoes of infernal comedy". [3] See Heroes in hell series page for live links. I have asked someone from the SFWA grievance committee to look at this issue, so I hope this discussion will stay open for at least a few days. My concerns that my copyright and franchise will be diluted by imprecise wording of rights issues remains: a first serial (please see: http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php) which is a one-time use, is not the primary source of a shared worlds piece of fiction: the fiction is developed with the proprietor specifically for that shared world: the publication in the shared world first edition for which the collaborative fiction was written is the primary source. Such a story is not the creation of someone acting independently. The fact that both first-serialized stories from Heroes in Hell had copyrights for the first-serializing magazines does not change the fact that the stories were commissioned for a shared world series and under its rules and guidance, long before first serial rights were sold. As for awards, awards ballots commonly take the first publication cited, if not asked to ignore it for a later one. I hope this helps. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC) This isn't about copyright, but even if it were, you're still misrepresenting an essential point. The Silverberg stories -- and as you've acknowledged elsewhere, there are three of them, not just one, all originally published outside your anthology series -- are based on his own original work, the novel Gilgamesh the King, conceived, written, sold, and published well before the Heroes in Hell franchise came into existence. The stories "cross over" between Silverberg's pre-existing copyrighted IP and your "franchise", and the claims made by you and your partisans denigrate his intellectual property and dilute his copyrights to at least as great an extent as you claim my comments do to yours. And what do you have in mind for the SFWA Grievance Committee to do? Griefcom exists only to handle disputes with "your editor, publisher, agent, or other writing-related business associate." I can't imagine they're going to be very impressed if you've shown up on their doorstep asking for them to expend their resources to take your side in a content dispute on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC) This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations. That is a total misrepresentation. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for a long time. I have never had any problems with any other editors in all of the years I've been here, until I set up the original Lawyers in Hell page and Orangemike decided to step in. I had never seen anyone break rules the way that Orangemike did. I think that he set a record that may never be beaten. I may have had some disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but compared to Orangemike, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looks like Miss Congeniality. That said, the paragraph above is essentially incorrect. To the best of my knowledge the only Single Purpose Account is Guarddog2 which is Janet Morris herself. Much has been made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of the fact that I know Janet. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't take into account is that I'm a writer, and that I have the contact information for about three or four hundred writers in my electronic address book, and I'm in regular contact with about sixty or seventy of them. Why would we cite Wikipedia policies, when the issue isn't a policy issue? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wants to decide things by consensus that are not properly the domain of consensus. This isn't an exact analogy, but the equivalent would be to try and decide the solution of a mathematical question. It's not the correct place to use consensus. I would also like to see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prove where I've used invective. That would be interesting. Its an easy claim to make. As to the demonstrably false claims, what he means is that we wouldn't fall down and play dead to his superior knowledge. The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike. The basic question is not simple. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not seem to understand that specialized fields use language in specialized ways. Writers and publishers have their own variation of English, as do Lawyers, as do Doctors. Because of this standard dictionary definitions are nonsensical when applied to those fields. Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article. Since I haven't got the time to go over the list you've provided tonight, I really can't comment here. I'm behind enough as it is. However I would strongly suggest that you send the list to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, where you will get an unbiased opinion from experts in the field. You could also ask them at this point what the difference is between First Serial and Reprint, and again get Expert help. I would think the fact that you are getting so much opposition from people who know something about the field should be causing you to start wondering about what exactly is going on. You might also want to consider your consistency. You aren't willing to accept information from Janet Morris, but you are willing to accept information from Robert Silverberg. You have a choice. Either accept information from neither, or both. As to the book Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors which you've been quoting at length, I'd like to remind you that it is only accurate, if the information that the writer had is accurate. If she had been using the current Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback Wikipedia articles for research, it would be inaccurate. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Note that this reference does not say "first published" or "originally published" for the Asimov's July 1968 publication of Gilgamesh in the Outback. It only says "published." The same holds true for the other sources cited by HulaballoWolfowitz. He/she has made a logical error in assuming that because the Asimov's publication is listed first (perhaps because it's in alphabetical order by title) or that it is listed solely, that this shows it was the first publication. As I have patiently tried to show, all the remains certain is both versions were published in July 1986. Under the rule of "Which is most reliable?" all that can be said is both publications appeared in July 1986.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap I am going to ignore all the personal comments and conspiracy theories from Mr. Wolfowitz, since they do not relate to this narrow discussion, except one issue, and on that one topic I will explain why his comments are immaterial: the fact that the mythical Gilgamesh character AS A CHARACTER WHO IS ALIVE was written by Silverberg in another book; and I will add that Benford used a fictional character he had previously used, when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot easily be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written. On a much happier note, I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, who says earlier today in this debate, and I agree, "I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. So perhaps we have a happy ending. Guarddog2 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) "Characters cannot be copywritten"? Are you kidding? If anyone wondered why I've been skeptical about Guarddog2's claims to be a certain notable editor/author, that comment ought to demonstrate why I have my doubts. "Copywritten" isn't even a word. And just to flesh out the shorthand, the copyright protection afforded an author under the Copyright Act extends to the exclusive right to create derivative works based on the characters in their original works. And if you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll quit Wikipedia and write a series of torrid novels about the heated romance between Harry Potter and Sookie Stackhouse. Maybe they'll have a threesome with one of those blue dudes from Avatar. Or at least a love triangle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be very helpful if you would consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions. I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Hulcys930 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC) General apologies for being too quick and sloppy with delete key while seeking brevity. There was errata in the text above, that Mr. Wolfowitz caught. Text should have read, and does read now: when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected as written; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written. Please see: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#P55_7616 Please also see on wipo: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm: Is a character protected by copyright? A character could be protected under copyright if it is an original expression of an author. Merchandising items such as toys, interactive games, books and clothing including characters can also be protected by intellectual property rights in certain circumstances, mainly copyright and trademarks, along with other areas of law. See the WIPO Report on Character Merchandising (Adobe PDF). Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be to your benefit if you were to consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions (please do not attempt to portray this as a legal threat, since I am simply telling you how to obtain information that you lack). I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) These definitions have already been presented in the talk page by Wolfowitz, where this contract publishing information by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and the Illinois State Bar Association delineates the definitions quite clearly (on pg. 15). Wolfowitz's comments appear to be consistent with those definitions, and any differences between his interpretation, common usage, and the legal terms seem unsubstantial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I was simply going by the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz seems to continue to insist that the chronology of the printing of a story controls what constitutes a reprint regardless of the actual, legal definition of reprint and first serial. I have searched the talk page (by that I assume you mean the Heroes in Hell discussion page) and do not find any reference to the SFWA/Illinois State Bar definition posted by Mr. Wolfowitz. Please give me a link so I can find what you are describing. I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm not sure I understand where you say this information was posted. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Wolfowitz added it in this diff, right after "SFWA's presentation." I'm sorry it's a long page, but it's there. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the reference. As it plainly states in Mr. Wolfowitz' citation, "In SFWA's presentation "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts," online here [9], on page 15, "first serial" is limited in meaning to publication "prior to publication in book form," while "reprint" covers later publications in book form, including "collections." 1) The Heroes in Hell volumes are not "collections" (which infers gathering various stories together, stories not connected to one another, after previous initial publication.) All stories were written for and published in the "Hell" universe. 2) Stories written in and for a specific shared universe, using the individual milieu and rules of the shared universe, with the collaboration of all authors of each volume, are NOT "collections." Therefore, the "first serial" publication of Gilgamesh is in Mr. Asimov's magazine which was published contemporaneously with the initial Heroes in Hell publication in book form. 3) The month of publication in a magazine that actually sends out that issue of the magazine some weeks before the "issue date" is completely irrelevant. I am sorry this very simple definition is the subject of so much contention and I doubt this explanation will silence those who disagree. This issue is controlled solely by the legal contracts between the publishers and authors and is not subject to a "consensus" or "opinion." (That's why contract lawyers make so much money and Contract Law is the most hated subject in law school.) Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC) This is what I wrote in the Gilgamesh In the Outback discussion page: Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1986 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokzap (talk • contribs) I agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution. I would also like to point out that it preserves notability, as I believe is appropriate, should one wish to recreate a distinct Rebels in Hell page. I also suspect he meant for this to be in the discussion section. :) Knihi (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I also agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution, which is appropriate as it lists both the first-serial publication in IASFM and the shared universe/shared world book publication in Rebels in Hell as having occurred in July 1986, which is the correct date and seems to fall within the Wikipedia rules. To do less would be incomplete. As for Wolfowitz's assertion that the July, 1986 date is wrong for IASFM's publication, at worst this is fabrication, at best it would be original research if it could be proved. I also urge all involved here to look at the Heroes in Hell series page where it says shared world and then go to the Wikipedia page about "shared universe/shared world." Not even Wolfowitz has dared to claim that these books were not shared world volumes. To be compliant with the shared world rules, no story could have been independently conceived and merely reprinted as a second serial. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Once again, "Janet," you're providing easily disproved misinformation. For virtually the entire duration of its existence, IASFM has provided "on-sale" dates for each issue in the pages of the one preceding it. It still does. Here's a link to the online posting of the "next issue" page from the current issue [10]. Here's a link to a Google scan for an issue from 1992 [11]. Here's a pair of GScans from 1989 [12]. While I can't turn up an online scan, I'll tell you that the June 1986 issue declared the on-sale date of the July issue to be June 3, 1986. You've just reported, from your personal knowledge of the book you edited, that the book itself actually went on sale in July. That should pretty much establish which came first. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC) It would be interesting in a court of law, as in a statute of limitations regarding libel, whether the on-sale date or the publication date would be accepted.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap I disagree with the solution. The earlier agreed solution was a complete merge of all articles including all of the Heroes in Hell books and stories, and this is what I was trying to implement, and is what I think is still necessary. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) In the case of asserting which of two publications with the same month and year publication date appeared first, the burden of proof here is on Mr. Wolfowitz. In both the magazine and paperback distribution system at the time, publications with a month date of July could have been physically placed on a newsstand, mailed by subscription, or appeared at a bookstore prior to actual date of July 1. But which appeared first? And where? An advanced reading copy of Rebels in Hell could have been sent to reviewers before the Asimov's publication. A bookstore in Topeka might have received a carton of Rebels in Hell books in May. Who knows? Mr. Wolfowitz thinks he knows, but logically he has a heavy burden of proof here. For the purpose of the best scholarly accuracy, rather than expend useless energy counting demons on the head of pin, the better, and objectively least controversial solution is to state the best known facts. Both versions of Gilgamesh In the Outback have a July 1986 date. Move on.Dokzap (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap. Okay, here's what I think, as a neutral: (a) The resolution of this dispute needs to center on Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, not on extraneous issues. (b) As I previously noted, Wikipedia is not a contract, law review, publication copyright page, or other legal instrument and is not making legal representations by the particular wording it uses. Even if words have some specialized meanings in those contexts, if they have a generally-accepted English language meaning then that is the meaning used and meant here unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication that the specialized legal meaning is intended. (c) Moreover, even if some particular formula of words were to be used to avoid certain legal implications, there are significant practical problems with keeping it in place due to the wiki model, and that is especially true if the preferred locution is unwieldy or "clunky," in that there is no mechanism provided here to lock it in place and prevent it from being changed by the first WikiGnome who comes along and says "that doesn't read right." (And before someone jumps up and says, "We'll just watch it and make sure it isn't changed!" they need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and also realize that the language must be inserted by consensus in the first place, that consensus can change at any time, and that arguing that "to change it the way you want it is illegal" is a disfavored, if not prohibited, argument at Wikipedia, which leads us into my next point.) (d) While certain legal issues such as (but not only) use of copyrighted materials without permission, defamation, and threats of violence are dealt with in Wikipedia policy, dilution of trademark or copyright is not, so far as I can find, and the Wikipedia community should not take it into account in making editing decisions. Indeed, there is strong Wikipedia policy discouraging the making of legal claims within the Wikipedia online framework because, among other things, the legal uncertainty of such claims are "show stoppers" which interfere with the free flow of debate here. That does not mean that someone who feels, as Ms. Morris may now or in the future, that her legal rights have been injured should just go away and forget about it. Instead, it means that those specific concerns must be directed directly to the Wikimedia Foundation by email (the best address is probably info-en-c@wikimedia.org) and not be discussed here, per the just-cited policy. (e) Whatever is introduced into a Wikipedia article must be, if challenged, documented with inline citations to reliable sources. That includes any representations about the sequence in which published works are printed. The editor who introduces or reintroduces material has the burden of providing and defending those citations. If reliable sources are not provided, then the information must be removed from Wikipedia, though the best practice is to give the introducing editor a reasonable amount of time to find and provide sources. In light of the foregoing, if the printing order can be established through reliable sources, then a locution which states something like "first printed in x, subsequently printed in y" is probably preferable (and would appear to have some consensus support here), but "originally published in x and reprinted in y" is in no way forbidden or improper because that is, indeed, what happened when that locution is taken in its common English sense. I have some doubt about whether the "printed ... printed" formula will, however, survive in the long run here, but it might. Whichever form is used must be established by consensus. (And at this point, I don't see any consensuses being particularly affected by the alleged canvassing, but if anyone feels differently then they need to, first, read the canvassing rule carefully to verify that what they're seeing falls within the Wikipedia definition of canvassing, then report it to administrator noticeboard/incidents [here's my shorthand version, but your interpretation may vary: soliciting third parties to join in a discussion in a substantial way: fine, soliciting them to come in and just say "me too": bad].) Finally, I was writing this response when Urban Terrorist posted his note about merger and didn't see it until it came up in the edit conflict. I express no opinion about that subject, except that I suspect that it may well be a case of consensus can change in the light of the fact that no one has mentioned it here until now and that merger might well just move the dispute to a single location rather than solving it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Point of Order - Please note that deciding whether something is a reliable source is very much a judgement call. A source may be reliable on one subject, but unreliable on another, due to the author's lack of knowledge of the subject matter, or lack of appropriate source material, a point which I was trying to make to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz earlier, and which he/she/it totally misunderstood. Consider for example Wikipedia's article on ISBN which is inaccurate because it is mostly about the American system, and does not cover the ISBN system in other countries. I'm very familiar with the Canadian system as I am a Canadian Publisher and it doesn't work the same way. Almost all books which you can find on publishing are about the American system, and therefore not reliable sources for publishers in other countries. The book that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is using as his bible may be accurate on some details, but may not be accurate on others. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) As briefly as I can, two independent reliable sources for publication history, reporting the magazine appearance as first/primary: reference work [13], anthology permissions page [14]. Corroborated by Silverberg's authorized bibliography [15], by ISFDB [16], the Locus Hugo listing [17], and the Locus Nebula listing [18], even by the official awards site [19]. I have found no similarly reliable sources contradicting these reports. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC). If the assertion is first/original publication, the references cited contradict that point. Nothing in them says "first" or "original." The Silverberg website lists the citations in alphabetical order by title, for example, and the presumption that this indicates "first" or "original" publication is wrong.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap If anyone had any doubts about Dokzap's lack of good faith and disruptive intent, this should dispel them. All you have to do is click on the anthology permissions link I provided, immediately above, where it says, plain as day, "Gilgamesh in the Outback" by Robert Silverberg. Copyright © 1986 by Agberg, Ltd. First published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, July 1986. Reprinted by permission of the author and Agberg, Ltd. As for Dokzap's claim that an academic/library reference bibliography is an unreliable source for determining original publication -- for God's sake, that's what the bibliography is for. He might as well argue that the (1899-1961) following Hemingway's name don't necessarily indicate birth and death, since the text doesn't say that in individual entries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for that additional citation. This comment by Robert Silverbeg on his web page may be helpful and more clearly explain how the work came to be. I would recommend adding this to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page: "This fits (more or less) into the shared universe of Hell lorded over by C.J. Cherryh and Janet Morris, though it's not mentioned in this book (probably due to somebody's contracts with somebody else). It continues the adventures of the mythical king into a strange version of the afterworld. I call it strange because it does not fit completely with any religious vision of an afterlife. In the other Hell books, there is a basic Christian slant, with demons presiding over the dead and occasional references to a satanic being in charge, but Hell is not just for sinners. Everyone is there, from Hitler to the saints, from the beginning of the human race to sometime in the 21st century. Silverberg takes a more general view, and the Christian elements of Cherryh and Morris's scenario are not present, and in fact this book stands a little outside the general tone of the rest of the series. "One of the basic ideas of the Hell books is that once a person is there, it's forever. If you get killed you come back in a new body after a short time. Another basic idea is that there is no way out. Gilgamesh makes it his quest to find a way out of Hell, a way back to Earth. The irony is that in life, his quest was to make it to the land of the dead to be with his friend Enkidu, and now that he's there, he wants to leave, though he still seeks Enkidu. "The book started as the novella Gilgamesh in the Outback in Rebels in Hell and in that form was nominated for Nebula Award for best novella, 1987. Chapters 1-5 are that novella. Chapters 7-11 were published as The Fascination of the Abomination in Angels in Hell. The title character of Lord of Darkness features prominently in this book as well. I've read a number of the other books in the Hell series, and while they're sometimes enjoyable, I'm not sure I can recommend them. Cherryh's stories are particularly grating to me (which is unusual as she is one of my favorite writers), with their idea that only the famous people of history are important and ordinary people don't even rate bodies in Hell (this is not the way it works in Silverberg's Hell stories, or even many of the other writers in this shared universe)." (Robert Silverberg, http://www.majipoor.com/work.phgp?id=1190) In Silverberg's own words, this clearly shows that Nebula nominated version of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was the vesion written in Rebels in Hell. I offer this paragraph and citation as an amendment to my original suggestion as a resolution. Dokzap (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap. Well, first of all, we can't drop a large block of cut-and-pasted text like that into an article; it violates WPs nonfree content policy, and is likely an outright copyvio. Second, it's quite apparent that Silverberg didn't write that, and it shouldn't be attributed to him. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Wolfowitz quotes these citations above as if they are all equal, which they are not, and equally applicable, which they are not. The DAW collection permission page quotes the first serial of GITO as its source, because it is a second serial and someone chose the attribution -- but this citation shows that any reprint MUST have an attribution and be used by permission. Rather than proving what Wolfowiz thinks, it proves that Rebels in Hell was not a reprint, since the copyright page of Rebels in Hell bears no such notice, but only Janet Morris' copyright and the statement A Baen Books Original. If Baen Books/Simon and Simon & Schuster had lied about the book being an original, they could have been sued. The quote from Silverberg's website is inadmissible by definition: it is Silverberg's website, and at best contains an error of omission or at worst purposely omits the fact that the story was created in a collaborative environment: I doubt Silverberg created his own website, so this is probably just lack of familiarity by the website text creator that a person as old as Silverberg did not notice. The ISFDB citation above makes no errors: It lists the two publications in the same year alphabetically, and lists them as having occurred in the same month. So a good number of those citations are inadmissible, and the ones derived from the awards information are incomplete: by choice or because of alphabetization, only one of the two relevant citations for that year were represented. This doesn't mean that the second attribution is not correct. Can this debate be widened to include possible COI or overzealousness or editorial hounding, in whatever terms WP phrases these, on the part of Wolfowitz, who seemingly has an agenda to strip the relevant award winning and nominated stories from the Heroes in Hell(TM) series so he can then delete the Heroes in Hell(TM) series page and all individual book pages (except, it seems, my good friend CJ Cherryh's, which remains untouched with only one review from Locus cited)? Wolfowitz has stated his intention to prove that the Benford and Silverberg stories were not written for HIH (a "low rent series," said Mr W.)in a collaborative environment, but are instead the individual and pre-existing product of Benford and Silverberg's imagination, a premise that is unprovable without original research and which is incorrect. We have explained earlier that having used those characters while the characters were purported to live does not dilute the fact that when dead in hell they were created subject to the rules of the Heroes in Hell(TM) shared universe/world and both authors agreed to these conditions before writing the stories, which were commissioned for the various volumes in which the authors wrote. Under these terms and conditions, both authors wrote more than one story for the series. If the authors didn't have a problem writing for a shared universe/world, why does Mr. Wolfowitz have a problem that they did so? These continued assertions by Wolfowitz that because a first serial MAY have appeared earlier in July than the shared universe book and that the earliest date confers some primacy are getting tedious. Alls tories for a book are turned in, copy-edited, and processed long before the publication and copyright date on the volume. Please see the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_universe, which has NEVER published a reprint, but only originals contracted for each volume. This site explains why no first-serial publication date in any way contravenes the collaborative nature of ALL stories written for the HIH series. The series is, multiple places (some cited above), and in reviews and on some volumes, clearly identified as a shared universe/world. Silverberg contributed not only once, but three times to this shared universe/world. Quoting from Wikipedia's shared universe page, we find: "A shared universe is a fictional universe to which more than one writer contributes. Work set in a shared universe share characters and other elements with varying degrees of consistency. Shared universes are contrasted with collaborative writing, in which multiple authors work on a single story. Shared universes are more common in fantasy and science fiction than in other genres. Examples include the Star Trek, DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Star Wars, Forgotten Realms, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Power Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, and Cthulhu Mythos. A teen summer camp called Shared Worlds, started by author Jeff VanderMeer, is based around this concept." Is HIH listed there? No, but it could have been. Not all shared worlds are listed. As a matter of fact, many books are listed that are NOT shared universe volumes: A "List of CJ Cherry books" linked there in references shows group of titles on her website that can be purchased on Amazon from that link on WP's "shared universes" page, and very few of the Cherryh books being sold there are shared universes, if any. (Is this Wikipedia's vaunted neutrality? Or in business with CJ?) Since so far there has been no debate that HIH is a shared universe/world, the very fact that it is one and listed so on Wikipedia and in citations from several sources quoted on the HIH page on Wikipedia and stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, should end the debate about what the primary source of the work was: it was HIH, with a magazine serialization in IASFM that was required to list that the story "will be published in Rebels in Hell" -- a citation required if the story in IASFM was a first serial. As a matter of fact provided by Wolfowitz himself, the absence of a permission citation on the copyright page of RIH PROVES it to be the primary source of the GITO story. I strongly suggest that the attributions in Wikipedia for GITO be Dokzap's solution of both July 1986 publications being listed in alphabetical order with no use of the word "reprint" or "reprinted" or, failing consensus on that, that ALL related works, including CJ Cherry's Legions of Hell and the GITO page, be merged into the HIH series page as suggested by Urban Terrorist. And I ask once again for protection from this overzealous editor, Wolfowitz, so that those with an interest in expanding the pages aren't chased away by continual fear that he will unilaterally delete any contributions he doesn't like without giving editors the opportunity to improve their contributions. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC) This diatribe hurled in my direction is so breathtakingly inept that, even more than earlier ones, makes it exceptionally difficult to believe that this is Janet Morris, or anyone else with significant professional experience in the publishing business. I'll be brief, and just give two examples. "Janet" challenges the anthology permissions page I linked to (the "DAW collection"), saying that as a "second serial" it's somehow appropriate for it to attribute only the first serial. This makes no sense in terms of applicable law and standards, of course, but that's not the most important flub. The anthology, a book edited by the late Brian Thomsen and published by DAW Books, isn't a "second serial" publication because second serial publication refers to publication in magazines, newspapers, or similar periodicals. You don't have to take my word for that. Take the word of the Authors Guild, the leading US organization for professional writers. It says that right here[20] in section 2, "Subsidiary Rights". "Janet" also says that "first serial publication" in a magazine is "required" to list the upcoming book publication for works like these. There's no authority cited for that, because it's just not true. Here's a scan (from the Silverberg-authorized site) of the first two pages of the Silverberg story which appeared in Angels in Hell [21]. You'll noticed that although it carries a copyright notice on behalf of Bob Silverberg (aka Agberg Ltd), it doesn't credit, or even mention, you or Angels in Hell. Though there isn't a scan online for it that I've turned up, the same is true for the third Silverberg novella, "Gilgamesh in Uruk." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC) SUGGESTED RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE I would like to suggest that the verbiage used on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Talk page by User:Dokzap here[22] be adopted as the language on the Heroes in Hell pages and stop this unnecessary waste of everyone's time. The quote from User:Dokzap is accurate and appropriate. Quote: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell (July 1987)*, published by Baen Books." Would everyone who is willing to accept User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page, please note that below this post? If so, possibly we might be able to conclude this discussion. Thank you. *(Publication date added in the interest of total accuracy) Hulcys930 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I would be happy to accept the User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page and for the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Guarddog2 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) First of all, Wikipedia is not a vote, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Second, you have a clear COI and shouldn't be participating in discussions on what sort of credit you're entitled to benefit from. Third, it's been pointed out to me that you were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project. According to at least one of your associates, you've been canvassing off-wiki. And the flood of SPA's who've surfaced, arguing in concert and principally or only editing articles related to you and your works, indicates your abuse of multiple accounts has resumed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you have such solid proof of malfeasance provide it with documentation. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know what you are talking about. I can barely manage to get around on WP. I was given this address by another editor who said it would be perfectly fine if I participated. I set up Guarddog specifically for the purpose of providing fact for HIH discussions: I said that on the page. You know that. You went there. You saw the disclosure I put there. Having seen the disclosure, I was told it would be fine if I participated. First you say I'm not who I say I am, and now you say I'm some sort of WP mastermind? Please make up your mind. As I said, I support the Dozkap proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarddog2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Wolfy, if you read the post you so kindly cited, you'll note that Mike (who is, by the way, not Janet; he clearly identified himself as the author of that post) was not canvassing for support; he was looking to gather *information.* Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with User:Dozkap's wording as well, for the record. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'll accept User:Dokzap's wording as well. We've wasted too much time on this, let's get back to being productive. I need to re-write the catalytic converter article again, some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry has messed it up. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that the core issue here is when a given story was first published. All this talk about copyright and publication rights is a load of hooey as I see it. We don't adjudicate legal or contractual issues here. That's the realm of lawyers and contracts - we describe what the reliable sources say in public, not what lawyers and their clients argue about in conference rooms and court rooms. The fundamental questions here here is: where could a science fiction fan first purchase and read this story? It seems to me that the evidence indicates that the answer is in Isaac Asimov's magazine. If so, the article should say so. And if the story then appeared shortly thereafter in a book, then the article should say so. If the story was, in effect, commissioned for that book, and fits in with the scenario and theme established for that book by the creator of that series of books, then the article should say so. When the article says such things, those statements should be backed up by references to reliable sources. This is especially important when, as in this case, (for some bizarre reason) the matter is contentious. All this commentary about how "clueless" Wikipedia editors are about publishing and that "the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues" is really over the top. This is not a journal about publishing rights, and this article isn't the place to discuss such topics. I am a moderately experienced editor, and I'm not embarrassed by this kerfuffle, except vicariously for those who have expelled so much hot air here. Wikipedia is roughly the fifth or sixth most visited website in the world, and is number one in terms of original written content. Billions of people rely on Wikipedia, not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it is based on what reliable sources say about notable topics, not what axe-grinders with obvious conflicts of interest are driven to say about those topics. So, to those new editors who are so hot and bothered here, I would advise you to get involved in the editing of 20 contentious articles on a wide variety of topics. When you return to this debate, perhaps you can see how inconsequential the issues here really are in the grand scheme of things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you, User:Cullen328 for your input. Hopefully, it will be followed... and by long-time editors with obvious "issues." Mr. Wolfowitz: You seem to feel free to bandy about accusations of wrongdoing and impersonation with regard to Janet Morris (first, you accused Luke Jaywalker of being Janet Morris, second you accused me of being Janet Morris, but when Janet Morris signs on and identifies herself, you firmly insist she is NOT Janet Morris {oddly convoluted reasoning}). Then you make the following statements with no citations or backup of any kind as if by you asserting the accusation, it is automatically to be taken as gospel: "it's been pointed out to me that you [Janet Morris] were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a [sic] account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project." So, as you insist others do, add the appropriate citations of the discussion/procedure in which SOMEONE was blocked for inappropriate behavior on WP, along with whatever evidence you have used to determine that person is, in fact, Janet Morris, or please withdraw the accusations. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented the evidence, which I find persuasive, on the Administrator's noticeboard Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Don't try to read my remarks as any criticism of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's role here. His "issue" here is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The talk page for this article is packed full of false accusations that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest here. He doesn't. In fact, the editor claiming to be Janet Morris and the editors claiming to be contributors to the series are the ones who have a demonstrable conflict of interest here. Who knows if that editor really is Janet Morris, but if that's true, the conflict of interest is bald. Who knows if those other editors really are the authors, but if so, their conflict of interests are exposed by those disclosures. We have a procedure here, called WP:OTRS which allows editors to verify their real world identity in confidence. Any editor wanting to assert such a real world identity needs to go through that process, or be prepared to have their identity questioned and discounted here. If the editor claiming to be Janet Morris denies connection with the indefinitely blocked editor mentioned by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, then we have highly experienced checkusers here who can determine whether or not those claims are true or false. Until then, experienced editors are likely to accept, at least provisionally, the assertions of an experienced editor like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. All further arguments should be based on a deep and nuanced understanding of Wikipedia's over-arching policies and guidelines, not on the self-interested assertions of single purpose accounts and editors with a genuine conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I would like to let everyone who hasn't received an Administrator's Noticeboard note that some of use have been accused of being sock puppets by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I checked the pages of everyone who I remembered as being involved here, and only some people got the notice, and curiously almost all of them were in opposition to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It appears if he cannot win one way, he's going to win another. If you disagree with this type of gamesmanship I suggest you tell him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Even for UrbanTerrorist, this an exceptionally weird complaint. As no one disputes, I notified everyone I was required to notify regarding the ANI complaint. To notify people not mentioned or otherwise involved in the subject of the complaint would probably have been a WP:CANVASS problem. I don't believe I've ever seen before an objection to an ANI for notifying only editors on the "other side" from the complainant. As a result of the complaint, Guarddog2 has admitted being an alternate account of the indef-blocked user Harmonia1, demonstrating that the complaint was valid and correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC) This statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is technically true, in that the people he had made the complaint against were notified. However there were other people involved in this discussion, and they were not notified. I believe that they too had an interest in what was happening, as the outcome would affect them as well, so I made certain that they were notified by visiting their discussion pages and posting the notice directly to them. I also posted this on the discussion pages of other people who had been involved with the issue in the past. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) As you might deduce from my prior comments I, too, think that Dokzap's language is fine and you can add my support to the consensus growing in its favor. However, in light of the discussion ongoing at ANI, it would be inappropriate under the guidelines of this noticeboard to continue any further discussion here of the issues raised there, broadly construed, so I am asking as a neutral in this matter that all further discussion here be limited to the issue of the language to be used to relate Gilgamesh in the Outback to its various publications either to discuss the Dokzap proposal or to propose and discuss other language which an editor finds more suitable. I express no opinion about the matters raised at the ANI discussion, but would respectfully request that all further discussion of them take place at that forum, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC) While I respect your efforts, I think you are dead wrong here. The templates and related documentation for WP:WikiProject Novels (which ought to be called WikiProject Fiction, since its scope has widened since it was named) call for identification of the first publication of each fictional work which is the subject of an article. In particular, the "Infobox: short story" template [23], which is used for all shorter-than-novel-length fiction, makes such information a standard infobox data field. There are no reliable sources contradicting the multiple sources I have provided and cited for the actual first publication. This dispute, to put it simply, is over the principle that Wikipedia is not censored to promote the economic interests of anyone, even if they recruit and cohort of their friends and colleagues to support their demand for a special exception from a general consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) So, any time someone edits a page of someone whom they know, even peripherally, they are attempting to use Wikipedia to sell something? Perhaps this is the fundamental problem - you BELIEVE that anything that even hints of a COI means someone is trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even if that was not their intention at all, and you respond in a knee-jerk manner attempting to "protect" Wikipedia from people you assume are using it for profit, instead of contacting the person to determine their intent and, if they have made mistakes in editing, help them do it properly. It is really very sad that attitude has caused all this sturm and drang. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I said nothing of the kind. My comments relate to the particular circumstances of this case, and to Guarddog2/Janet Morris's comments thsn presenting the accurate, verifiable information reported in independent reliable sources about publication chronology would have an adverse impact on her eceonomic interests. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Again, the sources cited do not show "first" or "original" publication. I apologize for repeating this observation, but I am trying to be thorough here in challenging an assumption which, on examination of the evidence, is wrong.05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap Guys, a few things. First, if it's that much of a sticking point, you can just leave out the field in the infobox; it's not a big deal. Second, regardless of what you decide to put into the infobox, you can still use Dokzap's proposal for the article text. Third, seriously, if you look at which was published first, ignoring who may or may not have owned the story at the time (which isn't something our readers are going to care about anyway), it shouldn't be difficult to figure out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) DELIBERATELY PRESENTING SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AKA REWRITING HISTORY The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz, by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)[1] "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph[1] described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph[1] - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work, was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source. ALL UN-BIASED EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. THANK YOU. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback resolution 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.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

