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	Failed	Albertatiran (t)	39 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Ibn Battuta	Closed	Jihanysta (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 17 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 17 hours
Palm Springs Air Museum	Closed	BellamyBell (t)	3 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours
Tesla Inc.	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Gabriellemcnell	New	Gabriellemcnell (t)	10 hours	None	n/a	Gabriellemcnell (t)	10 hours
Undetectable.ai	New	Sesame119 (t)	7 hours	None	n/a	Comintell (t)	4 hours
Ibn Battuta	New	Jihanysta (t)	5 hours	None	n/a	Jihanysta (t)	5 hours
Eurovision Song Contest 2024	New	PicturePerfect666 (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	The Satanator (t)	40 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of_Hungary

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

Filed by Harnad on 04:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Constitution of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Harnad (talk · contribs)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
• Koertefa (talk · contribs)
• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs)
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs)
• Ltbuni (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are some important ongoing developments regarding the new Hungarian constitution and its amendments. The constitution and amendments have been widely criticized internationally by heads of state as undemocratic. International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele has written several analyses and critiques of the constitution and amendments -- in Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog as well as before the Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee in Washington last week. I have been posting updates of Professor Scheppele's critiques on the Constitution of Hungary page and Users Biruitorul and Koertefa have kept deleting them on constantly changing grounds: are soap-boxing, recentism, unbalanced POV, NEWSORG and UNDUE. I have tried to rebut their grounds for objection, but they keep deleting. I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized: it is important that the basis for the international objections -- which are precisely those described by Professor Scheppele -- should appear to counterbalance them. (It is precisely this sort of tactic of media control in Hungary that is the focus of the international objections; the current government's parliamentary super-majority has become accustomed to controlling the press and public opinion in Hungary, as well as in Hungarian consulates and embassies abroad. This makes it all the more important that this should not be allowed to happen in Wikipedia.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried modifying the text, and many explanations on the talks pages of the text as well as the talk pages of the editors who were doing the deleting, including my own talk page. I have also asked David Goodman (User:DGG) to mediate.

How do you think we can help?

I think those who have been deleting my updates of the international criticism should instead be encouraged to post the other side's point of view: Those who are in favor of the constitution and amendments, and who think the international criticism is unwarranted. The more detail they can give about the contents of the constitution and modifications, and any errors in the criticism, the better. But repeated deletion, on multiple spurious grounds, is not the way.

Opening comments by Biruitorul

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I wrote a balanced summary of the recent amendment to the Hungarian constitution: one paragraph of description, one of criticism. Given the size of the rest of the article, I think this is an appropriate dimension. Also, this is not that significant of an event - yes, it's important, but it isn't, as Harnad claims, an "important, ongoing historic event... gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide". With all due respect, the last time anyone really cared about internal developments in Hungary was the Ajka alumina plant accident.

I vociferously object to the inclusion of the blog post in question. For one, no matter how many times Harnad repeats the phrase "International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele", that does not automatically mean we should be quoting her. And it's slightly misleading to say the comments appeared on "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog"; there is Paul-Krugman-as-economist, and there is Paul Krugman-as-politically-opinionated-individual, and it's the latter who mainly runs the blog. The comments are partisan in tone, they are on a blog (i.e., not peer reviewed), they are editorial content - in short, they are not relevant to the topic.