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. Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I created an image gallery of the people on the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, including a scanned copy of their 1999 report on OTC Derivatives. Wizardman deleted this gallery. I restored it. He deleted it again. We exchanged messages on our talk pages. We disagree about the importance and/or appropriateness of the gallery. There may also be an issue with one of the 5 gallery pictures is a placeholder as there are no easily obtainable free images out there yet of one of the PWG members. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=438444523&oldid=432115146 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=414095848&oldid=413237270 Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Decora (talk · contribs) Wizardman (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We exchanged talk page messages. How do you think we can help? Decide if the content is appropriate, and whether it benefits the article or not. Decora (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I don't think zero posts on the talk page and a single user talk message entitled "Notice of intent to file arbitration dispute" can be reasonably construed as an attempt to resolve the dispute. what kind of discussion could have been possible? he deleted the edits several times with no explanation, ("cleanup") and when i ask for an explanation, he basically said that the gallery was 'palceholders', something that i dont even understand, because only one of the 5 was a placeholder. not sure what more i am supposed to do before coming here. Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC) But since we're here anyway, galleries are generally frowned upon, since they tend to be unnecessary and to clutter the page. This particular gallery does not, to me, appear to be a good use of images; the people pictured aren't even mentioned in the text and what they look like isn't relevant to the article. The gallery is also not well conceived: one of the members lacks a photograph, and one isn't a person at all. It appears that you might be confused about how sources are used at Wikipedia. A pdf does not have to be linked to as an image to be used as a source. Usually the citation of a document links to an online version of that document. The proper method of citing sources is described here. So list the members in the text and cite the report like one would with any other source document. Danger (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC) the people are, in fact, mentioned in the article numerous times. the whole article is about the arguments they made and the results of their work. Every time the articles references 'the PWG', it is referencing those four people - but there are no pictures of them in the article. The one man does not have a picture, but the same was true of the 1933 German Election page for several years, until someone added the missing pictures of the other candidates. the picture of the document is not a citation, it is a picture of the report they produced, the report that heavily influenced the creation of CFMA, and a report that is heavily referenced in the text of the article. Just as an article about a book might have a picture of the book, or a film would have a picture of the one sheet, or an article about a painting would have a copy of the painting, or an article about the nuremburg laws would have scans of the laws, or articles about the wannsee confereence has scans of the conference notes. it is illustration, not reference Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, I misunderstood your intentions regarding the report scan. It's true that articles about artistic works usually include an image of the work. However, the report is not an artistic work and there's nothing distinctive about its appearance. Further, as far as I can tell, it is not the subject of the article. It might be appropriate to insert an image as normal (i.e. not in a gallery) in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be in a gallery of the members of the PWG. Regarding the images of the members, it might be appropriate to include images of individual members if their actions–as individuals, not the group as a whole–are discussed in the text. Otherwise they seem to be just decorative. --Danger (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC) If a gallery seems necessary, I'm sure there's a way to make it without needing to add the placeholder. Having the pictures of those members split up throughout the article could help the article read better, since it is quite long. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Decora, is splitting the gallery into individual images distributed through the article an acceptable solution for you? --Danger (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 resolution Discussion has stalled here and on the talk page. If necessary feel free to post here again. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nazism

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

An editor (Darkstar1st), occasionally joined by others, is intentionally soapboxing and trying to destroy the integrity of both the article and the talk page, filling it up with obscure theories, non-RS comments, cherry-picked sentences taken out of context, and then deleting the actual RS in the article. When confronted on this, he talks in circles, and apparently does not understand the concepts of RS or Wikipedia in general, even though he's been a member for some time. I've had enough with him...as he is clinging to these wacky ideas that Nazism=Left Socialism...which is completely opposite of the accepted scholarly view of pretty much every educated person on the planet. He obviously has an agenda, and will not stop until there is some kind of "intervention." I've never had to ask for help like this before...but things are getting way out of hand.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Darkstar1st (talk · contribs)
• Bryonmorrigan (talk · contribs)
• TFD (talk · contribs)
• Saddhiyama (talk · contribs)

One user noted that Darkstar1st is also doing this in other related pages, such as Strasserism.

• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)

I'm probably the user who noted the Strasserism issue. These articles aren't my usual turf, but in less than a day I've already seen some relentless POV-pushing by Darkstar1st, with cherry-picking of words from sources and no account of their context or meaning. It's not an impressive sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Both I, as well as TFD and Saddhiyama, have attempted to discuss these issues with him, but he is both unwilling and frankly...possibly "unable" to act in a rational manner.

• How do you think we can help?

Anything would be great. He's ruining the work of a lot of people, and wasting all of our time by making us go through and undo all of his edits.

Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I have come across Darkstar1st in the past. In this case he is persuaded that nazism is a form of socialism and has set up multiple discussion threads across a number of articles and presented numerous sources, none of which he has apparently read, that he believes supports his views. With his lengthy experience, he is aware of Wikipedia policy yet chooses to ignore it and waste the time of other editors. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazism *is* a form of socialism. This is a historical and ideological fact. The article clearly states this several times, so this can hardly be what the dispute is really about. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No. This is 'fact' according to some ideologies. If the article states this as fact, it is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is fact, full stop. Sorry. Seems like a dogmatic Darkstar1st has run into some dogmatic socialists that doesn't like the truth. This is as such not a content dispute but a failure of people to compromise because of dogmaticism from all sides. The best resolution here would probably be a topic ban for all of you, but I doubt that is going to happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need to go to sources. The National Socialist Party is considered by the sources with which I am familiar a fascist rather that socialist organization, but I would not be surprised if other sources disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that OpenFuture misunderstands the problem. 'Socialism' isn't a fact, it is an ideology (an idea in people's heads). There are no 'facts' regarding socialism beyond the fact that people believe in the concept - or don't. 'Truth' doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fascism is also sprung out of socialism. I think I have understood the problem spot on. Dogmatic people with opposing dogmaticisms, who all are right in some way, and therefore refuses to listen to the other side, who are also right in some way. Start listening to each other and you'll undoubtedly come to a consensus. It is as factual as any social science issue can be, but yes it is of course possible to view tat as not being factual at all, you are right. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is that supposed to help anyone "come to a consensus"? Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is 'dogmatic' is hardly a constructive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so stop doing that, is what I'm saying, and start listening to each other instead, as both sides here have valid points. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Socialism=Fascism or that Fascism/Nazism is in any way connected to the Left...is nothing but pseudohistorical gibberish, and is not accepted or promoted by any reputable sources. It's a modern Newspeak myth created by uneducated American Conservative talk show hosts to redefine the worst villains of the Far Right as being "really" Left-Wing, and is not even remotely applicable to Wikipedia standards. It would be funny if people weren't so gullible as to believe this kind of nonsense, which is comparable to Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And regardless of the indisputable fact of DarkStar1st being completely wrong in terms of history and politics...what he's done to the page, and also the talk page, is inexcusable, and a clear violation of a multitude of Wikipedia rules. These rules have been pointed out to him, but he continues to spam up the talk page with mountains of cherry-picked, irrelevant nonsense, treating it like a forum, and trying to drown out any dissent to his obscene conspiracy theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I thought the point was that Nazism is connected to socialism, not that Nazism is connected to "left". Those are different concepts. 2. If Darkstar1st is such a horrible vandal, what is this doing here? Start an RFC or an Arbcom case or something. This is for helping to settle disputes, not dealing with vandals or disruptive editors. I'm not sure where is best though, although it sounds like you need an RFC. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when an editor is enamored of a particular source and demands to use it regardless of logic. Hayek's book was highly controversial even at the time (see this critical review for an example) and has very few supporters today. If the article has a section for discussing unorthodox viewpoints, it is not impossible that Hayek could be mentioned. However, citing him as a source of fact in the starting paragraphs is completely unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT both apply. Zero^talk 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is related to misuse of reliable sources in a large number of political articles, and the fault is not only on the side of Darkstar. When "quoting out of context" is used by one side, it is bad, by another side it is good, there is a continuing problem on many articles on Wikipedia. The issue of "fringe" is also a continuing problem, indeed, but in many articles, and this article is by far from the most problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on Darkstar1st's behaviour as I have not been paying attention to his specific edits. What I would like to do is give some more general comments concerning the problems we have on these articles.

For as long as I have been vaguely keeping an eye on some articles related to Fascism and Nazism I have been seeing a regular stream of IP editors and disposable accounts who take it as almost axiomatic that Nazism, and sometimes also fascism, are of the political left. The root of their apparent belief seems to be a non-mainstream understanding of the nature of the concepts of left and right in politics from which they extrapolate their line on Nazism by a mixture of non-mainstream sources and outright original research. Admittedly the concepts of left and right have shifted throughout the history of their use and are not perfectly defined. There is legitimate disagreement on their precise definitions and usage but this attempted radical redefinition of left and right, which turns established usage on its head, is not part of that legitimate disagreement.

The editors pushing the POV have been, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively from the USA and it seems to me that there is a deliberate programme of language change going on there which does not seem to be a natural language shift but one driven by an American right wing political agenda. The agenda is to reassign all odious historical movements of the right to the left so that the left is tainted and the right gets to cover itself in flowers and kittens and never admit that it has a dark side, just as all things have. Wikipedia is not meant to be at the vanguard of language change, particularly not one that seeks to encode political assumptions into the language and render existing terminology useless/meaningless in a manner comparable to Orwell's Newspeak. The one thing I have found very hard to work out with the hit and run editors is whether we can assume good faith with them. Are these editors aware that they are engaging in propaganda or have they simply never read any mainstream history about Fascism and Nazism until they stumble over it on Wikipedia? Is somebody pointing them in our direction? The steady stream of IP editors makes me wonder. Each one turns up pushing the same arguments as the last, has the consensus explained to them on the talk page, argues for a bit and then melts away to be replaced by another IP editor. It is a bit of a Groundhog Day experience and it consumes time that we could be spending on more productive things. Intentional or not, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Looking at this from the outside, in the UK, it is all very bemusing.

It is interesting to see some longstanding editors making similar points. I am happy to assume good faith with them although that doesn't stop me regarding OpenFuture's comments above as very fundamentally mistaken. I don't want to pick him apart line by line but he is entirely wrong to suggest that those who disagree with him are all "dogmatic socialists". Mainstream thinkers on the right recognise Nazism and Fascism as the darkest side of the right but as the left has learned to accept that Stalinism and Maoism are the darkest side of the left. I respect his right to hold a non-mainstream opinion but he should read WP:TRUTH.

The line on Nazism, which I was taught at school and which is followed by mainstream academics of varying political hues, is that Fascism and Nazism are of the right although they also incorporated some elements from the left. This the line taken by the Nazism article (except when it is being messed up) and is the line it should continue to take as its main thrust, unless academic consensus changes, which is highly unlikely.

Notable, non-mainstream views can be included with appropriate weight but must not be over-covered or passed off as mainstream. I suggest that this is where more discussion would be productive, rather than constantly, fruitlessly, revisiting the broad thrust of the article.--DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"Mainstream views of left and right" is indeed one of the primary issues - with many current authors from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on averring that the "left-right spectrum" is not easily applicable to some groups. In fact, the debate about the linear spectrum is mainstream. Schlesinger, by the way, is not generally associated with the "American right." So Wikipedia should, indeed, note that the whole idea of a simple spectrum is now questioned widely, and such questioning is mainstream and not "fringe." [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and on and on. With the mainstream now questioning the use of a linear spectrum, I suggest that its emphasis be depracated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, talking about "left" and "right" is in general pointless as it doesn't have any meaningful definitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again: I agree that claiming that Nazism is on the left is complete nonsense. But that is very different from saying that it is a form of socialism. Those claims are not equal at all, and must not be treated as equal. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources I have read categorize nazism as form of socialism. TFD (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we have provided you with plenty of sources on the topic, which reasonably should close this. The issue here isn't the view of Nazism, but the failure to keep the debate constructive on Talk:Nazism. Darkstar1st is only one of the culprits in that failure. IMO this can be close d now. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources. You seem stuck on the Communist theory that Nazism developed from German Conservatism and are confused by the fact that liberals called Conservative policies "socialist". You are even providing Lenin as a source for your opinions. TFD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I notice that this thread has been inactive for a few days. Are you still having issues with this? We still may be able to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if you would look at Talk:Nazism. Another editor who has not posted to this discussion thread has expressed his concerns to me.[30] TFD (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As an involved editor I can third the complaints about the talk page spamming of Darkstar. Furthermore the editor has a tendency to post discussion posts about article subject related matter directly on the talk page of the involved editors, instead of keeping them at the article talk page, making it even more difficult for editors (involved as well as uninvolved) to follow developments.

On a related note, following my removal of original research I recieved this message from Darkstar, which I found to reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge of the most basic principles of Wikipedia on Darkstars part, both relating to distinction between primary and secondary sources as well as the concept of original research. I find it particularly disturbing in that most of Darkstars editing seems confined to "finding sources", and that even after all this time of engaging in disputes over sources (apparently since 2005) he has still not learned the most basic concepts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language

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. Nsibidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Igbo language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Efik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A user is challenging whether nsibidi, an ideographic writing system, should be considered a writing system because in their opinion ideograms are not considered writing by some author or book. This is despite the fact that ideograms are considered writing here on wikipedia and on dictionary definitions; nsibidi is considered a writing system by every reliable source that is out there; there are other ideographic writing systems on wikipedia that are considered writing; and nsibidi itself has logographic elements, such as the character for the script itself. The origin of this dispute is when the user edited the Igbo language page and, in their opinion, claimed that nsibidi should not be put into the writing systems section of the infobox because "nsibidi is not writing", when challenged about this the user went on to impose their opinions on the main article of nsibidi itself, despite editing it before all the disputes took place, back then they apparently didn't see a problem with it being called writing. The user has used all the references they can get (2) to support their opinion that ideograms, and therefore nsibidi, are not writing. On their user talk they used a reference for nsibidi on the Igbo language page from the Smithsonian website that read: Nsibidi is an ancient system of graphic communication indigenous to the Ejagham peoples of southeastern Nigeria and southwestern Cameroon in the Cross River region. It is also used by neighboring Ibibio, Efik and Igbo peoples. Aesthetically compelling and encoded, nsibidi does not correspond to any one spoken language. It is an ideographic script whose symbols refer to abstract concepts, actions or things and whose use facilitates communication among peoples speaking different languages. When the user dug up this quote, they failed to read where nsibidi is described as a "script", can the readers please tell me of a script that is not considered writing? When I pointed this out, the user then dropped and forgot this reference and moved onto to a book that they had read where writing is supposed to be a certain way in the theory of the author. I didn't know wikipedia is the place to introduce new theories and opinions to argued over and disputed. I showed this user what the reliable sources defined writing as after they proceeded to describe to me what writing is, and how nsibidi could be a "writing system" but not "true writing". First reference was Websters dictionary definition for writing which reads: "2 : something written: as a : letters or characters that serve as visible signs of ideas, words, or symbols" Just to be sure I gave wikipedias definition: "Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium through the use of a set of signs or symbols (known as a writing system). It is distinguished from illustration, such as cave drawing and painting, and non-symbolic preservation of language via non-textual media, such as magnetic tape audio." I explained that a body of symbols which includes a symbol for the name of the system itself is not cave drawing or illustration. The person started talking about road signs and 'no parking signs' being considered writing if nsibidi is considered writing, which is nonsense as road signs aren't used by the society to record their stories, court cases, and family matters. A court case in nsibidi All the points I have raised differentiating nsibidi from road signs can be argued, but on the nsibidi page there is this symbol: which was recorded with the specific name "Etak Ntaña Nsibidi" by Elphinstone Dayrell in 1910, just like the sign/symbol/character for nsibidi, and just like hundreds of others in these early 20th century MAN journals that were recorded with Cross River languages. I do not know a road sign in which its existence is to be linked to a specific word, unless there is, of course, writing on them, which many of them have. Again, why would a system like nsibidi have signs such as tortoise, such as sex, such as chief, killed, kill, will kill, solitary man, talk, and others, and place them side by side in order to narrate a story but are just 'road signs', are road signs known to be used to record court cases or love stories and letters? If so they should be investigated to see whether they are writing. The last issue with this comparison to road signs is with the numerical system of nsibidi, nsibidi has symbols that are used for counting which are similar to Roman numerals, (all these are in the references), road signs do not have separate symbols from the Hindu-Arabic numerals to describe numbers, unless I have missed something. Nsibidi was taught in schools also known as nsibidi houses, which is explained in the article (although the article is at its early stages). Every source on nsibidi describes it either as a script or writing system, so why should wikipedia be different because of a users opinion? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a debating website? The other issue is with the Igbo language article where the user has removed nsibidi as a writing system (alongside a Latin based orthography), and the user has resorted to redundant edits that do not have any solid reason. The user has claimed that it is not enough for the Igbo language infobox to name the standard form of Igbo as simply Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo), but would have to name the dialects that it is based off. The article itself explains the creation of Standard Igbo and all the user needs to do is to read the article to see that there are dozens of dialects that have gone into Standard Igbo to make it a pan-Igbo dialect itself, which makes it impossible to name every single dialect that went into the standard form in the infobox. What is wrong in simply calling it 'Standard Igbo'? That is its name as it is not a pre-existing dialect such as Standard German is. On the Efik language, it is not and never will be the same language as Ibibio, they are closely related, yes, and they are under a dialect continuum that is named 'Efik', Ibibio itself is not a dialect of the Efik language, it is a language of the Efik language family, and this is because the Efik language, although a minority, became the dominant language of trade and was therefore attributed to the Ibibio-Anaang, et. al. The user is simply wrong in classifying Ibibio and Anaang and other languages in the Efik language family as a dialect of Efik. Please click this link to understand. As you can see the Efik language itself is under the Efik language family; Ibibio itself has its own dialects. The ironic thing about all this is that the user corrected me in the Igbo language article when I listed some Igboid languages as Igbo dialects, and the user is insisting on doing the same thing here on the Efik language and adding 'dubious' tags all over the article. There are even external arguments as to whether this family should be called Efik, or if Efik itself is even a dialect of Ibibio. Before challenging me on this I want someone to provide a reliable source apart from the highly flawed ethnologue that describes Ibibio as a dialect of Efik. This is completely ridiculous and can cause controversy across the communities. How can Efik that is argued to be from Ibibio be the parent language of Ibibio? The problem with all this is that much of this information has been taken from tertiary sources such as ethnologue and other encyclopaedia's. It's either all the languages under Efik as ethnologue describes are separated and the name for the group is explained as disputed, or the languages are considered dialects of the Efik-Ibibio-Anaang-Ukwa languages, instead of the controversial 'Efik'. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) Ukabia (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes, and it has led to 'dubious tags'. It has been discussed here, here, and here. How do you think we can help? By relying on reliable resources for facts and not on opinion or new theories. Ukabia - talk 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language discussion Yes, the solution is to follow RS's. Ukabia seems to be of the opinion that WP is a RS, and that, for example, Daniels & Bright, The World's Writing Systems, is 'opinion'. Ukabia is also engaging in OR: since Chinese and cuneiform are ideographic, and writing, therefore nsibidi, which is ideographic, must also be writing—either not understanding what 'ideographic' means, or the nature of Chinese and cuneiform. Daniels & Bright, and from what I remember other sources, are clear that in order to be considered a writing system, it must be able to represent language, so that a third party can read back a text (assuming they know the language). International pictorial icons used in the West therefore do not count as writing. Yukaghir love letters do not count as writing. Aztec and Zapotec codices do not count (though Mayan does). The Vinca "script" ("Old European") does not count. We speak of "civilization" being founded on the invention of writing, and philologists argue about whether it was the Sumerians or Egyptians who invented it. But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt. "Prehistory" is the time before writing. Using Ukabia's understanding, there is no prehistory. Ukabia is correct about one thing, however: we do speak of other pictographic/ideographic systems as "writing", using a perhaps less strict definition of writing than we should. Editors have in the past tried to exaggerate nsibidi (that it's 5000 years old, etc.), which is why I've been strict with that article (we don't have Aztec or Yukaghir nationalists trying to exaggerate those "scripts"), but IMO it should be treated the same as these other systems. Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are). I think this is perhaps s.t. for Wikiprojects writing systems to discuss. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC) As for Ibibio/Efik, some sources consider these a single language, some separate languages. Efik is a variety of Ibibio in the broad sense, but because of its cultural importance (it was chosen as the literary standard), the whole tends to be called 'Efik' rather than 'Ibibio', as Ukabia notes. Some call the Dachsprache 'Ibibio-Efik' to avoid the politics of choosing one or the other. I think this has been happening since the 60s. There have been disputes about this article before, and it has been moved back & forth between the names, but most of the complaints (from both sides) have involved rants and unilateral moves rather than intelligent discussion. It may be a good idea to split the article, though it contains so little info I'm not sure that is justified, but even if we do the debate over what to call the main article will probably continue (Ukabia says it's 'Efik', others say it's 'Ibibio', etc). — kwami (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I said that Chinese and Cuneiform came from ideograms and still have many ideograms in them, if these early ideograms were considered the beginning of writing, then how are ideograms not writing, it doesn't make sense. I did not say Cuneiform and Chinese are ideograms. We've already had a discussion on the Writing system project talk page and a user (Christoph Päper) has already explained that the definition of writing varies among linguists and that ideograms very often are considered writing with some conditions: Linguists (e.g. DeFrancis 1989) tend to equate writing with glottography, i.e. only if a set of symbols and rules is able to record any and every human language completely it is truly writing. A system that is restricted (not only in practice, but also in theory) to a limited set of languages, e.g. just one, is sometimes also considered writing. Also, since the line is often hard to draw, many scholars include pictographic or ideographic symbols under the notion of writing, if (and only if) they’re retained in a later writing system, e.g. Sumerian cuneiform was only used for labeling in the beginning. Scientists from other disciplines, including paleography, typography, philosophy and more, as well as laypeople often have a laxer interpretation of the term writing. Famous cases of “semasiography” in question are, for instance, the Yukaghir love letter and the 53$ money order from Turtle-Following-His-Wife (cf. Sampson 198x). Rogers (2005) mentions Bliss as the only semantic writing system and IPA etc. as phonetic writing systems, but others would disagree. Sometimes a linear sequence of symbols is considered necessary for writing, so no complex 2D structures. The reliance on one source does not change dictionary definitions of writing. The reliance on one source does not change wikipedias countless references of ideograms as writing. On the same talk page I went further to explain logographic uses of the nsibidi script and how authors who recorded them described some as "names written", and went further to give native words for them like door, love, and Etak Ntaña. The user has not explained why there are specific words used for some 'characters', yes characters as Macgregor has described them. Bear in mind, ideograms whether 'true writing' or not, are still considered writing systems. "But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt." None of them have a glyph for the name of the writing system itself described as "written" or names written in them with their original symbols. "Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are)." There is no reliable source that claims these symbols to be writing. I've already given a source that compared nsibidi to a uli graphics and they were differentiated as writing and motifs. Every source in the nsibidi article notes nsibidi as a 'script' or 'writing system', but this is only up for debate because of your opinion with the excuse of one dubious edit that was undisputed and even had a source. You claim that I am practicing original research, yet you're the one using an authors definition of writing to negate the works of other authors who have studied nsibidi, yet the author you talk about didn't mention nsibidi once in their book, again you resort to original research by claiming this is a sign nsibidi is not writing. The nsibidi article isn't the only article on wikipedia where mistakes have been made, especially at stub level, there are featured articles with fallacies. Holding on to this past event has nothing to do with facts now. Can anyone show us any of the systems across Africa that early 20th century missionaries described its use as "that of ordinary writing" and that are still considered scripts? My guess is that there are none. Ukabia - talk 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I just want to make it clear that this is not an issue of whether nsibidi is "true writing" or not, but if nsibidi is a writing system. There are no arguments against nsibidi being a writing system. Ukabia - talk 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Some references to nsibidi over some years 1968 "I have already mentioned various West African devices for transmission of thought (p. 7 f. and 11). Nsibidi or Nchibiddi or Nchibiddy seems to be the only true 'ideographic' script of the West African natives (Fig. 9.7)." The alphabet: a key to the history of mankind, Volume 1. David Diringer (1968). Pg. 106. 1977 "The nsibidi signs used by secret societies in various language groups in southern Nigeria, eg the Igbo, Efik, and Ekoi, have been considered by some to be of a similar pictographic nature, but others have maintained it is true writing, based on either a logographic or syllabary system. Although nsibidi signs were first discovered by TD Maxwell as early as 1904, published accounts remain fragmentary and the available evidence seems insufficient to decide the matter one way or another. Adams adds an interesting detail that might be mentioned, viz. that the Arochuku people of this same general area and probably users of nsibidi, sent messages between villages by painting them on the bodies of the messengers themselves" [it has since been established that the people of Arochukwu not only use nsibidi, but trade ukara]." Language in Africa: an introductory survey. Edgar A. Gregersen (1977). Pg. 176. 2000 "Formerly a ukara was not signed or marked, but one can now see in a corner of the cloth the owner's or maker's mark. There were however lodge identifications. […] It resorts to a myth remembered from the Efut by the Efik and is probably to some extent a reminiscence of an older Efik cult. Ukara is a cult object of a complex society open to external influences. […] The ownership of a ukara is of course essential for a mboko (leopard-man). In the middle of the 19th century, the missionary Waddel noted that 100 pounds sterling had to be paid to acquire the highest grade and obtain the right to wear the corresponding ukara. […] On close examination, a ukara reveals a rigorous arrangement of motives:" The total depth of Ekpe symbolism on these cloths, although rich, cannot be entirely clarified on account of the discretion surrounding Ekpe rites and Nsibidi. (Cole & Aniakor: 1984, 61). "Nevertheless, one can readily see that the motives function collectively like a poem in which most of the signifiers are repeated and reinforce the raison d'etre of the text and the object. […] Some are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice." African writing and text. Simon P. X. Battestini (2000). Pg. 148. 2007 "Prior to Arabic (ajami) writing and later franco- or anglography, Emmanuel Obiechina mentions the existence of proto-literate "ideo-diffusion" scripts like Bamum Vaï and Oberi Okaime as well as the Yoruba “Aroko“ system, Ewe ideographs and Igbo chalk marks as underdeveloped ideographs, unlike the Nsibidi script, “the only true ideographic script in West Africa,” whose development, he speculates, was arrested by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa; "Groweth of Written Literature by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa," Présence africaine 66 (1968): 58-60." The African palimpsest. Chantal Zabus (2007). Pg. 23. Ukabia - talk 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Fascinating stuff indeed. As the opinion of a non-involved non admin who found much of the above TL;DR, this seems to me to be mostly a case of definitions. What is a "script", what is a "writing system", what is a "language", etc. And I agree the only way to determine that is to look for consensus in reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Understood OpenFuture. I am surprised that this is considered a debatable issue partly because of the advice you've given. The dispute has turned to whether reliable sources consider ideograms writing or not, when the real focus is whether nsibidi is a writing system or not. Every source mentioning nsibidi more than suggests that it is. For this to be debatable there should be another array of reliable sources conflicting with the status of nsibidi as a writing system, or a generally noticeable debate, yet no one has brought up anything that says nsibidi is not a writing system, or that nsibidi as a writing systems itself is being debated. The only debate that seems to be going on outside wikipedia is as to what type of writing system nsibidi is as demonstrated above, whether pictographic, ideographic, logographic, syllabic or whatever else. Sources suggest that it is a mixture of pictograms, ideograms, and logograms as the nsibidi article already notes. This whole dispute seems more like the opinion of one user against reliable sources. What exactly are we looking for apart from sources to sort this dispute out? Is wikipedia not an tertiary encyclopaedia relying on published sources? Ukabia - talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I know nothing about Nsibidi, but from both of your descriptions here I get the impression that this is not an open and shut case. Based on the quotes that Ukabia has provided above it would seem that Nsibidi has some writing-system-like aspects, but based on Kwami's argument this may not be enough to qualify it as a true writing system. As always, the way to settle this one is to look to the sources. Kwami mentioned Daniels & Bright, and when I did a cursory Google search I found this book review which suggests that it is an authoritative text that cannot be easily ignored. I suspect the best wording will ultimately be something like "authoritative texts such as Daniels & Young do not classify Nsibidi as a writing system, but some scholars have suggested otherwise". However, whether my suspicion is right or not will involve finding which sources are authoritative, and how the claims are weighted in the sources. We will only really know what to put in the infobox after we have done that research first. I agree with the suggestion of talking about this at WikiProject Writing Systems - it seems like a good place to start. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC) We have RS's mentioning that it has been claimed that nsibidi is writing (no source is ever mentioned), but we have no RS's that it actually is writing. Ukabia is engaging in OR and synthesis, and does not understand the basics of what a writing system is. There are many systems like nsibidi around the world, and in our history of writing article we were careful not to say they were writing. (Until Ukabia added nsibidi to that article and started revert warring over the claim that it is writing.) Of course, it may turn out that nsibidi is an ideographic writing system, but since we have RS's that such a thing is not possible, that claim would require good sourcing. Or that it's not ideographic after all, despite all of the accounts that it is. Again, we require good sourcing. D&B mention 16 indigenous scripts in West Africa, and don't mention any contention: they're simply accepted as writing. Nsibidi is not. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Daniels & Brights' book was not created to cancel out certain writing systems that didn't meet their criteria of writing. How are we going to talk about research and sourcing in one paragraph and then later make a conclusion based off of nothing? Its a good thing I read the review because now it seems that the section of the book that supposedly went into depth on African writing systems (and snubbed nsibidi) was actually a part of the book dedicated to "the invention of writing in modern times", focusing on the N'Ko alphabet and Vai syllabary and spending one or two paragraphs on the Bamum script and not even mentioning the Ajami script. Do we proceed to put on trial all the African scripts confined to the footnotes (like the Kpelle syllabary) or even completely absent (like the Mandombe alphabet et. al.)? What are the 16 African scripts mentioned, and how many paragraphs are they each given? This is not to talk of other scripts that may have been left out. It doesn't make sense that with all the sources describing nsibidi as writing, the authors didn't think to debunk the "myth" and ignored the maturing topic altogether, unless, of course, they didn't even mention the topic of pre-Latin African writing systems at all. Daniels & Bright would be a good source to prove nsibidi not to be writing if they had defined it themselves in a part of the book dedicated to the many pre-Latin African symbols and glyphs, instead, the reasons for its elision from the book is up for guess work. Ukabia - talk 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) To call anything a writing system or writing we need reliable sources directly mentioning that claim. I've also emailed Daniels asking for sources but I don't know if he's around (we've corresponeded in the past).Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Ok. Now I realise you only have my word that this is what Daniels says, but given that, here it is. He isn't familiar with Nsibidi but says "Ukabia is quite mistaken about the meaning of "ideographic," since Ukabia claims that Chinese and "cuneiform" have "ideographic elements." He notes, and I whole-heartedly agree, that general-purpose dictionaries are not useful sources for the meaning of technical terms. He goes on to say that "The reason for excluding ideographies from "writing" is that if you're going to include all visual semasiographic systems as "writing," you're going to need a different term for "true writing" anyway, so why not use the traditional one, instead of letting some _other_ communication system have the "exalted" term "writing" applied to it? Why does Ukabia want to call Nsibidi "writing," if it doesn't act like any other writing system? Why isn't Ukabia pleased that Nsibidi is (apparently) a semasiographic system that transcends a single language and (apparently) functions for speakers of every language in the world? (For if it's ideographic, is is not bound to any single language -- as mathematical notation is not bound to any single language but can be read off in any language that has mathematical vocabulary.)" In a 2nd email he notes that "If Dalby didn't mention it, it probably either could not possibly be confused with writing, or else is so obscure that it was unknown to the principal specialist in the field of the second half of the 20th century." Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Your help is appreciated Dougweller. If you don't mind, can you please ask Daniels what he thinks (even if it's just an educated guess) of Battestini's (2000) claim that "some [nsibidi symbols] are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice.", and Elphinstone Dayrell's (1911) labelling of nsibidi symbols like "Nsibidi name written"; a label for a symbol simply named "Okereuki" (this was under a section he called Inde, probably an Igbo sub group; "Okereuki" is very likely the Igbo name Okereke, but I'll leave that to the author), the labelling of abstract glyphs with 'native' names like the bunch of bananas 'Etak Ntaña'; "The 'Nsibidi sign for welcome"; J. K. Macgregor's note on another name which was made up of two corrupted Latin letters and one generic nsibidi sign; and just the general use of logographs among all the ideograms. I say all this because it wasn't intended for this dispute to be over whether ideograms are writing systems or not, this is partly because of the way I phrased some things and how the article was worded (ideographic writing system), but the main issue is whether nsibidi is writing or not and why all the sources that note nsibidi's dynamic use as ideograms, logograms and possibly (although I doubt this myself) syllabary/mora are wrong. Ukabia - talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry but I'd rather not. Among other things he isn't familiar with it, and I'd rather not wear out my welcome with him. He did read this board. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I've had a little more chance to look into this now, and I have to say that I agree with what Kwami has been saying all along. It is quite easy to find references to Nsibidi as a writing system, but these appear to be informal usage and generally occur in books on signs and symbolism or other non-specialist sources, rather than in specialist linguistic sources. To add to Daniels & Bright, Nsibidi also doesn't make an appearance in the three other writing system encyclopedias I found on Google Books.[31][32][33] The most telling source I found was this one, which refers to Nsibidi as a "protoliterate system": All these scripts - the Nsibidi, the Bamum, the Vai, and the Oberi Okaime - could be regarded as protoliterate systems, in the sense in which Kramer uses the term to describe the Sumerian phase of writing in Lower Mesopotamia when writing was first invented, rather than the sense in which Goody and Watt use it to refer to the fully developed Sumerian, Egyptian or Chinese systems, which, though restricted to a relatively small proportion of the population, of an elite literati, were already being utilized for religious, administrative, and technological purposes. The Bamum, Nsibidi, and Vai scripts obviously showed considerable promise of further development, but their rather limited and local application meant that they were doomed in the face of the advancing cosmopolitan Western and Arabic scripts. I think this all indicates that we should avoid calling Nsibidi a writing system. I suggest using something like "protoliterate system" instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I'm confused. I understand why the absence of nsibidi in the books you provided could be seen to mean that the authors do not consider it writing, even when some other systems are not mentioned. What I don't understand is why nsibidi is grouped with syllabary systems in the Obiechina book while the other books consider them writing, but this book calls them protoliterate... But, I agree with 'protoliterate'. To put the issue of nsibidi to a rest (because there seems to be differing views as to what nsibidi is, whether from indirect sources or from its early exposure), the script should be left as saying 'nsibidi is a protoliterate system of symbols that has yet to be determined to be a system of ideograms, of logograms, or less likely a syllabary.' I don't know about "less likely" but I think this is fair because 1. all the sources mentioning it directly, (including the early documenters) describe it as a "writing system" and there apparently aren't any recent sources that deal with its status as a writing system, these same sources call it "ideographic", so we'd have to drop that as well, and 2. there is no bias in the sentence towards nsibidi being a writing system or not. This is better than saying "a set of written ideographic symbols (claimed by some to be a writing system, either logographic or even a syllabary)" for the reasons above. It's more obvious now that nsibidi hasn't been given any of the recent special attention that it needs. The issue of the Efik language and Igbo Standard is still open. Ukabia - talk 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Well, I did say that I didn't know anything about nsibidi, so I don't think I can help you regarding its relation to the other syllabary systems (at least not without doing a lot more research). I'm glad that you're happy with "protoliterate" though. Let's see what Kwami thinks of your wording suggestion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) But what does "proto-literate" mean? He says Vai is "protoliterate", yet Vai is a true writing system (a syllabary), so evidently it has nothing to do with the nature of the script itself, which is what we're debating. We'll need to ask the writing-systems project whether they want to call systems "scripts" when they are not true writing, but meanwhile we have numerous recent sources that nsibidi is ideographic, and none that it is anything else. Even Ukabia is of the opinion that it's ideographic. "Proto-writing" would be fine: that's the term we've been using for such systems, one which is defined, and defined as precisely the kind of system our refs say that nsibidi is. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I agree, we want to use defined terms, and "proto-writing" is obviously better than "proto-literate" if the former is in wide use but the latter isn't. If Ukabia is also happy with this, great. If not, I think we should take the debate to WikiProject Writing Systems as I am definitely showing my ignorance of the subject here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC) S/he placed it in the 'proto-writing' section of the history of writing article, but then insisted that we treat it as a full writing system. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I am also of the opinion that nsibidi is writing, but we don't have any sources that are focused enough on the issue, which is what was concluded above, no? All the sources note it as a writing system, so either we take that and "ideographic", or we leave both and be neutral. That's not including other sources that note it as other things including true writing. On the history of writing, the issue is not yet resolved, so there was no need to start changing references to nsibidi all over wikipedia. You could add a tag. I am fine with proto-writing, if there is a source for it. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Efik language The Efik article is incorrect because it notes Ibibio, as well as other languages, as a dialect of Efik, which it is not. The issue was not whether the language family was called Efik or Ibibio, but with the Efik language being portrayed as a language of the whole of the Cross River, which it's not (an official language of Akwa Ibom State is Ibibio and not Efik for example), only the language family is conveniently called Efik because of historical reasons. The article should therefore inform readers that this is not the Efik language but the Efik language family, this will stop disputes from Ibibio language speakers who do not consider their language Efik, and rightly so, because the opposite seems to be the debating point. The page should be called Efik language family, and it should note down the languages under it, including Efik and Ibibio, as languages, not dialects. If there should be an Efik language article it should be done under the 'Efik language' which is under the Efik language family (as described by ethnologue). It is dubious to link Ibibio language to the Efik language. Ukabia - talk 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC) This is a dialect cluster variously called 'Ibibio', 'Efik', 'Ibibio-Efik', and even 'Central Lower Cross'. It's been moved around on WP; until a few months ago, it was at "Ibibio", where I had moved it some time ago, but a good case was made that "Efik" is the more appropriate name, so I moved it there. Regardless, this cluster consists of several varieties, several called 'Ibibio' and one called 'Efik'. Some sources consider these varieties of a single language (Efik is the standard variety for all of them), others that they are distinct. This is a bit like Serbian vs Croatian vs Serbo-Croatian: no matter which name we choose, someone objects that it's "oppressing" them. If we go with Ukabia's wishes, we'll simply upset someone else. AFAICT, there is no one right answer, so it's a matter of what our sources say, not what Ukabia wants to be true. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Most of the disputes from native speakers are not based on the name of the language group itself, but the idea of Efik being a language that Ibibio, as well as other languages, are a dialect of. The Efik language family (or maybe Efik languages) article can explain the issue with its naming and this would be an easier way to appease the speakers. There are already external disputes, as I said, as to whether Efik is a dialect of Ibibio, but I've already said that I have no problem with the language family being called Efik, but this has to clarified to the reader. If there were to be an 'Efik language family' article and then separate pages for the languages under it then the native speakers would be happy to have their language articles pop up whenever they do a search. This issue is similar to Ikwerre of which a large amount of speakers are displeased with any classification of it as an Igbo dialect, yet there has been little controversy over it being under the Igboid languages; of course there are sources that say Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo, but this has not been a problem. Efik and Ibibio are not considered the same language in Nigeria itself (list of languages in Nigeria, Efik language family), added with the strong ethnic identities that these groups have, it would be better to give the languages a chance to be separate articles under the 'Efik language family'. Another reason to clarify the difference between the language family and Efik is for the sake of other articles, especially those dealing with history, say, for example, the Aro confederacy which historically used Igbo and Ibibio. If we have Ibibio linking to the Efik language, or imply that Ibibio is a dialect of Efik, then this will just cause a whole lot of confusion. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC) If someone had bothered to write separate articles on Efik-proper and Ibibio-proper, that would be different. But no-one has. Lots of complaints, but no willingness to do the work required to resolve the issue. Meanwhile we have one language article, so that's the language article. And while your claim may be true, you have not provided good refs for it: Ethnologue divides varieties into 'languages' based on their requirements for scripture, which very often does not reflect what others consider separate languages. Many linguists comment that many of what E counts as 'languages' are not considered languages by anyone else. Meanwhile we have plenty of sources that treat them as a single language. There is therefore nothing wrong with presenting them that way. If you want things to be different, then write up separate articles for the various varieties of Ibibio-Efik. — kwami (talk) UNESCO lists 415 Nigerian languages and lists Efik and Ibibio separately. pg. 4—5, pg. 7. Here's some history about the conflict concerning the Ibibio and Efik identities 3. What some Ibibo groups have to say: The Ibibio Language Writers Association (ILWA) is at the center of activities to promote and protect [...] Ìbìbiò, that is, proper, not mixed, Ibibio. It acts as liaison between the government and the people in these endeavors. The association tries to discourage code mixing Ibibio not only with English but also with Efik. It insists that "Efik-Ibibio" or "Ibibio- Efik" is a dead concept and counterproductive. To a large extent the discouragement of code-mixing Ibibio and Efik is effective, but code mixing English and Ibibio is very common, particularly among young bilinguals in informal situations. Government officials being interviewed on radio or television, for example, will restrain themselves from English code mixing. The language family article shouldn't rely on the individual language articles' being created. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC) As for Igbo, we have refs, though unfortunately not very complete ones, about Igbo dialects. There are also lists of various cities, all of which are said to be "dialects", but of course they won't be equidistant. We need a dialectological account of Igbo. We have conflicting accounts of what the standard is based on; these portray a history of flitting from one dialect to another, but I suspect it may actually be that the standard has not changed, only the names for what it's based on. But it is unencyclopedic to say it's based on 'Central' Igbo, when Central Igbo is not one of the options among the dialects we list. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Central Igbo is gone, Standard Igbo has taken its place. Standard Igbo isn't based on Standard Igbo, but many pre-existing dialects. I thought the "standard forms" section of the infobox is asking for the name of the standard form instead of the dialects it's based on, otherwise there are a lot of dialects that need to be added to that section, and as you said, there are already conflicting accounts of what they are. I think it's better to leave it as 'Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo)', and if needed add it to the dialects list, and then leave the article to expand on what it is. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "Standard Igbo" is fine, as long as we define what it is. Otherwise the term is meaningless. We can explain it in the text instead of the box, but we need to explain it somewhere. Also, I rather doubt it's based on "a lot" of dialects. Apart from minor elements of vocab, very few standard languages are, and when somebody says they are (see Filipino language, which is simply standardized Tagalog, but which the govt falsely insists is based on all of the languages of the Philippines), that's usually political BS rather than reality. Igbo may be an exception, but we'd need a good ref. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) This is what I've been saying. I agree. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC) If I'm reading this correctly, you are both basically happy with "proto-writing" and both in general agreement on the Igbo/Efik issue. If there's not a part of this that I'm still missing, would you both agree with me closing this thread now? I think we've seen that this board is not the best place for issues that need attention from experts, in any case. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC) There seems to be no more objections and I've edited the articles to match the discussions. I think it's safe to say this dispute is closed now. Ukabia - talk 20:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language resolution Resolved - all objections appear to have been dealt with, and the article has been updated accordingly. If any further mediation becomes necessary then it seems a good idea to have the discussion at WikiProject Writing Systems rather than here, as it needs input from people familiar with the field. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kyle Bartley‎