And I'd like to point out that Harnad has spread around the exact same blog quote at Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán, Politics of Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Fidesz, Viktor Orbán and, most ludicrously, given that it covers 2000 years, History of Hungary. Does Kim Lane Scheppele (note the red link) really have to be mentioned in all those articles? I happen to care about the article on the Constitution the most because I wrote it (and no, I'm not claiming I own it, but it's natural I should care), but this should be addressed. Harnad's strong feelings on the topic shouldn't be making a soapbox out of a whole spectrum of articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Professor Scheppele's analysis is now published in the record of the US Helsinki Commision [1a], [1b]. Critiques by others have also been published in the official working documents of the European Parliament [2],[3], [4], [5], by the Venice Commission on Hungary [6], Amnesty International [7 and Human Rights Watch [8]. --Stevan Harnad 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • • Per WP:PSTS, we don't normally directly cite testimony delivered at hearings, official reports and the like, assuming there are secondary sources that have covered the same material and reported on the same topic. That being the case, I fail to see the relevance of this link dump. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is not at all how I read WP:PSTS. But if the objective is to describe specifically how a constitution curtails freedoms, according to the interpretations of its critics, and we are not allowed to cite hearings, official reports, newspapers, constitutional scholars or Nobel Laureates' blogs (because the Nobel Laureate is a liberal!) to that effect, what can we cite? Your summary does not make these critical points: if it did, there would be no need to attribute them to Professor Scheppele (if that is what makes you keep deleting them), just as long as they were clearly made. But the specific points of criticism are being suppressed, and they do need to be made. This really is a matter of balance. No one is proposing to delete the positive interpretations of the constitutions: just to to complement them clearly with the negative ones. --Stevan Harnad 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • • Just a minute, please: much of what you've said distorts or misinterprets my statements. The optimal sort of references are readily identified at WP:RS - "articles, books, monographs, or research papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community" (it's probably a little too early for those) or "news reporting from well-established news outlets" (of those there have been plenty, and the article touches on them). The problem with Krugman's blog is not that he is a liberal (I would object as strongly to citing, say, the blog of conservative laureate Mario Vargas Llosa); it's that it is a blog, with all that WP:BLOGS has to say about that, and his prize doesn't wave away that issue. In theory, I don't object to reporting what Scheppele has to say, provided it's in in an appropriate venue, say this one. But as far as criticisms worth mentioning go, those have been made, in descending order of relevance, by opposition Hungarian politicians, by European-level ones, and by American law professors. I'm not saying the last are completely unworthy of mentioning, but the focus really should be on what Hungarians themselves have to say, given that that has been given most weight by available news coverage. Attila Mesterházy and Gordon Bajnai may not be legal experts, but they are where the attention of reliable sources has been focused. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• One of the core problems at issue in the critiques of the Hungarian Constitution is the freedom of the Hungarian press and media. The international criticisms of the Constitution are barely covered by the Hungarian press [9], precisely because of the threat of fines (or worse) owing to the Media Law under dispute. Hungarian press coverage is extremely unbalanced, by WP standards. I also find it very puzzling that you would find a Budapest trade newspaper a more reliable source about the views expressed in the US Helsinki Commision than the official records of the Commission itself. (It would also mean a lot less coverage of important current events in WP if they had to wait for published peer-reviewed learned-journal articles to be cited before they could be described...) --Stevan Harnad 11:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • That blog's political opinion is, of course, not enough to support such a bold claim that the media in Hungary is not free. That blog is a clear POV, for example, it ends with stating that "those responsible for Hungary and the region in the State Department will not be swayed by Szájer’s twisting of the truth.". That's a clear political opinion and not what I would call a neutral approach... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Supposing Hungarian press coverage is unbalanced, what about press coverage in German, in French or, for that matter, in English? Surely the tentacles of Orbánism haven't grown so powerful as to muzzle every important newspaper there is.

I don't have any special love for The Budapest Times, but your comment displays somewhat of a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia generally works. There is no original research; flowing from that, we don't validate the significance of primary sources by quoting them directly, but only account importance to them if secondary sources have commented on them. For instance, although Scheppele did testify before Congress, no one seems to have found this worth reporting on - not, for instance, The Washington Post. Thus, since we lack secondary coverage of her testimony, for our purposes it's not worth repeating here. People testify before Congress all the time; it's only when the press decides it's relevant that their testimony becomes relevant for us too.