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. Kyle Bartley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a content disupte over whether this footballer had one or two spells at a certain club; I have directed the two users in question to the article's talk page, where I have listed my evidence and opinion, and welcomed other input - none has been forthcoming. This is degenerating into a slow, lame edit war, with neither party willing to discuss. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) Wicka wicka‎ (talk · contribs) Johnelwaq (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Posted (twice!) on both user's talk pages requesting comment, as well as iniating a discussion on the article talk page. How do you think we can help? Encourage the editors in question to use the article talk page to reach consensus, rather than blindly reverting one another. GiantSnowman 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Kyle Bartley‎ discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It looks like Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) had made his opinion about discussions very clear. GiantSnowman 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I see Wicka wicka has since joined in the discussion at Talk:Kyle Bartley, so I don't think any more action is required here. I don't see this as anything more than a new user not being familiar with Wikipedia's many rules and guidelines, and I think we should try and give them the benefit of the doubt. I have left a little note on their talk page about the three-revert rule and consensus, just to make them aware of the relevant policies. Hopefully this should be enough to nudge them in the right direction. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I had already posted on their wall about 3RR and edit-warring - which they then removed. Many thanks for posting again though, hopefully this can be sorted ASAP. GiantSnowman 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, and he has also reverted your offer of help. GiantSnowman 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) ...aaaaand now been blocked. GiantSnowman 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Ah yes, I should probably have looked for that. If the edit warring continues after the block expires then we can have another think about what to do. I would suggest posting here if it's not severe or at WP:3RRN if it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, let's monitor developments for when the block expires, which should be soon. GiantSnowman 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Kyle Bartley‎ resolution Resolved - user has not started editing again since their block expired. Feel free to post here again if there are more problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:mugginsx

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. User talk:Mugginsx (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? At this diff I asked User:Mugginsx about a possible conflict of interest because of his/her repeated statements on a talk page about how he was a legal professional and therefore he knew best. S/he didn't answer there but discussed it an inappropriate forum. Today I shared some comments on the COI issue I got from someone else, i.e., it being more POV/Bias and problems with demanding we believe personal interpretations of video over that of multiple WP:RS. S/he deleted that section, leaving just my original comment. I then deleted my whole comment, which s/he reverted. I couldn't find exact guidance for this situation under either Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines or Wikipedia:User_talk_page but I get the impression a) s/he has a right to delete or archive my whole comment, but not part of it (unless grossly offensive and insulting which it wasn't). And I have a perfect right to remove my own comment s/he never responded to. Thoughts on this narrow issue of removal and not the whole WP:COI discussion itself? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) Mugginsx (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? This should be a fairly clear cut policy matter - yet I cannot find exact policy statements, only easily debateable ones, so rather than debate ad nauseum with this individual I thought I'd bring it to some experts. How do you think we can help? Hopefully a quick resolution is possible. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC) User talk:mugginsx discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This discussion is limited to the additions and deletions to Mugginsx's talk page. It is not about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of any claims of legal expertise made by the involved editors or about the particular edits under discussion at the BLP noticeboard. With that limitation understood, I can find no discussion of those additions and deletions. The guidelines of this noticeboard say, "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." Therefore, I believe that this dispute is not ripe for consideration here. Let me say, however, that Per the WP:TPO guideline it is considered to be improper to edit or move another editor's comments for the purpose of changing their meaning, regardless of where those comments were made, even on one's own talk page, with quite a few exceptions set out there (none of which would appear to apply here). Subject to that limitation, the WP:REMOVED guideline says that except for a few specific limitations set out there (which appear, again, to be inapplicable here) that a user may generally choose to remove any or all comments from his/her talk pages or blank them altogether. (It is to be noted, however, that removal constitutes acknowledgement that they have been read.) There is no rule governing removal of one's own comments from a talk page other than one's own talk page, only a best practice saying that it is frowned upon. While that is contained in a guideline, it is clearly described as a best practice, not as something which must not be done. Though it's a long and involved argument, the main difference between a policy and a guideline is that it is much more difficult to get yourself blocked or banned for violation of a guideline than it is for violation of a policy. Unless you can show how Mugginsx's additions and deletions from his/her talk page were clearly and obviously intended to change the meaning of something you had said there, you are probably not going to get anywhere with this issue. Unless you can point me to some discussion on this issue, I will either close this discussion or allow it to roll off to the archive in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Transporterman: The edits are all in the same section "Conflict of Interest with paralegal job?" and were made by CarolMooredc on different days and different times and I have NOT revised any of her edits on my personal Talk page. I deleted them except for one paragraph made days earlier in response to ANOTHER noticeboard about me that she creating last week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS . That original edit, was made days before and retained in FULL. That noticeboard she created refers to a difference of opinion of a possible wp:BLP violation on a paragraph in the article and possible defamation in the references she used in that paragraph as well as the paragraph itself back in July 2011. I invite you to look at the diffs on my talk page to confirm this. I was advised by veteran editors not to respond further to CarolMooredc's continuing personal comments to me on my Talk page and I found that was good advice and I took it. In my opinion these noticeboards are being used to get attention and harass I am not going to participate further except to show you the respect of answering and invite you to my talk page to see the truth. I am in good standing with Wikipedia and have never been blocked. I have nothing to hide. Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I was not informed of the above alleged "harassment", but obviously had a feeling that Mugginsx would not reply and that is why I brought it here. I think the policy has been made clear but will not bother to go further, except perhaps to save the comments to my archives for future reference. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) User talk:mugginsx resolution 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.

List of hentai authors

• List of hentai authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The majority of the content was deleted under claims of unsourced entries.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Alucardbarnivous (talk · contribs)
• TheFarix (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed the issue in the article's discussion board and with the user on my talk section.

• How do you think we can help?

Establish if the deleted entries are sourced or otherwise.

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

List of hentai authors discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Well, it looks like what TheFarix has done here is removed all the entries that are redlinks, not all the entries that are unsourced. If he had removed all the unsourced entries then there would be no list left, as there is not a single source for the whole article. What TheFarix has done is actually fairly lenient - we have strict standards for any mentions of living people on Wikipedia, as you can see if you read the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Being accused of being a hentai author when you are not one could be very damaging for some people, so it's important for Wikipedia's reputation that we minimise the risk of this happening. The biographies of living persons policy that I linked to above says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". There is only one realistic way to solve this dispute in my opinion, and that is to cite every entry in the list so that they follow Wikipedia policies. If not, then I think we should reduce the size of the list even further. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, in Japan there's no stigma associated with doing hentai work. Many mangaka switch between these works such as Oh Great! who did Silky Whip (hentai) and non-hentai work like Air Gear Tenjho Tenge or Masami Obari who worked on the Fatal Fury films and many other projects only to do Angel Blade and Marine A Go Go. Perhaps the most famous mangaka that went between both mediums is Satoshi Urushihara who did stuff like Legend of Lemnear and Plastic Little and then did some hardcore hentai like Front Innocent. I think it's important that when writing articles, especially about other cultures, we don't apply our society's prejudices. Regarding the "unsourced" entries, even as Wikipedia expands, we keep in mind there is so much material not yet repesented on the site and if we stifle projects because they make mention of entries that, while notable, are not yet available on Wikipedia because it's such a massive market it will take years for Wikipedia to catch up it will hold the overall project back. Further, the authors listed all had works listed and all had material published in America by major publishers for manga and comics (such as Eros, Icarus, CPM, and ComicsOne). My last comment is that if we begin gutting lists like this article has been, it sets a precedent to eliminate the overall majority of list-type articles. In fact, I doubt there is a list I've seen that didn't include entries not yet represented on Wikipedia (do in part to obscurity but also because Wikipedia still isn't large enough to include emerging mediums, like manga/anime in America, or those that are not exactly mainstream, such as American comics). Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot less stigma attached to it in Japan compared to Western countries, and of course you are right that we shouldn't use Western prejudices and that the list should be comprehensive. I'm afraid what it comes down to, though, is that Wikipedia has clear policies saying that we can't include unsourced material, both in the policy about living people I linked to above, and also a more general one at Wikipedia:Verifiability. You make excellent arguments, but I'm afraid that they cannot trump these policies. If you are really intent on writing a comprehensive list but do not want to include sources, then other websites do exist where this is perfectly possible. Arguing against Wikipedia policies, however, isn't going to get you very far. I think, though, that it can't be that hard to find sources for notable hentai authors, and if you can find a good quality source you may be able to use it to cite many of the entries on the list. Have you considered looking for this kind of source? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the point is not to list only entries with Wikipedia articles, but to verify each entry with an inline citation in the article itself. Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do this. If you are short on time, there is also a simplified guide available. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to do this. However, my fear is that the editor I'm in conflict with that deleted the content would undo my edits before I could get to work on sourcing everything. When I went to undo his edits and start a discussion on the topic, he reverted the edits and then went to the discussion to say he's in the right and end of story. I chose this venue because I believe it will be more productive than arguing. What you suggest makes sense to me. I would like to undo Farix's edits and then I can spend a few hours sourcing the material. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best to just put things back in as you source them, to save any arguments or accusations of edit warring. It's not as if your additions are going to disappear from the page history, so you can just refer to that version while you are editing. Also, another good way to save argument later on is to decide inclusion criteria for the list. You seem to want a comprehensive list, whereas TheFarix has removed some authors that have made hentai but are chiefly notable for other things. Deciding exactly what qualifies an author to be included in the list could save you both a lot of confusion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you given any more thought to sourcing the list? Let me know if you have any more questions or if any more problems come up. If everything's alright then I'll close this thread under the assumption that my advice will be sufficient to clear the situation up. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

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. Zaza people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? This article contains subjective POV and ethnocentric content. User:Wikisupporting added an ethnocentric point of view, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content #[34]. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that this user not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing other objective, impartial and politically neutral academic theories about this article and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Importantly that this article be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Wikisupporting (talk · contribs) Takabeg (talk · contribs) Van de Kemp (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I wanted to edit this article, but due to the edit wars between the above mentioned users, the article has been fully protected indefinately. How do you think we can help? This article should be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. The article should not be fully protected indefinately, but semi-protected for certain periods, because fully protecting this article did not solve the dispute and the controversial content is still present. Menikure (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Zaza people discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This is now at WP:RSN and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and was added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but removed as inappropriate. A request at WP:RPP for semi-protection with similar comments on an editor was declined. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC) In fact, I don't think it belongs here at all. I just checked and discovered that Menikure (talk · contribs) has never tried to discuss this on any talk page and indeed that Menikure has never responded to comments on his/her own talk page. At the top of this board it says "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.". I'm suggesting that this be taken to Talk:Zaza people. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Zaza people resolution Referred back to the article talk page due to lack of any discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Menahem Lonzano

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. Menahem Lonzano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008: [35], and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar". In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”: [36] In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: [37] and Debresser removed it: [38] On May 1, SD re-adds this category: [39] and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again: [40] In June 11, after a month and a half of debate I re-add the cat: [41] and Debresser immediately removes it again: [42] After a successful Afd, I link “Palestinian rabbi”: [43] and Debresser reverts: [44] 10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: [45] and Debresser straight away reverts: [46]. I am not sure how to go about his when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus? Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Chesdovi (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser. How do you think we can help? By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Menahem Lonzano discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment by Debresser (talk · contribs) This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen at WP:AE#Chesdovi. Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC) In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. That is to say, even if that WP:AE thread doesn't force him to do so. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Menahem Lonzano resolution The making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari

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. Intercultural Open University Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a disagreement regarding the notability of a graduate of this university foundation. I believe the individual is notable and the other party believes they are not. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Arnoutf (talk · contribs) Thomanq (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes, we have discussed this on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Please step in and end the edit war. Thomanq (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I presume you mean Gulab Kothari. As both the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper and a published author, he is in my opinion clearly notable enough to be included in the list of notable graduates. (I see no current edit war over this issue, however. Mere discussion, even heated discussion, on an article talk page does not constitute an edit war.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you, yes, Gulab Kothari. I'm still stuck on that learning curve and I appreciate your guidance. Regards, Thomanq (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC) IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari resolution 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.

Use of fact tags against material with inline RS citation

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. Point Pedro Urban Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Batticaloa Municipal Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jaffna Municipal Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Kalmunai Municipal Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Mannar Urban Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Trincomalee Urban Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Valvettithurai Urban Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Vavuniya Urban Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I have placed the statement "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country...in 1983 using Emergency Regulations" in the above articles and provided an inline citation from TamilNet, a WP:RS. User:Cossde believes I need to provide secondary RS as TamilNet is an anti-government source and has threatened to remove the material. I believe this is unreasonable as one RS is more than enough - the statement isn't that controversial IMO. However, to placate User:Cossde I tried to find other sources but couldn't find any. I did however find neutral RS that would suggest the statement is correct. User:Cossde has dismissed my efforts as original research. I have not taken this to WP:RSN as the reliability of TamilNet has been discussed a number of times there (e.g.) and each it was pointed out that TamilNet is a WP:RS according Wikipedia policy. This is essentially a dispute between User:Cossde and myslef. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Cossde (talk · contribs) Hillcountries (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue has been discussed at Talk:Point Pedro Urban Council but we cannot agree. How do you think we can help? Is User:Cossde justified in asking for a secondary RS, particularly as I have provided evidence which suggests that the statement is correct? obi2canibetalk contr 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Use of fact tags against material with inline RS citation discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Response from User:Cossde Reason for request of secondary RS; Full para in question "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country, including PPUC, in 1983 using Emergency Regulations. As a result Point Pedro didn't have elected local government for the next 15 years." Taken out of context the quoted lines by obi2canibe may seem harmless, however the para taken as a whole is critical of the Sri Lankan government hence controversial in nature. Due the source is anti government, the neutrality of this statement is in question. Further the first sentence is used as a reason for the conclusion of the second which in its own right to back up the claim. This para is repeated in all the above mentioned articles word-to-word. Cossde (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I am a neutral party in this dispute. Question to Cossde: You have said in a number of places that Tamilnet, "is however listed as a pro-rebel/anti government source. Therefore, the information which is now in dispute must be backed up with a secondary RS'. Otherwise it will be removed as articles brought into question are accusations against the government leveled by an known anti government source." (Emphasis added.) Though being well-versed in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I know of no policy or guideline which would allow an edit supported by a reliable source to be removed simply because it is biased and not supported by another, non-biased, reliable source. (While a second-source requirement such as this was proposed at the RSN noticeboard discussion about Tamilnet, it was not adopted.) Would you please specifically identify and provide a link to the policy or guideline or the consensus decision that requires such a second source? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Reply: WP:PRIMARY states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case the source TamilNet can be considered a primary source due to its "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history". Therefore the analyze and/or interpretation of the first sentenced (which is sourced) to gained powerful statement in the second is a clear violation of the said policy as it states " Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" . Cossde (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC) First, I'm sorry, but that does not answer my question. What policy or guideline requires a second source? Second, you are, in effect, arguing that you disagree with the consensuses formed at the RSN noticeboard discussion about Tamilnet and at WP:SLR that Tamilnet is a reliable source, though one which must be labeled with language such as "The pro-rebel Tamilnet says". (If the use which you are reverting does not use that language, then the action to take is to add that language, not to delete the edit.) If you disagree with Tamilnet being a reliable source, the proper way to address that is to raise the issue again at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or at WP:SLR and to try to form a new consensus to the contrary since consensus can change (or argue that no consensus was actually formed, that it was not binding, or had some other technical defect), but not to simply ignore the existing consensus merely because you do not like it or because you think that it is unfair. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) WP:PRIMARY is clear that a secondary source is needed support a primary one. Yes calls for removal of the first sentence is not possible here due to the lack of consensus at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. However deletion is possible of the second sentence which has no source but is derived from the first sentence which is a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Furthermore has Tamilnet been established as a secondary source as appose to a primary source ? Cossde (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Four points: Criteria number 4 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources addresses those types of sources which are primary sources. If Tamilnet had been identified under that criteria then it would not have been classified as a reliable source. (It is actually identified as a "qualified source," but Wikipedia:SLR#Classes_of_sources makes clear that qualified sources are reliable sources which must be qualified in the manner I described in my last posting above.) The term "reliable source," when used in a general sense here, does not ordinarily include primary sources even though they can be used as adequate sources in some limited instances. The Tamilnet-as-primary-source argument was mentioned in the RSN discussion, without result. Finally, you are misreading WP:PRIMARY. What it says about second sources is, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That arises from the rules which say that, in those instances when the use of primary sources is acceptable, that it is nonetheless unacceptable to interpret, synthesize, or analyze them. If interpretation is needed, then the only acceptable method is to provide a reliable secondary source which gives that interpretation — not a second source, but a secondary source. There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY which requires a second source for a non-interpretative legitimate use of a primary source. Do you have some other policy or guideline which you feel requires a second source? Again, if you believe that Tamilnet should not be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources list of reliable sources because you feel that it is a primary source you are free to make that argument there or at RSN, but not to delete it because you feel it is not a reliable source or is biased. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Yes I do agree with you, the main problem here is the reliable nature of the source. However the requirement of a second sources is, the controversial statement here that "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country, including ----, in 1983 using Emergency Regulations". This theory is solely based on Tamilnet and as the editor as said that no-other RS couldn't be found to support this. The main stream belief on the lack of local government in the north and east during the said period is not one but several reasons. Therefore this new theory, which seem to be a conspiracy theory of sorts falls under WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE states that "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources"; thus brings about the need for an independent secondary source. Cossde (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC) But as TransporterMan points out, editors in WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has come to consensus that Tamilnet is RS. To argue it is FRINGE, I think you'd need other RSs that characterize it as such. In regard to The main stream belief on the lack of local government in the north and east during the said period is not one but several reasons, do you have sources for that statement? If so, it seems to me it would be not an issue of FRINGE, but rather due weight, but both interpretations would mostly likely need to be presented. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Sources are as follows; [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Cossde (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, I've looked at some of these, but I'd ask you to be more specific about what you want to us these for. For example, the sunday time linke is an editorial, and we generally do not consider those RS. US state department is fine as a source, but what do you want to use from it? The Taipei Times article and the BBC article both look fine as a source, but neither seem to go into detail regarding suspension of the gov.--Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Cossde's original assertion was that the text supported by Tamilnet must be supported by a second source merely because Tamilnet is a pro-rebel source, not because the text was a fringe theory. To now enter into a discussion of whether or not the text is a fringe theory is off-topic for this dispute. As it now stands, the assertion clearly does not require support from a second source and that should end this discussion. If Cossde wishes to try to support and obtain consensus for his fringe argument it should be developed on the various article talk pages (or on a single one with notes placed on the others about it), but until he is able to do so the Tamilnet citation is sufficient, alone, to support the text. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC) That makes sense, as we have the various boards for a reason. I've struck my comments/questions. For what it's worth, I concur that the Tamilnet source need not be supported by other sources, and if other sources directly contradict Tamilnet, we should document the disagreement, rather than suppress one or the other. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I believe the confusion in the above sources are due to the many main stream reasons[55] that exist. These include, due to the civil war[56][57], calls for election boycotts by the LTTE (enforced with brutal reprisals for non compliance)[58][59], areas coming under LTTE (who never lead elections) control [60][61], land mines [62] as stated in the sources. The source [63] from the Daily Mirror which has been identified by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources as a reliable sources that is non bias, clearly states the "In these areas the local government elections were not conducted for decades due to the civil war." This would clearly contradict the statement of the Tamilnet (known anti-government). Therefore leaving this statement which holds the state of emergency as the only reason for lack of local elections is a contradiction with multiple reliable sources. This contradiction is the reason for calls of a secondary source to support it. On the least this discrepancy falls under WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Cossde (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) This contradiction is the reason for calls of a secondary source to support it I am unaware of any policy or guideline that requires such support. As TransportMan pointed out, there are other noticeboards for the other issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Then how shall we proceed on these articles with contradicting reasons as for the lack of local government elections. Cossde (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC) If we have conflicting reliable sources (and I'm not sure you do here, since the none of the ones I've check directly contradict the Tamilnet article, but I haven't checked them all), we document the disparity between the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC) In that case lets do that. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Use of fact tags against material with inline RS citation resolution 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.

Upul Tharanga

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. Upul Tharanga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A dispute has arisen between User:Cossde and myself of whether to include a cricket players ban for doping violation in the article's lead. Upul Tharanga was banned from all cricket for three months by the International Cricket Council. I believe this is worth mentioning in the lead but User:Cossde disagrees. Cossde has argued (in the edit summaries) that "If every banned a player receives in his career were to be listed it will make a poor summary" and "So why isn't it on Sir Ian Botham's bio summary?" It is very rare for a cricketer to be banned for doping violations and the fact that other player's bans aren't included in their lead isn't an excuse for not including in the Upul Tharanga article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Cossde (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue has been discussed at Talk:Upul Tharanga but we cannot agree. How do you think we can help? Decide whether the doping violation should be included in the lead. obi2canibetalk contr 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Upul Tharanga discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Response from User:Cossde As stated in the talk page (please refer), the incident in question did not gain much attention or controversy. The payer in question pleaded guilty of taking herbal medication which triggered the doping tests and he was suspended and I quote "the tribunal found that Tharanga had no intention to enhance his sporting performance or to mask the use of another performance enhancing substance, but that he had failed to satisfy the high levels of personal responsibility implicit upon him as an international cricketer subject to anti-doping rules." Therefore I am of the understanding that this is not an incident of significance that merits placement in the lead section. Therefore addition of this would be blowing it out of proportion simply because if one were to add suspension payers got (specially in Cricket) it would had up to alot of sentences in the lead section thus compermizing its objective. Further it must be noted that this is an bio of a living person. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I am a neutral in this dispute. In light of the fact that the doping agency has made an explicit finding that he did not intend to use the drugs to enhance performance, this does not seem to me to be worthy of being mentioned in the lede and, indeed, would be giving undue weight to it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) In that case, I accept it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Upul Tharanga resolution 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.

Hercules (emulator)

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. Hercules (emulator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Is calling something "free software" POV-pushing? Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Palosirkka (talk · contribs) Jmaynard (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Talk page discussion on both article and Palosirkka's talk page How do you think we can help? The article was written with NPOV firmly in mind. The authors of the Hercules emulator do not support the concept of "free software" and all of the baggage that goes with it, and feel that calling Hercules "free software" pushes the "free software" POV espoused by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. This has cropped up before, and the consensus (as evidenced by the fact that the association was not restored after discussion ) was to not associate Hercules with "free software". Palosirkka seems to be intent on making the association. Rather than edit war, and since discussion seems to be getting exactly nowhere, and since I do represent a potential COI, I'm asking for help from others. Jay Maynard (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)M Hercules (emulator) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The article is not written in neutral language as suggested above. The term "open source" is mentioned many times. The term "free software" was entirely absent before my edit. The opinion of the subject of Wikipedia articles does not dictate how Wikipedia articles are written. At no point does the article suggest that Mr. Maynard or anybody else having to do with the emulator endorses the term in question. I don't see any concensus anywhere. Palosirkka (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Jay Maynard, with your obvious Conflict of Interest do you really think it is a good idea to be making any direct changes to this article or carrying out percieved consensus from discussions? (Hint: No) Based on the facts that the software is licenced under Q Public Licence and as that article states it is a Free Software Licence. It's now what the developers of the software think in terms of political baggage, it's what does the licence say and what will random readers of the page look for when reading the page. Hasteur (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I asume you mean "not", not "now"... As I ask in the talk page, does that mean I can call gcc "open source" software, then? If I do, the FSF will shoot me, and legions of their followers will come to their defense and rip the term out of the article. As I said on the talk page, if "open source" is POV-pushing - and I'll readily grant the possibility - the answer is to remove the POV, not add statements pushing the alternate. It's obvious to anyone who's knowledgeable at all about the subject that "free software" is a politically loaded term with a definite POV. Palokirkka even admits as much when he calls it s "social movement". We are not part of that movement, and explicitly disclaim any intention to be a part of it. Using "free software" to describe Hercules does indeed put words in the developers' mouths. I agree I'm too close to the question to make the call myself. That's why I came here. If you look, I haven't made that many changes to the Hercule page, aside from updating release numbers and other factual information - and this subject. I guess the larger question - which is the reason I came here - is: Does Wikipedia take a side in the "free software" vs. "open source" war? If so, which, and why? If not, how do we express the idea in the article that the software is freely available and modifiable and redistributable without pushing either POV? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I work with Software of both self-described stripes every day. Would you be willing to accept the Open Source category? It links the important information, yet avoids the "militant" reading of Free,Libre, Open Source Software? Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Yes. If that's acceptable as an NPOV answer to the issue, then I'm all for it. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Here's my take on the free software/open source software question. At Wikipedia we do not take sides - rather we use the terms that are used by reliable third-party sources. If there is a term that has a clear majority, then we use that. If there is any notable dispute or disagreement in these reliable third-party sources, then we acknowledge that and we describe the dispute using neutral language. If the majority of the sources say that Hercules is open source, then we should call it open source too. If they say it is free software, then we should say that instead - it really just depends on the sources. In my experience, most software of this type is referred to as "open source", with "free software" reserved for that software that is consciously regarded as politically "free" by its developers. But that's just my experience - as I say, it's what the sources call it that counts. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC) The licence they're using isn't FREE. I changed the category from Free Software to Open Source Software earler to help facilitate the distinction. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Ahhh, I see. I was confused by your statement above where you said it was free. This might be a case of a small typo, but a big change in meaning? Anyway, calling it open source seems a much better option now that you've pointed that out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I haven't heard anything more from Palosirkka. I assume that he's fine with the resolution. Can we put a pointer to this discussion on the article's talk page so that, the next time it comes up, other editors will see we've been over this ground and not reopen the same thing over again? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Consensus can change. But once this goes archived, you can put a pointer on the article's talk page to the archival version with restoring consensus for any drive by editor (Random IP addresses, Single edit acocunts, etc.) If they open a discussion, all editors involved are obligated to discuss. Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Hercules (emulator) resolution The solution to remove the free category and add the open source category appears to have stuck. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Menahem Lonzano

• Menahem Lonzano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008: [64], and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".

In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”: [65]

In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: [66] and Debresser removed it: [67]

On May 1, SD re-adds this category: [68] and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again: [69]

In June 11, after a month and a half of debate I re-add the cat: [70] and Debresser immediately removes it again: [71]

After a successful Afd, I link “Palestinian rabbi”: [72] and Debresser reverts: [73]

10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: [74] and Debresser straight away reverts: [75].

I am not sure how to go about his when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus?

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs)
• Debresser (talk · contribs)

Debresser continues to revert "Palestinian" from all pages, including new articles such as Tachlifa the Palestinian.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser.

• How do you think we can help?

By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages.

Chesdovi (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Debresser now extended his non-use of Palestinain to towns! He believes that stating Timnah was a "Palestinian" town is "irrelevant": [76]. He also is remving the word "Palestine" from every article on a Jewish rabbi: [77]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has just referred to the use of the word "Palestine" as "propagana" which quite amazes me. Does he have an impartial view on the matter, as he claims, or does this slip up reveal an admission of a so far denied POV by someone who now seems to be a "pro-Israel" editor? Who else would call use of the word "Palestine" "propaganda"? Chesdovi (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Debresser (talk · contribs)

This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen in detail in my post on WP:AE#Chesdovi.

Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Part of this can be witnessed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which Chesdovi has turned into the "Palestinian Herald". Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here, even though it seems from WP:AE that Chesdovi's edit restrictions do not apply here, because of the limited scope of WP:ARBPIA.

In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivil remarks by DataBasss

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. Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? King ov Hell bio King ov Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This concerns the linked archive discussion where the user highlighted a section in the King ov Hell article that was deemed to be negative and therefore removed by an admin. While I do not have the time to resume discussion concerning the original dispute, I wish to raise the matter of this after not having had the time to follow up especially while I was revising for university exams: 'A quick search of Google can show that the poster of the content, username "Dark Prime", has made a career of posting untrue or otherwise disparaging comments about the subject throughout the internet simply for the purpose of causing harm.' I myself would like to register that I am at variance with the user's explanation and description of my activities without elaborating on such assertions and showing proper scrutiny, and if that was not necessary at the time then an absolute and categorical statement was not warranted at all. For now I should register that the Google search in question should show that in most cases I have readily substantiated my comments according to how much and how well I have comprehended the subject over time - citing and weighing both primary and secondary source material - which may contradict the claims of the user, and will readily provide more detailed refutations of the user's descriptions of myself as "causing harm" and "posting false and disparaging comments" if prompted. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) DataBasss (talk · contribs) Dark Prime (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? As stated this concerns a dispute dating back to early April 2011, but I have not had time to follow up on matters until now, and since then relevant discussion has been accordingly archived. As the user proceeded with the aforementioned described matter, I have felt I ought to use this sphere to address the matter. As I am not sure if the user has been active on wikipedia since the incident four months ago after having looked at his contributions page, I would appreciate it if somebody could contact the user on behalf as I am not sure who I should raise this with otherwise. Dark Prime (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Incivil remarks by DataBasss discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I observe that no talk page discussions have been opened. That really needs to take place prior to opening a thread here. I observe that you haven't notified the other user, as you're required to do. Finally, the other user hasn't edited since April. I think letting this go would be the best solution for the time being Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Incivil remarks by DataBasss resolution 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.