And like I said, it's surely too early for journal articles on the topic, but not for in-depth press coverage; in fact we already have such coverage in the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Evidence that the press has decided it's relevant: Financial Times: [i], [ii]; Wall Street Journal: [iii]; Morgenweb [iv]; Suedwest Presse: [v]. --Stevan Harnad 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • • Provided WP:UNDUE is respected, I have no particular objection to these sources being cited. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does the above resolve the matter then? I will take the 5-6 specific points of criticism made repeatedly by Professor Scheppele and since taken up by the international (and Hungarian non-governmental) press, paraphrase them, attribute them to Professor Scheppele, and cite, alongside the original source (the US Helsinski Commission archive) the newspapers above that have cited it. That strikes me as a reasonable resolution, and would be even better (and more revealing of the goings on in Hungary) if this summary were also followed by a point-counterpoint (to be written Ltbuni, in the way he has been doing and proposing to do) consisting of the official rebuttals by the Fidesz government. Then WP users would have a balanced picture of point and counterpoint, and could draw their own conclusions. --Stevan Harnad 11:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Koertefa

I have described my problems with user Harnad's additions on his Talk page. I summarize them here, too: it seems to me that Harnad is using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Recently, he added lengthy criticisms about the new Hungarian Constitution, and even copied the same text to several articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (same text 5 times) or [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (same text 5 times) or [11][12][13][14][15] (same text 5 times). I agree that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, but WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. I was quite surprised to read what Harnad wrote: "I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized", since even before he started editing the article, it contained several criticisms and, if any, it was already a bit unbalanced towards the critical points of view: [16], for example read the 2nd paragraph of the lead (it is the version before Harnad started editing it). Of course, it is important that the constitution and its amendments received international criticisms, but a brief summary of the criticisms should be enough. The quotes should all be deleted, as they provide an excellent opportunity for POV pushing. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fakirbakir

I have to repeat myself. The "2011 Constitution" section is unbalanced and looks like a soapbox. This part of the article does not interpret the constitution itself, the proper analysis is missing, however concerns a lot about "democratic deficiency". Hungary is not the USSR. Hungary is a democracy. Objectivity needed. Lets see US Representative Chris Smith's opinion (he is the Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission):[17] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• No one is claiming Hungary is not a democracy, but the fact is that passage of the constitution did generate much comment, both domestic and external, and it's our duty to summarize that. No, not every single criticism, but a broad overview of prominent political actors' opinions is needed. There is some analysis in the "contents" section. I don't really think we should be quoting Smith, at least not that particular article; a source that starts "In contrast to international critics of recent Hungarian constitutional progress that offends their liberal ideology" is hopelessly partisan. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:[18]. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu ([19]) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, some commentary from a conservative think tank doesn't really have a place here, just like we shouldn't be citing Krugman's left-leaning blog. As for mandiner, which seems like another blog reproducing raw testimony: let's just say that the level of coverage there is not quite up to the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set by WP:RS.

There are quotable defenses of the recent amendment, but they're found in such reputable sources as the BBC, the Financial Times or Deutsche Welle. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Norden1990

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Wikipedia is not the place of political propaganda. Wikipedia should use historical context, these very long POV quotes make the articles to unbalanced. For example absurd that this case appears in the article of History of Hungary. Furthermore the text does not contain the constitutional amendment itself but only the reactions. Mr Harnad did not try to inclufe the other side's arguments (government responses), that were wrote by only other editors. It is not yet clear the effects of this new amendment. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ltbuni

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This is the typical example of edit wars, each of the participants is convinced that he/she is right, and the other is evil, and she / he has the duty to draw the attention of the world to the incoming tyranny of Mr. Orbán / the unfair treatment of Mr. Orbán by the western media or the leftists. One opinion provokes the opposite side to intervene or to deconstruct the other's narrative (see point 5.). This is becoming pure politics. So, my proposals:

1. I think we should lock the article waiting for further events - people said many things against/for the constitution and will say as well, but NOTHING HAPPENED YET with the amendment: it is passed and now it is under investigation, but that is all. No resolution, no decision by the international organizations, what is more, as far as I know, even the official English translation is missing.

2. Since there is no official translation, we should try to compile some elements of it, not mistaking the legal text itself, for its interpretation. When I tried to "balance" the article, I added some letters, written by Minister Navracsics, Martonyi, and OV - some of them quoted parts of the text, and prof KLS's blog refers to an attached document, with the proposed amendement as well- We should copypaste some proposed rules from them.