List of My Little Pony characters

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. List of My Little Pony characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Well I got a really serious problem in my hands about the List of My Little Pony characters page. And I think it's due to multiple reasons about adding newer info and characters. It was going on well and I want the whole page to remain in canon only and without Vandalism, even engaging in an all out Edit War. But is that there are too much info added that were either wasn't concrete or it seriously fake and is in fanon only. I had enough re-editing this page everytime I went to Wikipedia. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) 203.59.13.157 (talk · contribs) 124.169.105.233 (talk · contribs) Tama Fan (talk · contribs) The anonymous IPs listed were doing a bad job on the page. Sometimes being disruptive. Tama Fan is doing a good job, but the info she added were not so concrete and I need to remove or improve those. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I didn't. I was so angry about the anonymous editors on the vandalism that I just revert everything a vandal did. How do you think we can help? Do something about the verifiability of all the My Little Pony Characters written there. And also this Vandalism needs to stop, I had enough reverting things. Also, I wish the page would remain in canon with all the characters involved. I'm sorry if I bother you on this. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC) List of My Little Pony characters discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. One of the risks of taking something to dispute resolution or anywhere outside the article and talk page you are concerned about is that it will boomerang on you. This has already happened to you in this case and I'm going to close this request for unclean hands and insufficient discussion on the talk page, but before I do I want to point out that virtually everything on the page in question is unverified and the sources given for the few things which are verified are not acceptable reliable sources. As a result, virtually everything on that page is subject to being deleted at any time because everything on Wikipedia must be supported by a reference to a reliable source. If you want to preserve that page, you would be much better served by spending your time adding reliable sources than defending your improper ownership vision of the page. If what is being added by the other editors, especially but not only the IP editors, is indeed vandalism (which I've not confirmed one way or the other, but have some doubts about, nonetheless), then you must not edit war over their entries but either (or both) seek to have those editors blocked through the Edit War Noticeboard or by requesting page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC) List of My Little Pony characters resolution 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.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1

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. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The main editor (User:Calvin999) of an article I nominated for good article reassessment engaged in what I believe is a clear case of votestacking, then asked administrator User:Fastily to close the discussion after one day, though the process normally takes a month. Fastily is amenable to Calvin's request and it seems will close the discussion in about 12 hours. I objected that Calvin's votestacking led to false consensus, and later posted the evidence, but Fastily is unmoved and has instead labeled my charge an "egregious" accusation of foul play. Another administrator (User:Efe) recognized the votestacking, to which Calvin replied, "You can't just single me out for votestacking, because everyone else does it." Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Fastily (talk · contribs) Calvin999 (talk · contribs) Two Hearted River (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? All I could do to resolve this was point out the evidence of votestacking and hope Fastily would realize his/her mistake, but it hasn't happened. I contacted Efe in the hope that another administrator's view would carry more weight than my own with Fastily, but he suggested broader participation. Thus, here I am. How do you think we can help? I am looking for respected administrators to show Fastily his/her mistake and encourage him/her to remove him/herself from the GAR. (This is not just so the GAR can be extended. If one of you feels consensus has still been achieved there aside from the votestacking, I do not object to its closing.) You might also weigh in on whether it's proper for someone directly involved in a GAR to request that someone else close it, since no changes to the article's status will occur anyway while the discussion is active. I would also appreciate respected administrators' help in showing Calvin that votestacking is not acceptable no matter how many others may be engaging in it. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Uninvolved comment Although vote stacking clearly did occur, perhaps you should've waited for Fastily to 1) See the latest comments since you linked the actual diffs of vote stacking, and 2) To actually take action. Since he has done neither, this is a preemptive request for resolution on a disputed action that hasn't occurred yet. Even thought vote stacking has occurred, they have succeeded in disputing your rationale. The best outcome you could expect from this is that the discussion is closed as no consensus in which case it would remain a GA. I suggest you quietly back out of this.--v/r - TP 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I believe Fastily did see my posting of the diffs based on his/her later replies to other threads. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Believing and knowing are not synonymous. Additionally, I'm an uninvolved administrator. I'd be happy to close it instead of Fastily per your comments "If one of you feels consensus has still been achieved there aside from the votestacking, I do not object to its closing.". However, I'll tell you right now that my close would be in favor of keeping the article as a GA despite the vote stacking and I do not feel Fastily has made a mistake that I would care to show him the error thereof.--v/r - TP 15:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Should I have to present the evidence myself lest an administrator conclude that my accusation of votestacking is "egregious"? Wouldn't it be prudent for Fastily look at Calvin's contributions before drawing a conclusion? Two other administrators had no problem recognizing it. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Comments by Calvin999 As the nominator of the Wait Your Turn GAN, I believe I should be able to reply to this proposal. I disagree that it is a "clear case of votestacking", because I have not directly asked people to Oppose your GAR. I asked people (who I know and don't know) to simply place their vote (Support or Oppose) and take part in the discussion. It was up to those individuals to decide whether or not they wanted to Support or Oppose and they did it of their own free will. There is a huge difference between this and me telling people to Oppose, which I did not do in any way, shape or form. You have a problem with me asking for the GAR to be closed (as there are 9 Opposes and 0 Supports) after one day, but you nominated for GAR just 1 hour and and 21 minutes after the article was passed. A "false consensus" is not the case. As I just said, the editors who voted did it of their own free will, and unanimously voted Oppose. I get requests all the time for people asking me to comment on Afd's, and have also been asked to comment on FAC. GAR is no different. I still fail to see how you do not realise that the article was up for GAN and not FAC. You seem to have your own criteria for GAN and think that even non-existent information should be included (with regard to Background info). Everyone is telling you that you are wrong in this decision and that you have your own GAN criteria opinions on what an article should consist of, yet you still refuse to accept that you are wrong on this. You can't even find any more info about the Background (which you were so confident existed), so now you are trying to delay the delisting that you want by blaming me for "votestacking". Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Comment from someone recently involved I feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by most parties participating on how GARs should work. The article is a good article that has been put up for community assessment. Editors (any editors) look at the article, list problems against the criteria and then allow interested editors (usually the nominators) a chance to fix the problem. Any early keep and delist votes are largely irrelevant and if problems exist that have not been fixed the number of keeps is immaterial. Calvin did votestack, but it should ultimately not matter as long as the review is closed correctly and does not count votes. In fact having more editors working to fix an article is not a bad problem. The recent discussion between the two editors has taken a turn for the positive at the page as both seem to be working together looking for sources to address one of the disputed criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I hadn't seen this comment. The fact that I asked people to simply take part in the discussion is irrelevant, if I had of directly asked them to Oppose, I would be able to see your point, but I didn't, so I don't. And since when has "the two editors has taken a turn for the positive" taken place? Assuming I am one of them. Not that any of this matters now, the GAR was closed and the decision was Keep. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Notifying editors who have a better chance of agreeing with your opinion is just as bad and every bit of canvassing as asking editors to oppose. See Wikipedia:CANVASS. While your "Message" didn't ask folks to !vote oppose, your "Audience" was partisaned toward editors who contributed to the GA. That is canvassing and not amount of your insistance that it was not will change that.--v/r - TP 17:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC) No. I asked a range of people. Some I know who had and hadn't been involved with the GAN, plus I asked some who I don't even know. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) It's hard to believe you that you did not intend to canvass. Here is what I know. Between 1003 and 1004 23 August (CDT) you notified the following users of the GA reassessment that you know well as they have editted on your talkpage a minimum of 14 times and upwards of 184. User Notification of Reassess Evidence of foreknowledge Jivesh boodhun http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=446328001 184 user talk page edits GA review 1111tomica http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1111tomica&diff=prev&oldid=446328006 68 user talk page edits Petergriffin9901 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petergriffin9901&diff=prev&oldid=446328018 69 user talk page edits IHelpWhenICan http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IHelpWhenICan&diff=prev&oldid=446328033 14 user talk page edits Novice7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novice7&diff=prev&oldid=446328048 47 user talk page edits Rp0211 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp0211&diff=prev&oldid=446328070 20 user talk page edits Then 3 hours later at 1311 to 1312 (CDT) you notified 5 more people. I suspect you realized you were in violation of WP:CANVASS and were attempted to cover your tracks so you could use the excuse you gave above about not knowing some of the folks you canvassed. Spiceitup08 PancakeMistake Ipodnano05 Another Believer0 Ozurbanmusic If your intention wasn't to canvass, why did it take you 3 hours to notify the last 5 editors?--v/r - TP 19:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I didn't even know that the term "votestacking" even existed on here. THR said that I have only asked people I know, so I asked people I don't know as a response. I don't see why this is still a problem. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Since the issue has died (and THR should ask that this be closed because it appears it has), this really isn't a problem anymore. But please don't do it again in the future.--v/r - TP 02:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 resolution 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.

Boleto

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

SudoGhost argues that the content I wrote was copied and pasted but he fails to point out from where the copy was taken.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• FranciscoLuz (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

See article discussion page

• How do you think we can help?

Decide whether or not the content I wrote violates any copywrites and prevent SudoGhost from deleting it.

187.6.5.140 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Boleto discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Didn't notify SudoGhost. I have resolved this for you.Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

IP Address, can we assume that you are FranciscoLuz? Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this is the correct section to reply in, if it isn't, feel free to move it. However, the Boleto article has been plagued with copyright violations introduced by User:Francisco luz since it was created, and half of the page history is revdel'd as a result. The article's talk page is filled with discussions about the user's insertion of copyright violations, and the user has been blocked twice for copyright violations. Each and every edit previously made by User:Francisco luz and the user's sockpuppets have been copyright violations. When 100% of a user's previous edits are copyvios, it makes it unlikely that subsequent edits are not also copyvios, especially when the edit is so similar to previous edits. It is for this reason that I removed the inserted material. It is my understanding that copyright violations are a serious matter, and in that regard, it is better to remove and discuss than to simply leave it there. - SudoGhost 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're not replying to me, but to the general issue. I've moved the posting here. If I'm wrong, feel free to move it back Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently personal attacks are an important part of the dispute resolution process. - SudoGhost 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the WP:NPA issue and the possibility of WP:SOCKPUPPETry for a moment, I'll point out to Francisco luz that theirs is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that their edits are NOT plagiarism or copyright violations, and that such proof is provided by properly citing references. This is doubly true in this case, since the editor in question has a demonstrated history of editing in violation of copyrights, based on their block history. Returning now to the question of sockpuppetry, I'd say it's pertinent because it was the IP user in question that actually opened this discussion. Should it be demonstrated that the IP is not Francisco luz, no harm, no foul. If, however, a Checkuser determines they ARE the same user...well, it wouldn't be the first time someone got hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Finally, on the matter of WP:NPA, I see the IP user has already received a warning regarding that issue, and hopefully that warning will be heeded. If it isn't, this discussion may well be closed early due to the blocking of the originator. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there anything we can do to work towards a resolution here? It's been a few days and Francisco luz still hasn't responded in any way, so I'm not sure what needs to be done from this point. - SudoGhost 04:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to what Alan wrote, so I think if there's no reply from Francisco luz by tomorrow then I'll close this discussion as stale. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy) boldly added a note at MOS:RJL about how to add coordinates in a road junction list. It was removed shortly thereafter by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), citing no consensus. Among roads editors, consensus has been that since roads are a linear feature and coordinates are single points; the two do not go together well and coordinates should be avoided on roads until there is a good way to handle them. WP:LINEAR, a page which Andy created and Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has helped draft clearly states there is no consensus in the first sentence, and has since its initial edit. Noting WP:LINEAR, I added a note on an example on the MoS page that does include coordinates. It was removed by Andy and reverted by Rschen (successive edits).

Attempts on the part of the roads editors to compromise and have some coordinates in articles have been rebuffed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)
• Tagishsimon (talk · contribs)
• Rschen7754 (talk · contribs)
• Fredddie (talk · contribs)
• Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)
• Floydian (talk · contribs) 

The first two users are from the coordinates project, the rest are from either the U.S. roads project or the Canadian roads project.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

There have been numerous discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and WT:RJL. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) took Andy to ANI regarding his reverting Rschen's attempts to close the discussion. ANI's involvement ended by Rschen being told he should have found an uninvolved admin to close the discussion.

• How do you think we can help?

We need some people to speak into the situation and restore calm and order, and ensure that a true consensus is obtained and followed. Current discussions are degrading into incivility and personal attacks rather than getting anywhere. If this isn't the right venue, clear guidance on where to go from here would be much appreciated.

Rschen7754 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hmm, this is a tricky one. Although I do see some comments that aren't as civil as they could be, it looks like the issues have been discussed in a relatively calm fashion. The discussion also looks fairly comprehensive, and I don't see any clear consensus emerging. I saw the point made that discussing coordinates in MOS:RJL would possibly preempt consensus from the various roads wikiprojects and from the coordinates wikiproject, and I think we should be careful to avoid this. As I see it, there are two ways we could go from here. The first is to open up the debate to a wider forum to try and get more editors participating from the various wikiprojects that are involved, in the hope of estabilishing a broad-based consensus; the other is to stop the debate and go with the status quo of deciding on an article-by-article basis. Which one we go with depends on how palatable they are to the editors involved. Please let me know if you all agree with my take on these discussions. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. To be honest, I don't 100% agree with "I don't see any clear consensus emerging" as it's turned into 5-6 editors against 2 editors (though I'm aware it's not a vote and all that). But otherwise, it's a fair assessment. As far as the first option, I've spammed noticed to all of the highway projects on the national level, and the coordinates project was notified already, so I'm not sure what else to do, short of a RFC. --Rschen7754 08:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point - the numbers certainly aren't even. Let's wait and see what the other involved editors think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment with the same caveat Rschen mentioned. –Fredddie™ 17:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your (initial) analysis is spot on. Having failed to achieve a change to the status quo through misrepresentation, and failed to get ANI to support his attempt to prematurely close a discussion not going his way, Rschen7754 appears to have resorted to forum shopping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely that this is forum shopping. The discussion, if you can call it that, on WT:RJL has been going nowhere for days. We can continue running around in circles or we can get some fresh eyes on the discussion and get some resolution. –Fredddie™ 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen forum shopping, and this isn't it. --Rschen7754 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As the discussion was also signposted from one of the VP pages, I tend to think about as much has been done as could be done to interest other wikipedians. I do not expect any different outcome from this new angle of attack. I'm sorry that Rschen is unsatisfied that there is not a consensus to ban or severelly restrict the use of geo-coordinates on road junction lists, but that seems to be where we are. I've seen forum shopping, and this does look, smell and feel like it. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Right now, for me, WP:V and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appear to trump anything cooked up by a cabal on the RJL MoS talk page. Thus even were we to be able to move from a no consensus position to some other position favoured by Rschen, it would not make a ha'ppth of difference. A manual of style should not be used to restrict the addition of objectively encyclopedic information - which is to say content - but rather should be confined to, err, style. The hint is in the name. Neither should a MoS page be used to prevent content from being verified by reference to reliable sources such as a map. There's no possibility that I'll compromise the referencing of fixed geographical points merely because Rschen and other perceive that it makes their precious tables "cluttered". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: "you believe that your interpretation of WP:V and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS somehow entitles you to override the consensus process because you believe that you are right." --Rschen7754 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were, at least, agreed that the discussion was closed as no consensus? Or else we would not be here, n'est pas? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what we tried, until a certain editor reverted over that. --Rschen7754 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You tried to close as "no consensus for using coordinates on highway articles", which was a blatant misrepresentation. I reverted you, and your appeal to WP:ANI to undo my revert was unsuccessful; as was your attempt to insert that misrepresentation into the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently option 2 is not viable to Pigsonthewing: [78]. --Rschen7754 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Option 2 would be fine; the issue about my change to WP:RJL is separate to the one about whether or not to show coordinates on articles about roads. This whole farrago arose from your deliberate efforts to wrongly conflate the two. And the edit you cite rejects an attempt to sensor debate, not to restore the status quo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Section 2

The status quo is that there is no bar to adding coordinates to road junction lists. The RJL MoS page has for a long time shown the M5 example. Your attempt to change that has failed, Rschen. How many more fora will you drag us through before you have the good grace to concede? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

First of all, what happened to the other editors sharing my opinion? Why are you singling me out?

Secondly, the status quo is that there is no bar to adding coordinates to road junction lists, with the exception of countries that don't want them, such as the United States. It is clear that there is no consensus to add them to U.S. articles at this time. And no, you won't find the United States ban in RJL, because it was decided at WT:USRD back in 2008.

I think the UK solution is a responsible solution, and I think that variants of it might have worked out well in the United States. But when certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States (of which there may be over 1,000,000 - nobody really knows), the attempts to compromise fell apart.

RJL may not ban coordinates altogether, but it does ban coordinate columns.

Like my fellow editors, I plan to disengage for the sake of disengagement, because I think it would be good for all parties to take a month or so to cool off. This does not imply that I agree with your position (I very strongly disagree with you), and any attempts to take this as such or as a silent consensus will be met with a link to this diff, proving otherwise. --Rschen7754 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm singling you out because you brought this debate here. Why do you think I'm singling you out? You're right that RJL does not provide a column for coordinates; that's very unfortunate. It is a loss for our readers; not something to be proud of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not fair to single him out. It wasn't solely his decision to bring the discussion here.

Why exactly should RJL provide for a coordinates column? What difference does it make if the data is in an inline reference, located in the notes column, or in a separate column? What benefit is there? –Fredddie™ 01:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Then whose decision was it? And where was it decided? Link, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I asked a question first. You can't change the subject if you can't answer the question. On the handy little chart on your user page, Andy, changing the subject would be underneath the triangle. So, I'll ask again, what difference does it make where the coordinates are located? –Fredddie™ 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You did indeed ask a question before I did; but you didn't address it to me. Now, will you answer the question I asked you before you asked me one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your usage of semantics is sickening. You can find the answer to your question by checking the first edit to WP:RJL in 2006. I'm unchecking this page from my watchlist. I have better things to do. –Fredddie™ 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody was deciding to bring this to DRN in 2006?! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the benefit is this. If we are to add coordinates to every junction, then to do so in a new column does not increase the length of the page. If we do so in inline references, then we end up with a list of coordinates which is roughly as long as the original table. I leave it to you to work out which of those two options is saner. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no exception for countries that don't want them, because countries have no voice. Presumably, you mean Wikiprojects; and we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus; as has been pointed out to you several times recently. Why do you refuse to accept this? In the absence of a Wikipedia-wide consensus, as in this case, all that remain are article talk pages - a compromise reference to which you recently removed from WP:RJL.

WP:RJL does not "ban coordinate columns"; it merely neglects to include them in its list of example columns; despite the fact that there are good roads articles which use them. This, too has been pointed out to you recently.

Please provide evidence of your remarkable assertion that "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States".

And please cite your "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" claim. this November 2008 discussion there reached no such conclusion. Nor, incidentally, did this July 2010 WikiProject Highways debate.

I'll also reiterate what I said on your talk page: I take your protection of {{Jcttop}}, immediately after I raised a concern over its content in a debate in which you are involved, and in which we disagree, as an act of bad faith, and as an abuse of admin privileges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I gave the initial support for tagging every junction. The idea was shot down so fast, they started singing Bohemian Rhapsody. How is that not a resounding no? –Fredddie™ 01:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"How is singing Bohemian Rhapsody not a resounding no?" Really? FFS. And no, the idea was not "shot down fast". There were comments for and against and no conclusion reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I think that this is not really such a good venue for any allegations of abuse of admin privileges. Not that many admins read this page, and allegations like that can be quite serious. If you want to follow it up, then I think a good idea would be to ask for opinions on ANI and see what others have to say on the matter. If you do want to pursue it further here then I am open to that, but I think it should probably go in a new report to avoid being confused with the present issue - I'd like to keep this thread on-topic if that's possible. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's part of the same issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Section 3

I think Rschen7754's idea of stepping back from the more general debate of coordinates for highways articles for a month or so is a good suggestion. It does seem that the discussion was advertised in all the likely places, and while it could be possible to get more editors involved in any further discussion, this would probably take some serious effort. I also see good arguments made for making decisions on a page-by-page basis, as some highways and highway features seem more amenable to coordinates than others.

I also agree with Andy that his original edits to WP:RJL have become conflated with the wider coordinates question. Personally I don't see any problem with adding language about coordinates to the page, but to satisfy everyone we should be careful about how we word it. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "there is no consensus on whether to include coordinates in highways articles, and some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them; however if there is a local consensus to include coordinates you can do it with the {{coord}} template". Would this be an acceptable compromise for everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I like it. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Wasn't my idea, but it sounds good :P. --Rschen7754 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[reply to Mr. Stradivarius]

Please note my comment above: we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus. Any eventual wording should not imply otherwise. The claim that "some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them" is also disputed (note request for citations, above). I proposed on WT:RJL that the wording should be:

At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on individual article talk pages. See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached.

(which was a compromise reached by several editors, but rejected by Rschen7754) with the addition of a reference to WP:LINEAR and I've seen no good reason given why that should not be the case. The wording which I originally added to RJL was:

If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page.

and I've seen no good reason why that cannot be used, also. Note the opening "If", which is entirely in keeping with both the current RJL examples and LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." - where is this "generally accepted policy or guideline"? --Rschen7754 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RJL, WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. Oh, and there are some requests for you to provide evince of your assertions, awaiting your attention, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RJL does not mandate the use of coordinates; no matter how many times you claim it does, it does not. If it did, then all of the examples would have coordinates. WP:GEO is a WikiProject, not a guideline. By your reasoning, "Please note my comment above: we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus." (I don't agree with this statement, but I point this out to show a contradiction in your position). WP:LINEAR is a draft of a guideline. Referring to WP:CONSENSUS is circular reasoning. By the way, it seems that you at the coordinates project are trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since you don't have a guideline to back yourselves up with. And I ask you (again) where your discussions are mandating that all roads articles must be tagged. --Rschen7754 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cite evidence of me ever claiming that WP:RJL mandates the use of coordinates. Also, you seem to have overlooked the part of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that says Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Meanwhile, there are still some requests for you to provide evince of your assertions, awaiting your attention, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't have to. My point is that in order for the consensus of WP:USRD to violate WP:RJL, RJL would need to mandate the use of coordinates. Okay, so where is your "community consensus on a wider scale" that we are supposedly overriding? --Rschen7754 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Then your point is false. WP:RJL, WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. I forgot to mention MOS:COORDS, also. When do you expect to be able to provide evidence of your assertions, as requested above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how you somehow have the power to dismiss my points as false without proving how they are false. As for the second sentence... hmm we're going in circles now, are we? See my comment above, replying to you when you last mentioned those four links which aren't relevant guidelines. MOS:COORDS (which you should have brought to us earlier, as it's your strongest argument so far) mandates how coordinates are displayed; it does not mandate what coordinates should be displayed. And we've provided evidence several times above; interesting how you somehow have the power to dismiss my points as false without proving how they are false. --Rschen7754 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a fundamental of logic that negatives can't be proved; if you wish to claim a point, you prove it true. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions, requested above; vide:

• Please provide evidence of your remarkable assertion that "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States".
• And please cite your "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" claim. this November 2008 discussion there reached no such conclusion. Nor, incidentally, did this July 2010 WikiProject Highways debate.

As soon as you're ready… Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have proved my points; you have yet to find a flaw to disprove them. That's how it works.

Look at WT:COORD, it's quite obvious. I would hate to have to find the diffs.

Can we now agree that there is no "'community consensus on a wider scale' that we are supposedly overriding"?

We're starting to go in circles again, and we've been asked to be brief and remain on topic at DRN. The purpose of this discussion was for you to explain your objections to Mr. Stradivarius' proposal. I've proved why they are not well grounded. Now, can we all agree to it and go ... work on articles? --Rschen7754 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No evidence to back up your assertions, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But there's none to back up yours. And I've provided my evidence already. I think we've said enough already, let's let other people decide for themselves. --Rschen7754 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the discussion over the wording at WP:RJL is becoming too involved for this noticeboard. As a quick resolution is looking less likely, would you all be willing to consider taking this to another mediation forum? My first thought was formal mediation, but I also think an RFC could work if it is limited to this specific issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to formal mediation. My only concern is... is there a super long wait like there is with the Mediation Cabal to get a mediator? I have my reservations about an article RFC, but I would go with it if others wanted it. --Rschen7754 05:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, forget I mentioned formal mediation. I just realised that this dispute is not eligible, as the page in question is not a Wikipedia article, template, or image. Plus, it isn't clear whether being listed at this board qualifies as an earlier step in dispute resolution, which is another prerequisite. So our options seem to be the Mediation Cabal or an RFC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at WP:MEDCABAL, I see cases needing mediators all the way from July 28th, which is quite concerning. RFC might work and might not work, it's been hit or miss in my experience. I'd like to get some other thoughts though. --Rschen7754 05:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Section 4

It might be useful, if the combatants would agree, to go back to first principles and set out the arguments for and against coordinates in RJLs, perhaps as a precursor to bringing in additional eyes. I venture to suggest that we should all edit the following section without signatures such that we capture the essence of the disagreement in as terse a format as possible. We are not seeking, here, to come to a conclusion nor to forge consensus; merely to set out the gumnts pro & con. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for coordinates

1. Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction (along with things like number, mileage, which roads intersect, etc, that are already in the tables). It is encyclopedic information. We should make arrangements by which we can collect, store and disseminate such information.
2. Geo-tags enable users to verify the information in the table by linking them to a map against which they can check.
3. Geo-tags enable users to visit maps to see the junction. This is useful. Providing information on a junction and denying users an easy means of seeing that location on a map deliberately degrades the service we are capable of offering.
4. ILIKETHEM
5. Allows emission of metadata (microformats, KML) which can be passed to other services devices
6. Not causing any problems in articles where currently in use
7. Currently allowed by WP:RJL WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR and MOS:COORDS
8. Inclusion of coordinates in a road article is no bar to being a featured article: Ridge Route

Rebuttal of the arguments for coordinates

1. Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction

• rebuttal

2. Geo-tags enable users to verify information in a table

• rebuttal

3. Geo-tags enable users to visit maps, etc, to see the junction

• rebuttal

4. ILIKETHEM

• IDONTLIKETHEM

5. Allows emission of metadata (microformats, KML) which can be passed to other services/ devices

• rebuttal

6. Not causing any problems in articles where currently in use

• rebuttal

7. Currently allowed by WP:RJL WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR and MOS:COORDS

• rebuttal

8. Inclusion of coordinates in a road article is no bar to being a featured article: Ridge Route

• rebuttal

Arguments against coordinates

1. Coordinates clutter tables
2. Coordinates make tables too wide
3. There are too many junctions to tag with coordinates
4. IDONTLIKETHEM
5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"
6. "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States"
7. Tagging junctions will be too much work
8. Editors who want to add coordinates to roads articles have no interest in editing roads articles
9. WP:RJL does not mandate the list of coordinates

Rebuttal of the arguments against coordinates

1. Coordinates clutter tables

• Subjective view
• No more clutter than the use of groups of icons like, say,
• Readers troubled by seeing coordinates can hide them with a simple change to user.css
• one person's "clutter" is another persons incredibly useful information and/or functionality

2. Coordinates make tables too wide

• Subjective view
• We are able to control table width; better design is the answer

3. There are to many junctions to tag with coordinates

• If we've been able to add so many junctions, each with 5 or so attributes, it should not be beyond us to add an additional attribute. Time is not of the essence.

4. IDONTLIKETHEM

• ILIKETHEM

5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"

• WP:OWN,WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; Uncited and thus unproven assertion.

6. "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States"

• Uncited and thus unproven allegation.

7. Tagging junctions will be too much work

• Subjective view; No editor will be forced to add a single set of coordinates

8. Editors who want to add coordinates to roads articles have no interest in editing roads articles

• Self-contradictory
• So what; WP:OWN applies

9. WP:RJL does not mandate the list of coordinates

• No one has claimed that coordinates are mandatory; but they are permitted

I think you greatly misunderstand the point of this noticeboard; it's not to rehash the argument so that there's four subsections. That, and you've mangled half our arguments and presented a bunch of straw man arguments. No, I will not participate in this. --Rschen7754 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, you entirely distorted our position above. Our position is that we want to limit the number of coordinates, not ban them entirely from articles. But, since "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States" as "If we've been able to add so many junctions, each with 5 or so attributes, it should not be beyond us to add an additional attribute. Time is not of the essence." certainly indicates, we were forced to advocate for our second choice option of adding no coordinates to the articles. --Rschen7754 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Floydian has twice removed others' comments from this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The comments I reverted are mine to revert. No response was made to them. Rschen added a note regarding other editors standing behind those comments. I reverted my comments before anyone responded, at which point Andy Mabbett took the liberty of highlighting them regardless. Now that I have twice reverted his insistence to point out my rebuked comments, he cries for the teacher and manipulatively plays it off as though I am removing somebody else comments when in fact I am removing my own. This discussion has descended into playground drama. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PP-2000

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. PP-2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A while back I had changed the description of this weapon to machine pistol, seeing as, - The unabreviated "PP" means "machine pistol" or "automatic pistol" in Russian. - The weapon is pistol-like in form - The weapon is one-handed. Other weapons, such as the mac-10, which is almost the same size, are classified as machine pistols by wikipedia. It was then reverted in the next edit by 98.210.0.71 under the reason that "Just because call of duty says it's a machine pistol doesn't mean it is" (Paraphraphsing) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=412067598&oldid=403173171) Ignoring the fact that that statement is unnecessarily aggressive and assumes that that was my reasoning. I feel that its also noteworthy to mention that the "see also" section links to the TMP (which stands for Tactical Machine pistol) MP9 (which is based off of the TMP), VP70 and m9-r, the latter two which are unarguably machine pistols. I explained how the weapon's name meant machine pistol, reverted the page back to how it was when I first edited it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=413011457&oldid=412067598) Apparently, It stayed that way with other edits not messing with it for about 7 edits, till the same ISP as before now edited it to say ASSAULT RIFLE, which is clearly incorrect (The weapon does not fire rifle carditrges, nor has the barrel length, or other features of assault rifles) and could possibly be seen as vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=417886718&oldid=417545138) From the page history, it seemed this sitrred a small edit war until someone changed it to both say Machine pistol and SMG, which is how it was the last time I checked this page. Now I see that it has been again reverted. To be clear, I understand that it shares chartistics with sub machine guns, and is primarily regarded as one. I feel it should be catgorized as both a SMG and machine pistol. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) 69.132.69.87 (talk · contribs) 24.154.119.139 (talk · contribs) 98.210.0.71 (talk · contribs) ROG5728 (talk · contribs) I am both editor 24.154.119.139 and 69.132.69.87 . I do not know why I have two IP addresses. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I put forth evidence after the initial revert after my initial edit, and have created a section on the talk page on the matter. How do you think we can help? Hopefully either refer this to a more apt process for resolution, or provide a descion to resolve the isse. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC) PP-2000 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I'm pretty sure this is going to be summarily closed, seeing as how so far there is no substantial discussion on the article's Talk page. I'd recommend making an attempt to get other editors involved there first. You may also wish to contact any project pages that the article is associated with...those are listed on the Talk page as well. Doniago (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Doniago is right - this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page before it can be brought here. I see you have started a thread there but that it hasn't generated any response yet, and I also see that there hasn't actually been any recent activity on the page. I suggest putting your preferred wording back in the article and seeing if other editors join in the talk page discussion. Probably that will be the end of the matter, but if any problems happen after that feel free to post back here again. You might also want to read our policies on consensus and edit warring to see how the discussion process here usually works, and I also recommend the essay "bold, revert, discuss" for a good model of how to edit to form consensus. I'll close this thread later on today after you have had a chance to read my message. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response. I will go and read the things you suggested, and do the things you and they advise. (I really need to remember to sign in) Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You're welcome. Best of luck with your editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC) PP-2000 resolution Closed due to lack of discussion on the article's talk page. The reporter is following steps to resolve the issue there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of the Azeris

• Origin of the Azeris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Me and user:Arslanteginghazi are having a bit of a dispute about the article.The references in the article does not say the conclusions that Arslanteginghazi includes in the article , but he believes it is correct for him to include his own understanding to the article and labile them as written in the sources . I think we need assistance in resolving our problem . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Arslanteginghazi (talk · contribs)
• Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

We used the talk page . And we both compliant to Administrator intervention against vandalism [79] and [80].

• How do you think we can help?

Please explain for this user that in Wikipedia , we are not free to add our own understanding or our own conclusion making to the article . We may not continue our discussion in the reference section (footnote) of the article and that when we cite a reference in an article , that means we have to use the sentences , conclusions and ideas of that source , and nothing out of it .

Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Azeris discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

You didn't notify the user, I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

United States - foreign relations and military

• United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The following is from the 'Discussion page'

Firstly, I would like to say thank you for acknowledging the said work that I have provided and therefore am quit pleased that information, properly sourced, can be shared for the whole world. Secondly, I'm not so sure that we had agreed to to fixing the issue and am therefore quiet surprised that you had gone ahead and added information without our mutual agreement. As you had quoted above that with all editing articles, "to discuss the matter here and abide by the consensus that develops over whether the addition should be made", I would have to oppose your work which you have included without my "consensus". In addition, you mentioned in your above correspondences "The weight given to Philippine-U.S. relations in the addition was clearly undue and disproportionate to the other countries mentioned" but as I have mentioned earlier, "I have shared the same amount of information relating to the History between the PI and the States as with the UK and the States". Continuing on, you mention in your above corresondences that the small section has "unchallenged edits to the article in the interim which your edits inappropriately erase". I suggest that since my portion is appropriately 'referenced' that it be at the fron of the 'unchallenged" portion so as not to confuse the readers about the sources used should they decide to look it up and only find information pertaining to the US-Philippine' history which does NOT include the countries seemed favoured by yourself to be ahead of a perfectly well referenced source with the word 'Philippines'. To conclude, I have forwarded this argument and discussion page to wikipedia editing forums so I can also understand why it is that, in your view and clearly shown in the above correspndances, that you seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US has which does stem prior to WW2 and also runs deep with what is the 'Golden Age' of US politics and foreign relations. --Zabararmon (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Zabararmon (talk · contribs)
• DCGeist (talk · contribs)

It has come to my attention that DCGeist has been trying to exclude information regarding the above, referenced country and gone against what he has said I should do which is to follow a 'Consensus'. I was shocked to find my referenced contribution to be added

a) Without my 'Consensus' as he likes to put it b) It was added in an area which he says should not be touched, repeatedly, by myself as it is 'unchallenged' however I find not only my referenced contribution right in the middle of the unchallenged article, but without my 'Consensus'. c) It also clearly states in your disputes page for people to go 'Cool and easy' towards new users but judging by his tone above its sounds rather offensive and un-professional of an editor that is to keep an unbiased, cool minded view of articles for editing.

Can someone please look into this, please?

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have tried to resolve the dispute in the discussion page but it seems that mr DCGeist can't seem to agree with a 'Consensus' and goes ahead to edit the article.......

• How do you think we can help?

Please check that I have done the correct thing and answer my question to see if my editing the referenced Philippines portion towards the fron of the "unchallenged" contribution of countries is appropriate. It seems that Mr DCGeist has a habit of not going ahead with his arranged agreement as mentioned in the 'Discussion' page. I am not about favouritism but I am about facts. I have provided academically, referenced facts that are being challenged and thrown about inappropriately. I do not wish to exclude other countries, but I have provided my referencing regarding the Philippines relationship just like someone has provided referencing relating to the UK. It would not be fair for my refereneced article to be thrown in the middle of an "unchallenged" piece of contribution that Mr DCGeist has mentioned is inappropriate, in the discussion page.

Zabararmon (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

United States - foreign relations and military discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

One very important point: The basic assumption stated above—that I "seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US [have]"—is obviously false, as I agreed to and facilitated the inclusion of the Philippines in the relevant passage of the United States article.

Aside from that, I believe the thread in the article's Talk page speaks for itself. I'll monitor this dispute resolution thread for input from third parties.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To Zabararmon: I have reviewed the talk page discussion and the edits to the article, and it didn't seem to me that DCGeist was rude at all. He did have good reasons for reverting your edits, and to me it seemed he explained them very courteously. I can appreciate that it is frustrating to have your edits undone, especially for new users who are still learning about the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid that this is part of the deal of having an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It also seems that DCGeist shares your view about the USA having strong ties with the Philippines - the dispute here seems to be about how the information is presented, not the accuracy of the information itself.

It is perhaps unfortunate that you chose the United States article as one of the first ones to edit, as this article is already well-developed, and any changes need to be in full compliance with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be beneficial. This means that you are much more likely to get your edits undone there than at a less-developed article. DCGeist obviously has a good knowledge of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he has already explained the relevant ones to you on the talk page. I suggest chalking this one up to experience - as you spend more time here you will get a better feel for how policies such as avoiding undue weight can affect how we edit articles. I know this is probably not what you were hoping to hear, but I hope this reply has been useful. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist, it seems we are at a complete disagreement and your arguments are a failure at best. 1) "You failed to convince one single editor beside yourself that ..." I am not trying to convince a single editor of any changes made. It seems that the only editor in challenge of this is yourself. Please re-asses your this point. 2) "I discussed that change with you extensively and in good faith, I agreed to support an edit to the...." It wasn't objectively discussed or appropriately, hence my argument that I would take it to 'Dispute resolution notice board' for further clarification and included are further discrepancies of your justification and "Discussion of extensively good faith" 3) (i) "It appears that left you (extremely) dissatisfied. I see from your recent edit that you now wish to place the Philippines...." Please refer to my notices, posts and arguments above for reasons. It seems that you need further excuses to hijack a perfectly good argument and justification.

  (ii) "I'll return the Philippines to the middle of the string of names, following the three majority-English-speaking countries (a logical sequence, I believe)..."  Please, have a much better argument than that, as its extremely weak.  The population of the Philippines is 94 million, the combined population of Canada and Australia is 70 Million.  English is one of the official languages in the PI with 93% (UN statistics) speaking the language, introduced and indoctrinated by the former colonial masters, the US.  Your justifications seem very racially biased.  

I will not adjust this article at all and will, once again post these arguments on the notice board as referred above. I'm amazed that for a credible 'editor' you're not looking at the arguments objectively as the debate I have created can't be easily argued by yourself. I will also ask a few, more credible, editors to view this and will await their answers. Till then, I too wish you luck with editing and hope we can come to a more, realistic and 'educated' decision on this said article. --Zabararmon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs)

Mr. Stadivarius. In repect to him being impolie, it was in reference to a personal email we sent each other initially when I didn't know how to 'Discuss' or use the 'talk page'. but that has nothing to do with this article and should be ignored. Furthermore, after looking at your profile on wiki, I have come to realise that you're a language teacher in Japan. Thats great and I hope to give more to humanity when I complete my post grad studies. Moving on, I ask that you look into the current argument and double check my UN references regarding english spoken in the PI. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. It is unfortunate that I had chosen the United states as my first article, however, I find it important to contribute facts and referenced sources. I have no quarrel with other countries at all as I have stated in previous discussions. My only quarrel is the constant evasion and excuses by DCGeist. Please refer to my reason for putting the Philippines infront of the other countries, above.

Thanks for your input and hope that I have more clarity on this subject. -- [User:Zabararmon|Zabararmon]] (talk • contribs 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Zabararmon, you are not a good person. You have, with absolutely no basis, accused me of racial bias. There are few uglier things you could do in the context of Wikipedia or, indeed, in the world outside. And just like in the world outside, your ugly behavior here has consequences.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

• Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I have tried to make this article more accurate by showing there are two sides to the information being presented. Each edit I made was reversed. I made adjustments to my revisions which included providing citations. This was met by calling my citations conspiracy theory. I then attempted to edit a singular opinionated phrase "poorly defined" used to describe the title of the entry. This too was reverted, and now the page is locked due to waring. All I want is for a fair account of what is going on in this country concerning this topic. Yes it is divided. But let's get both sides fairly represented. The comments made on the talk page for this entry tell it all.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Nutritiondr (talk · contribs)
• Yobol (talk · contribs)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• QuizzicalBee (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on talk page and saw plenty of other posts concerning similar feeling.

• How do you think we can help?

Not sure. It seems some people are only willing to have it their way. I am perfectly happy for both sides to be equally represented. I can't see anything unfair about that.

Nutritiondr (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I'm sure the Helpful Pixie Bot will have a lot to add, being involved and all, but I think the initiator of this request needs to review WP:WEIGHT. "Equally represented" is not going to fly when dealing with WP:FRINGE articles like this. The initiator should also see WP:MEDRS as has been suggested already on the talk page to see what reliable sources we should be using in this article. Yobol (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• The feedback provided to this editor is that they need to provide references per WP:MEDRS. One does not need to ref the lead as it is supported by the body of the article. Oprah is not a reliable source nor are articles from the 1980s.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Okay. What about current web citations concerning the fact that each bio-identical hormone is readily available from major pharmaceutical companies and corner drug stores (names them by brand), and that the practice of compounding (which was the original form of distributing drugs before Big Pharma) serves only to offer different strengths of those same FDA approved compounds which the "name brands" do not?
• What if we offer some insight into the FACT that there is controversy over this topic. Sure Oprah is not a credible source, but what about the published authors and medical doctors that were a part of that article? There have been studies, double blind placebo controlled studies, showing hormone replacement reversed osteoporosis PMID 2355952, tooth loss, sexual function PMID 7039447, stroke , cardiovascular disease PMID 8597464, and many others. *Yet there are scholarly articles saying the opposite... SInce when to articles trump studies? And since when do the New England Journal of Medicine and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, etc. print conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE studies/articles? I have reviewed WP:WEIGHT and have provided not even the tip of an iceberg of credible information from publications no person could possibly accuse of printing WP:FRINGE information. Nutritiondr (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting review articles published in the last 5 years preferably 10 years max. We can discuss those back on the article talk page if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with BHRT is that it's extraordinarily asymmetrical in the medical literature. There is very little published in medical sources supporting BHRT, and a whole, whole lot of critical ones. That is why the article does not discuss the supporting evidence for BHRT, there simply isn't much. I have no issue with the page demonstrating the wonders of BHRT, provided adequate sourcing can be found. Otherwise it is undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