3. Both side must be given place. That is why I added the US-concerns in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Hungary&diff=542786588&oldid=542653973 In this version, the Békemenet is missing, while the other manifest is there. How about a "government reaction" section?

4. In the linked "Wikisource", I only found the 1949 Constitution. We should fix the article, with the actual text of the Basic Law as well, asap.

5. My English is not perfect, so anyone can fix it, I won't be upset... http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/viktor-orbans-grandiose-plans-might-be-thwarted-b-strasbourg-and-brussels/

--Ltbuni (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• • That the amendment passed and was signed into law is significant, so we should mention that. Also, "international organizations" don't have the power to invalidate it, so it's here to stay for the time being.
  • See WP:NOR - we're not going to start quoting at length from a 15-page document and adding our own interpretations.
  • Has anyone reported on the US State Department's concerns? See WP:PSTS; we should have a secondary source attesting the notability of that fact.
  • No, Wikisource does not have the Basic Law, but there is a link to it in Hungarian and in English, so that's not such a big deal. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • It is a big deal, the text is in the very heart of the whole pourparler. The link directs us to the OLD version of the Basic Law. I meant that asap there is an official translation of the whole IV.th amenedement, or at least of the revised Basic Law, we should upload it in the Wikisource, or link it in this article. I agree with You on the original research issue, but if a text contains the real legal text in English, why not quoting? The article now contains interpretation: "The amendment enshrines freedom of religion and allows constitutional complaints regarding the church law." It seems to me, that we just picked some rules arbitrarily as well. Where is the rule concerning the Court of Constitution? The whole edit-war will come to an end, if we present the WHOLE text.

But I can accept what You say. Unfortunately the article now has links to an out-of-date legal text - at least we should change its title something like this: Text of the 2011 Constitution without further amendments. It's misleading now.

--Ltbuni (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Possible text of the amendment- I have just googled it:

- in English: (It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele) http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf

- in Hungarian: www.parlament.hu/irom39/09929/09929-0055.pdf

I'd like to add them to the "External links" section. Objection?

Ltbuni (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of_Hungary discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd be happy to help with this issue. Let's wait for all parties to post opening comments before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul‎'s deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Okay. Let's wait and see if user Norden1990 will post an opening comment before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We are still missing an opening statement by user Norden1990, but let's get started. If they join the conversation later, that would be great. First off, I think it would be most instructive if we could see 2 or 3 examples of the material (&sources) that are proposed for this constitution/amendment material. Lets start with users Harnad and Biruitorul (and anyone else that wants to): can you post here (below) the exact material you think the article should contain (regarding the constitution/amendments), including footnotes/citations. After these specific proposals are posted below, we can review them and go from there. Does that sound okay? -- Noleander (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Will do. --Stevan Harnad 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and KœrteFa. Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and KœrteFa feel that:

• Jobbik shouldn't be called a neo-fascist or nazi party,
• Awards given to other far-right figures at the same time shouldn't be mentioned, and
• The importance of the award is dubious.

The users strongly feel that inclusion of the above material breaches neutrality and constitutes soapboxing. I would submit, however, that Jobbik's political affiliation, and the relationship of Szaniszló's award to other far-right recipients, and the importance of the award, are all well documented by sources. Furthermore, I don't believe the conduct of Ltbuni and KœrteFa has been fair: both have removed substantial material from an article that took quite some time to research, and almost wholly ignored the sources provided in the article or on the talk pages, with one or two sentence explanations, and consider their own point of view to be a priori the neutral one, despite the sources I advance, and without providing any of their own. I should note they've also made a few helpful changes. In any event, this has just come up, and may be relevant to this particular dispute resolution. -Darouet (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history

--Ltbuni (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry am very busy, but will come back to all this shortly. You can see the Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló and page revision history for more info. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Ferenc Szaniszló article: I suggest that this DRN case focus entirely on the Constitution of Hungary article ... that way we are more likely to reach a resolution. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: still waiting for parties to post proposed material (with sources) here so we can compare and contrast. Also: I'll be on vacation until April 4 ... so I wont be able to participate in the case for several days. Parties are welcome to continue posting comments in this case during that period; another DRN volunteer may or may not come along and help out. In any case, I'll return to the case around April 4. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm back from wikibreak. Parties, if they still want to pursue resolution of this issue, should post here (below) the material they think the article should contain, including sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes

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

Filed by PCPP on 13:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PCPP (talk · contribs)
• Keahapana (talk · contribs)
• Shrigley (talk · contribs)
• TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a continuation of a former DRN request on the same subject [20], which was closed last June due to an Arbcom request. After the Arbcom case concluded, the case was left unresolved for the following months due to personal issues, and I hope for the outstanding issues on the article to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Per prior case

How do you think we can help?

Per prior case

Opening comments by Keahapana

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Thanks to PCPP for finally restarting this Dispute Resolution. Thanks also to Guy Macon for volunteering to help us. I apologize for being Easter-sloth slow in replying, and don't have any objections to the somewhat longwinded opening comments because we've been talking in circles for too long. For instance, my "recent addition" of the CSM quote (#5) was added to the Confucius Institute article on 15 December 2010, was carried over into the initial Concerns and controversies article on 10 July 2011, and first deleted by PCPP on 14 May 2012. I hope we can reach an amicable resolution on appropriate contents for the C&CoCI article, and then cooperate on updating it. How should we proceed? Keahapana (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by by PCPP

My prior concerns in regards to article

Hi, I've read the discussion, and per the terms, I will not edit the main page of the article while the discussion is going on, and will not touch or mention the paragraphs regarding FLG. Overall, I feel that this article is overlong with quotes, and some can be better served with summarized statements. I also feel a need to distinguish between criticisms of CI and criticisms of individuals working at CI. My main disputes are with several of Keahapana's recent additions, which I view as failing to satisfy NPOV and due weight. Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with: 1) [21][22] Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself. 2) [23] A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence. 3) [24][25] Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy. 4) [26] A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations. 5) [27] A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy" 6) [28] A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill. 7) [29] A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all. 8) [30] A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements. 9) [31] The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations. 10) [32] Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE. 11) [33] Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight. 12) Lastly, I feel that the article would serve better if it was renamed "Reception of Confucius Institutes" or something similar instead, since the current title emphasizes an undue weight on negatives, suffer from a repetition of similar statements, while not giving due weight to CI's side of the story. I also feel that this article is in danger of becoming a collection of random negative stories on CI pulled from Google news, and as such, does not satisfy WP:CRIT. Perhaps the article could be restyled after similar criticism articles on Microsoft and Apple, where the criticism is organized by a clear heading and opening statement, present all sides using very little direct quotes and more concise paraphrasing. --PCPP (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Shrigley

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Basically, the problem with this article is that it has turned into a dumping ground and clearinghouse for any old web page that could vaguely be construed as damaging to CIs. There's no editorial control for NPOV and weight; there's no summarizing; there's no merging. For example, Keahapana says in discussion, "we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America". However, there is no in-depth discussion of any issue of "cultural superiority". There's just an obscure blogpost mocking state-run media around the world, and which made some sarcastic, uninformed, and extrapolative remarks about a Chinese newspaper op-ed. And this push to continually add irrelevant commentaries is a fair microcosm of the kind of shenanigans that I would like to see stop. Give me highly-corroborated, widely-referenced criticisms from the finest quality sources. Those criticisms will be exactly the ones that merit a response from the criticized party, or a well-documented refusal to respond. Restricting the article to those types of criticisms solves the balance issue. Shrigley (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TheSoundAndTheFury

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the comment was placed in this section (right under the instructions that says not to do that -- see above) I have moved it to "Opening comments by by PCPP" above. Normally we limit opening comments to 2000 characters and the comment is over 5000 characters long, but this is an unusual case, having been through DRN and arbcom previously, and it is collapsed, so I would like to ask Keahapana, do you have any objection to this? I don't want anyone to think we are being unfair or biased toward one side or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours, and still I only see one person choosing to participate. I have also not received any feedback from my post at Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#Notice of Dispute resolution discussion. I am going to give it another 24 hours, and then if there is still no participation, we can start discussing the best way to proceed. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I advise allowing more time. Keahapana does not appear to edit daily, but has waited nine months for this dispute resolution to begin in order to accommodate the other party.Homunculus (duihua) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am opening this up for discussion. You can all take as much time as you need -- I just didn't want anyone to feel that we are ignoring the case.