<span id="Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)">

• WLU and Yobol haphazardly removing citations? Similar behavior as seen in the article coconut oil. The best most detailed available sources on the topic were being reverted without thought in that case because the the narrowly focused (and now realized as questionable) saturated fat line dominating Western medical organizational policy (but only weakly supported by studies due to publishing bias if at all) was being pushed above of all other considerations. Before throwing Nutritiondr's edits under the bus I request that those disagreeing with his edits also cite the most relevant research of the past 5 to 10 years as well. If there is a lack of thorough review studies then it is appropriate to cite other material. WP:MEDRS does not prohibit citation of other non-medical sources and only gives a preference for medical sources for medical claims. Lambanog (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny I think people here are free to decide if the comment is germane or not. But your actions despite being an involved party pretty much highlight the concern. Lambanog (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that WLU in particular should not be censoring this discussion. He does seem to be involved in a number of concurrent conflicts. For example, does anyone know which Wikipedia article he was referring to in his comment here? BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a dispute with my conduct specifically, they are welcome to submit a request for comment on user conduct; I don't believe this is the place to debate my actions on more pages than just the BHRT one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just we are clear, how many MEDICAL sources would you like me to cite to clear the undue weight issue? Give me the parameters of what will be acceptable and I will deliver. There is that much out there to chose from. Also, I think we need to decide how to weigh a published medical study which delivers facts against a published opinion which does not.Nutritiondr (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to provide medically reliable sources, and secondary sources (that would be review articles, literature reviews, meta-analyses) that clearly discuss bioidentical hormones (i.e. you can not say "X study on Y hormone shows Z;^[1] Y hormone is a bioidentical hormone^{[citation needed]}) so as to avoid original research. The sources you provide above (which I've refactored where I could to use pubmed links) do not apply; they are quite old, they are not secondary, several are not pubmed-indexed and I can't find online, and quite simply they are drowned out by the much more recent, much more authoritative sources that are currently used on the BHRT page. In addition, they fairly clearly seem to say offer the type of synthesis that I describe above. Specific discussion of specific sources should probably occur on the BHRT talk page rather than here; if nothing else, the presentation of sources that haven't been discussed on the talk page as a way of resolving the dispute suggests that the request for dispute resolution is premature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've been editing the page here and there for several years, and have seen the edit wars that have been going on. The two sides are 1) an editor who is I believe a medical professional who has been extremely dedicated for several years in creating a page that includes only the most stringently proven information about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. He has worked hard and provided many good contributions. Then 2) on the other side are a series of several editors who have been writing about the latest thought regarding bioidentical hormone replacement therapy--they tend to be people from the alternative or complementary medicine fields, though not necessarily (fyi: I'm not from any of these groups). The problems are rather subtle, I believe, so will take a bit of explaining.
• Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is a relatively new therapy (15-20 years or so is when it's really become popular in its current form), and there are some things relating to it that have been well-proven by medical studies, and other things that have not yet been well-proven but there may be indications of findings without yet strong proof. Some proponents of it are completely flaky quacks, while other proponents of it are legitimate medical professionals. There are some concerns about the traditional, standard medical hormone replacement therapy that supporters of BHRT have brought up and that were summarized on the page but that were deleted by the other side. There are a range of different supports for BHRT--some supports are crap, frankly (e.g. some BHRT supporters say that BHRT does not have the risks of breast cancer, etc., that conventional therapy has, because it's "natural". This claim is flatly untrue and is dangerous; popular BHRT advocate Suzanne Somers is a charlatan). Other supports are based on some sound science but are in the earlier stages of investigation simply because BHRT is a lot newer than that which it is questioning, plus at this point it's difficult to have any large-scale studies of any kind of HRT following the findings of the WHI Prempro study that revealed some dangers of Premarin&Provera, the main non-bioidentical hormones that the BHRT supporters complain about. There ARE legitimately positive things to say about BHRT, however, and the arguments that supporters make about them should be present on the web page, but they keep getting deleted by the other side, and things are edited in such a way and with such word choice that BHRT ends up seeming completely illegitimate and flaky and none of the points raised in its support remain. The Wikipedia article is about sharing the information regarding this issue, including what all of the different groups involved with BHRT say, not about writing the definitive medical review article to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The WP article has a slightly different purpose than a medical journal article that would be reviewing this issue, and by suppressing some of the legitimate perspectives of the BHRT supporters, the article shows bias and violates NPOV. A NEJM article will have a bias towards conventional hormone therapy, and that's appropriate for them, but this WP doesn't have the same purpose. So the very determined editing of the medical professional have been addressed at creating a certain kind of tone, and the scientific rigor is laudatory, but those edits go too far in suppressing what BHRT supporters say that are legitimate critiques and comments. As I said above, these differences are subtle, and can best be seen by comparing edit by edit the things about BHRT that have been deleted by the other side, but doing such a comparison is extremely time consuming. But the article is called BHRT, so it should have that information there. An example is the addition of the disputed phrase that BHRT is "poorly defined". Such a word choice makes BHRT seem shady; instead, the different ways that BHRT has been defined should be included, and the different camps of supporters and opponents described. There are many other examples but I think I have described the complex situation adequately here.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the advice of departing from the scientific consensus is wrong. If there is a scientific consensus, Wikipedia should render it as fact, not speculate about the soundness of some arguments used by fringe theorists. That would constitute original research. Oprah's medical authority, Dr. Mehmet Oz is a real MD, but he dabbles too much into alternative therapies, so he cannot be trusted to render the medical consensus. At best, he is an MD who has been mesmerized by fringe theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "pro" BHRT side has a point, they should make their point in the medical literature; to date, there is very little data presented in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. Erika Schwartz has published one article with Kent Holtorf, and Holtorf himself has published a second one. I can think of a third article in which an uncontrolled set of 150 case studies were reported...and that's about it. There deliberately shouldn't be a sense of false balance in the wikipedia article because, as is clearly demonstrated by the large number of critical sources published in highly respected journals (most recently in The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics; [81]) there's no false balance in the literature. The minority opinion is represented through Schwartz & Holtorf, but the points made in these articles are themselves criticize by other sources. If there is a gradual accumulation of sources indicating the medical community is changing its mind, we can document that as they occur. But for now, there's an avalanche of high quality sources from well respected journals and medical organizations that offer science-based, well-reasoned criticisms of BHRT; the "pro" side has nothing comparable to offer. I'm also really, really sick of the conspiracy theory and one-sided COI accusations. They are rife on the talk page, and never a reason to alter any wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a debate that is going on within the talk pages on whether it can be debated that mainstream science may have evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims. The initial editor believes that there is no evidence whatsoever within mainstream science, and thus cannot be debated, while I believe that there is (though little) and have provided what I believe to be debatable evidence. We appear to be at a stand off, with neither one feeling comfortable with the others point of view.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Lothimos (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• StormRider (talk · contribs)
• Darouet (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

We have had an exceptionally long discussion about this on the talk pages. I have tried to develop different resolutions that would meet both viewpoints and remain NPOV, however cannot seem to reach a consensus with Thucydides411. Both sides have presented extensive expert evidence, according to the bounds that Thucydides411 has specified.

• How do you think we can help?

I believe the most benefit would be received from editors who are willing to read the discussion titled 'Archaeological Evidence' on the talk page and would be willing to add their take on whether this topic is debatable or not. I must apologize now, because it has been a lengthy discussion. I know that this is a religious issue, which means that people tend to be very opinionated, however I also believe that most editors believe in maintaining a NPOV and I am hoping that they would be willing to provide their editorial view on the discussion page. I believe this to be a simple dispute, thus this seems the most appropriate noticeboard to request resolution in.

Lothimos (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am a neutral in this dispute. Avanu has posed what I believe to be a cogent suggestion on the article talk page:

I propose that you remove the Archaeological Evidence information entirely from the article. After all, this article is titled "Beliefs and practices" of LDS, not "Archaeological Proof for LDS Beliefs". There's no need to try and prove or disprove what people believe by faith, within the context of this article. That's not the goal of this article. While it may all be a 'load', the goal of this page is to provide information on what LDS beliefs and practices are, not a critique of them. -- Avanu (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While I disagree with him that there is no place for criticism on this page (an examination of other beliefs and practices pages will show that some have it and some do not), I do believe in this case that rather than wrangling over the exact language to be used that the current text :

Much debate has taken place on the subject of whether archeology supports or denies the Book of Mormon's authenticity. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, at BYU regularly publishes the observations of dozens of scholars trained in biblical studies, achaeology, classics, history, law, linguistics, anthropology, political science, philosophy, Near Eastern studies, literature, and other fields relating to parallels with the Book of Mormon and the ancient world.

could be deleted in lieu of adding a "see also" entry at the beginning of the "Sacred texts" section which would read:

See also: Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Those two articles fully flesh out the debates and the see also line would be less obtrusive than this one element of criticism in an article which is otherwise a straightforward description of LDS beliefs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis

• Kostas Novakis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Need some independent assistance to resolve a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Refer to [[82]]. Fut Perf is stone-walling me with severe WP:ICANTHEARYOU despite my providing irrefutable WP:RS. I feel as though Fut Perf is ignoring my well-researched comments. I need independent assistance to resolve this issue either way. Ideally somebody that has never been involved with Balkans-related subjects.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
• Lunch for Two (talk · contribs)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is either ignoring me or does not understand English. I have provided WP:RS evidence which is being ignored. Lunch for Two has a specific agenda and by selectively quoting WP:RS justifies their specialised POV. However, Lunch for Two also selectively ignores content in WP:RS to justify that POV.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

1. I have discussed this issue carefully on the talkpage. I am being stonewalled, ignored, and have been treated fairly poorly, notably by Fut Perf (which is something that I have grown accustomed to, i.e. it is normal behaviour for Fut Perf). Moreover, Fut Perf entered the discussion belligerently by accusing me of edit-warring when there is no evidence of this on the article's history. It can be noted that I have carefully avoided edit-warring despite unsubstantiated rvs.
2. I placed a tag at the top of the article concerning the article's accuracy (which was deleted by Fut Perf before making any effort to discuss what the dispute concerning the article's accuracy was).
3. I also suggested that instead of a Wikilink to a specific Slavic language (with a specific ethnicity) that the Wikilink be directed to Slavic languages (which does not claim any specific ethnicity). This seemed like a more than reasonable way to resolve the dispute. But neither Fut Perf or Lunch for Two agree. Even though the WP:RS Eleftherotypia newspaper article makes it absolutely clear that the origin of the Slavic cannot be ethnically attributed.
4. Have also discussed the issue with Lunch for Two on my own talkpage. I have been incredibly patient in these discussions despite being ignored.
5. Part of the problem is that some words that have very specific meanings in the Greek language are interpreted with very different meanings in the languages of neighbouring countries. Another part of the problem is the poor quality of some of the references cited that are being used to justify points of view.
6. I also put the article up for AfD. The article survived AfD despite failing to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN and violating WP:BLP. And have made every effort (have bent over backwards) to improve the quality of the article throughout the process.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 03:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• How do you think we can help?

Just need a cool, calm, independent voice to decide the issue either way. The evidence that I have provided is from the self-same WP:RS used to justify non neutral POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The Eleftherotypia article is very clear that Kostas Novakis has collected songs that are sung by the Slavic population of northern Greece / Greek Macedonia / the region between Florina and Thessaloniki. These songs are therefore, at least predominantly, in Slavic dialects of Greece, and more precisely in those of the region. It appears (from the WP article I just linked) that all of these dialects fall into the dialect continuum of the Macedonian and Bulgarian language(s).

In a purely Greek context these dialects can be referred to simply as "Slavic", but in our international context this is not appropriate because the Slavic languages form a large family that goes way beyond Macedonian/Bulgarian and includes Russian, Polish, Slovenian etc. Technically, we could refer to these dialects as Eastern South Slavic dialects, but that is not really helpful for our readers.

Presumably Novakis is not singing in either Bulgarian or Macedonian standard language. Precise classification of the dialect(s) in question is probably tricky, especially under NPOV constraints, and I guess that we do not have sufficient reliable sources for that. It's not even clear to me whether Novakis sings all songs in his own dialect or whether he sings in the dialects of the people from whom he learned them. (Most likely the truth is somewhere in between.)

We have reliable sources from the Republic of Macedonia which claim that he sings in Macedonian, but I would not take them too seriously as they are not impartial on dialect classification. It's important to get this right, or at least NPOV, because of the close ties between language and ethnicity. What we need is a neutral word either for the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum, or for the part of it which exists in Greek Macedonia. For the former I know only "Eastern South Slavic", which is not helpful. For the latter, "Macedonian Slavic" is a reasonable approximation. However, Macedonian Slavic is a redirect to Macedonian language, which is not what we need here as it connotes the Republic of Macedonia rather than Greek Macedonia.

As there is no perfect solution, I suggest Macedonian Slavic as a reasonable compromise. Note that this is piped to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, the redirect target of Slavic dialects of Greece. Hans Adler 03:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavic, that is currently Wikilinked within the article, is ethnically attributable to the "Republic of Macedonia". It excludes Bulgarian and Bulgaria is also an origin of the Slavic used in the Macedonian region of Greece. It also excludes Serbia. I do not think that it is reasonable to Wikilink to an article that claims ethnic attribution. Moreover, the music that the songs are sung to has more in common with the music of Bulgaria. However, I agree that linking to Slavic dialects of Greece is acceptable. Although I am not convinced that calling it Macedonian Slavic is since this regularly appears to be misinterpreted as the ethnic language of the "Republic of Macedonia" whilst in Greece use of "Slavomacedonian" is unambiguous and is not the ethnic language of any country.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not ideal. There is a reason for this editing conflict, and it's the fact that there is no easy solution, rather than the characters of editors. Unfortunately we can't say "Greek Macedonian Slavic" either, because it's so absurd. While I have travelled in this stunningly beautiful region, I am not at all an expert for it, and least of all for its Slavic dialects. Maybe someone else finds a better compromise, but given that the problem is relatively recent (until recently we would simply have spoken of Bulgarian dialects), I am afraid I don't have much hope that an appropriate term exists.

The problem with "Slavomacedonian" is that it is an ethnicity (apparently rejected by some Greek speakers of dialects of Macedonian), not a language. But we really need a term for language. While Novakis' choice of language is of course important for reasons of ethnicity, he is still singing in language, not in ethnicity. Hans Adler 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input Hans. I think that Slavic dialects of Greece is a very good suggestion. Even though the article Slavic dialects of Greece is an article that needs to be improved.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To Hans Adler: I quite agree that "Macedonian Slavic" is a reasonable naming choice in this context. It's precisely the solution that's now in the article, introduced by me. The only remaining question is what target article to link this to. Linking it to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia might have looked like a reasonable solution a while ago, but currently that article is a huge and rather problematic page full of history and politics but has hardly any information about actual linguistics, so it's not a good target from a context where language is the only issue. Is it legitimate to link it to Macedonian language? Yes, I maintain it is. We have plenty of reliable sources for the proposition that the dialects of the area Novakis works in are commonly classified as part of that language today by linguists (linguistically, not politically). "Macedonian Slavic" is known to be a common alternative designation for "Macedonian". And even if we want to be super-careful and take into account that the assignation to a standard language like that is sometimes not a matter of objective truth but a matter of subjective construal, then the best person to ask what language this is part of is Novakis himself. And here I must correct you: we have not only sources from the Republic of Macedonia claiming that he sings in Macedonia, we have a literal quotation of Novakis himself quoted in a Greek newspaper where he calls his language Macedonian. In light of this, I see no reason to avoid the link, when basically the only reason to avoid it is the well-known ideological allergy against the term felt by some in Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I now notice that the unpiped link Macedonian Slavic has in fact existed for just this kind of situation for ages. It is a redirect not to the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia article, but to the "Macedonian Slavic in Greece" section within the Macedonian language article. That's a perfectly reasonable target in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with your solution, but I slightly prefer mine. Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia explains early on (though unfortunately not in the lead): "They speak East South Slavic dialects that can be linguistically classified as either Macedonian or Bulgarian". That's just what we need. Most readers won't need more, and for the others Macedonian language is only one click away (as is Bulgarian language). And the article's focus on ethnicity isn't so bad either, as it describes the background of the situation which, according to the Eleftherotypia article, makes the case of Novakis interesting. Hans Adler 07:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The section in the Macedonian language article explains the same things, much more concisely and to the point, and does so in the direct neighbourhood of other relevant linguistic information, so I believe it's by far the preferable target here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Nipson believes the whole notion of being ethnically Macedonian is "proposterous" and that it is "an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo." [83] [84], the issue then moves to Nipson's claim that he does not sing in the Macedonian language (The existence of which he also refused to acknowledge).

It is highly likely that Mr Novakis identifies as an Ethnic Macedonian. I base this assertion on the fact that he is a member of the "Centre for Macedonian Culture" [85] an ethnic Macedonian group operating in Northern Greece which has been denied registration from the Greek government. Furthermore by his own admission "The observation of the tradition and the Macedonian folklore are in my blood since childhood." [86], and the context makes it clear that in this case it refers to "ethnic" Macedonian folklore, and not that of other Macedonians. He was an honoured guest at the "All Macedonian Congress" held every year by ethnic Macedonians born in Greece who now live in the Republic of Macedonia [87].

The next issue is what langauge he sings in. Nipson has consistently claimed that he sings in either "Bulgarian", "Serbian" or some other Slavic language. Nipsons claims are unfounded and there is solid evidence showing that Novakis sings in Macedonian. By his own admission he sings in the "dialect of the Aegean Part of Macedonia/јас ги испеав на дијалектот од егејскиот дел на Македонија." [88] [89], which is the way a lay person (non-linguist I should say) would refer to his/her language in the given context as one of many Macedonian language dialects. Furthermore, Novakis' CD's are viewable here use the Standard Macedonian language, not a local Aegean Macedonian dialect, nor any other Slavic language (Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.). To use terms such as "Slavic dialects of Greece" does not reflect this reality of this where the individual has chosen to associate himself with 'the Macedonian language' and not simply "Slavic dialects" (Slavika, etc.) as one would have it. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could you point out particular linguistic features that mark the language used on the CDs as Standard Macedonian as opposed to local dialect? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On the front cover or including the booklet also? (which is accessible here) Lunch for Two (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Take "Belo pole do Beloto More/Бело поле до Белото море" (White field to the white sea). Per Stoikov page 184 in that region окото/okoto becomes окто/okto, and лицето/liceto becomes лицто/licto. This applies to all neuter particibles (including Belo, Lice and Oko and more (basically all that can end in -to)), taking this into account you would expect to see "Belto more" as opposed to "Beloto more". Furthermore the use of "Ponuda od Solun/Понуда од Солун" is another example, you would expect locals to pronounce it as "ot/от" instead. The use of the 'dz' in "Ogreala jasna dzvezda" is an example of the Macedonian literary letter "Ѕ" in action (well transliterated into the latin form), many dialects just say "Zvezda". The copyright on the CD is also clearly in Standard Macedonian. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. I guess that should settle it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. All of this sounds pretty conclusive. Hans Adler 08:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that conclusive? Although you cannot use the CDs as a primary source. It is very clear on the CDs that the language used is Slavic and there is no claim of any ethnic orientation of that Slavic. Moreover, the Eleftherotypia article makes it clear that the ethnic origin of the singers is not always Slavic, many identify as ethnically Greek (i.e. Greek Civil War refugees who have returned to Greece from neighbouring Slavic countries), and that the origin of the Slavic could be from any neighbouring Slavic country. Moreover, what difference does it make what Slavic Kostas Novakis uses personally to write some or all of the titles on the CD? That is no evidence concerning the actual origin of the songs. They sing similar songs in Serbia and Bulgaria. In fact, I have read evidence that one of the songs is almost identical to a song that is sung in Serbia. Likewise the music itself is very similar to music played in Bulgaria. That really is not conclusive at all. The Eleftherotypia article makes that very clear.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the main reason why this issue has been brought to dispute resolution. For no reason whatsoever you have convinced yourself that a Macedonian from Greece sings Serbian songs to the tune of Bulgarian music because ethnic Greek-speaking refugees exiled after the Greek Civil War brought these songs back to Greece in the 1980s from "Slavic" countries they escaped to and somehow planted these songs into the folklore of people from a Macedonian speaking background.

I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life and this is the reason why, frankly, everyone's time has been wasted debating over and over again at User talk:Nipsonanomhmata, Talk:Kostas Novakis and now here. This travesty is beginning to sounds like a case worthy of being mentioned at WP:LAME. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Especially since the whole question of what the "ethnic" "origin" of the songs is is still a phantom issue that has been taking place exclusively in Nipson's mind. The article doesn't speak about where they "originated" (if that is even a meaningful category), nor about what "ethnic orientation" the singers or their language has. (BTW, what the heck is an "ethnic orientation" of a language supposed to be anyway?) The article has never made any claims about such things, and of course doesn't need to. Nipson has plucked this whole alleged dispute out of thin air. The only legitimate question has always been how to describe the language the songs are being sung in, and we have certainly settled that now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Refer to CD cover and contents. It says that the songs are Slavic. Eleftherotypia says: "Συχνά, επρόκειτο για ντόπια τραγούδια που είχαν ήδη ηχογραφηθεί στη γειτονική μας χώρα, από πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες του Εμφυλίου, κι «επανεισαχθεί» κατόπιν στις γενέτειρές τους." Rough translation (to save time): "Commonly, local songs that were written/recorded in a neighbouring country, by political refugees of the [Greek] Civil War, and the songs were returned to their native country." Even the geographical origin of the songs, and the ethnic origin of the singers, is disputed in the Eleftherotypia article. Here is a Google translation of the same para. "Often, local songs were already recorded in our neighboring country, political refugees from the Civil War, and "reinstated" following in their hometown." i.e. according to this translation Greek refugees of the civil war actually saved Slavic songs from extinction. Meanwhile, you are both wikilinking to an article of a specific language that claims a specific ethnicity using the same references to back it up. Your POV is selective.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. He's really not getting the point. Of course there is nothing "disputed" in the article. Nipson is also again mistranslating the Greek. It's "στη γειτονική μας χώρα", with a definite article, "in the neighbouring country" (which obviously refers to only one specific country, Yugoslav Macedonia), and he also omitted "κατόπιν" (it means "later"). Nothing in that sentence poses any difficulty: songs were from Greek Mac., emigrants took them to Yug. Mac., singers recorded them in Yug. Mac., people adopted them again in Greek Mac. from those recordings. No dispute, nothing. And it is still true that our article never even raised any issue about geographical provenance, let alone ethnic provenance. Nipson is also evidently not even reading the target article he complains about. "An article of a specific language that claims a specific ethnicity"?? The section redirect from Macedonian Slavic goes to a place where it very explicitly states that it's "today usually classified as part of the Macedonian language ... However, the codification of standard Macedonian has been in effect only in the Republic of Macedonia, and the Slavonic dialects spoken in Greece are thus practically "roofless" ... Unlike in the Republic of Macedonia, many speakers of the language in Greece choose not to identify ethnically as "Macedonians", but as ethnic Greeks... ". What the heck more does Nipson want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making excuses about the translation doesn't work Fut Perf. During the Greek Civil War the neighbouring countries were Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. There was no "Republic of Macedonia". Nowhere in the Eleftherotypia article or the CDs does it credit the origin of the songs to a specific country and it does not credit "Yugoslav Macedonia" whatever that is. It just credits them as Slavic and that they were recorded in the Macedonian region of Greece. If the songs were Yugoslavian they could just as easily include Serbian and Croatian songs. In fact, there is a village in what is now Croatia with a name similar to Novakis' surname. You are inventing reasons to attribute ethnicity.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. . Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your attempt at attributing ethnicity is yet another red herring. Well spotted.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"There was no "Republic of Macedonia". See Socialist Republic of Macedonia. "In fact, there is a village in what is now Croatia with a name similar to Novakis' surname." Wow! Is there? So what? Paul B (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this now please? It must have become clear to all outside observers that no reasoned debate can be had with this person, so there is no sense in continuing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Nipson, lets leave it at that. Kostas Novakis must simply be a pure ethnic Greek from Greece who learnt Croatian/Serbian/Bulgarian songs from Greek Civil War era returned refugees, and then chose to incorporate these Croatian/Yugoslavian/Slovenian?/Slavoserbian?/Sorbian?/Kashubian?/Old Church Slavonic? songs into his folklore and went to a place called "Skopje" to subsequently publish CD's written in some bizarre "Slavic" language. Nipson, You have effectively brought an end to the discussion. I see no point in commenting here further. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Nipsonanomhmata's most recent comments enter surreal territory. Nothing is gained by continuing the pretence that there is a meaningful discussion taking place. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)