There are a lot of issues here, so I want to focus on one thing, see if we can resolve it, and then move on the the next. Let's start with PCPP's point #8: "A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements."

This raises two questions:

First, why are we calling an editorial from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and a news story sourced to the Associated Press (AP) "blogs?" (See WP:BLOGS)

Second, why are we giving so much weight to the opinions of a history teacher at Cedarlane middle school in Hacienda Heights, CA? (See WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the Confucius Classroom section, I felt that it was overwhelmed with sources and needs to be summarized more, since this is not just a criticism of CI but also a local ethnic dispute between Asian and Hispanic parents, as noted by the Washington Times piece. The Tribune editorial, which I wrongly referred to as a blog, has its position already been covered by both of these higher quality sources [34] [35]. As for the history teacher source, I favored its removal, so in conclusion, I feel that the paragraph only need a short reference to the both the views Tribune editorial and school board member Jay Chen, concluding with Prof. Cull's views on people's suspicion of outside ideas.--PCPP (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to wait until I see the argument on the other side before addressing the weight issue. As for the blog issue, of course anything that is only referenced in a blog needs to be sources or removed, which is why I asked. Could you do me a favor and go through your statement and correct any other errors you see? This is not a criticism; everyone makes errors. The only reason I am asking is that I intend to go through every area of dispute in detail and I don't want to waste your time. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's taken me so much time to get up to speed again, but I haven't looked at these diffs since last May. Here are some initial replies to PCPP's 12 prior concerns.

• 1) Associations with UFWD and Huawei. Neither logical association fallacy nor legal collective guilt apply to political controversies, some of which are entirely based on associations (e.g., Bill Ayers presidential election controversy or Jeremiah Wright controversy). Calling espionage concerns a conspiracy theory seems inappropriate.

• 2) Der Spiegel article. Admittedly, I could be wrong here, but is does WP:UNDUE require reliable sources to have more than one sentence on a topic? Either way, we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America or Soft Power.

• 3) Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. To my knowledge, the early Italian Cultural Institutes are the best historical analogy for CIs, and various authors make this comparison. Zimmerman is quoted is sources like this and this.

• 4) Branner's criticism. I agree that this quote could be paraphrased but disagree that it "adds little to the article." It represents a legitimate academic concern over CI financing.

• 5) CSM quote. This argument is based on two factual errors: The Christian Science Monitor is widely regarded as one of the most neutral US newspapers – not a tabloid. The quote is from the lede not the headline. Compare the original conclusion with the misrepresentative summary.
  • "So yes, absolutely, more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."
  • "article argued that teaching of Chinese language in the United States should be done on the terms of freedom, open discussion and democracy."

• 6) Dickinson State University. PCPP, you are correct. I agree to this deletion.

• 7) Rohrabacher's "political rhetorics" and Mosher's testimony. Directly quoting Dana Rohrabacher is more accurate than this distorted "summary." Steven W. Mosher appeared as an expert witness rather than a CI alumnus. Why make an ad hominem attack?

• 8) Cedarlane controversy. The "blog" mischaracterization has already been discussed. This Hacienda Heights story is perhaps the most widely reported criticism of a Confucius Classroom rather than a Confucius Institute. I think we originally had references from the National Review and Washington Times too.

• 9) Mosher UFWD quote. Respectfully disagree. See 1) and 7) above.

• 10) London School of Economics. Wasn't this already reverted? In June 2012, Professor Hughes reported the CI's egregious Korean War propaganda video (listed under Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#New Controversies). We could combine the two refs.

• 11) State Department CI employee visa flap. This controversy was widely reported in both Western (The Chronicle of Higher Education) and Chinese (Global Times and Xinhua News) sources. I also think the paragraph needs rewriting.

• 12) General comments. We can probably all agree that the current C&CoCI name is awkward. Based on the un-critical piping of Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Apple, I think that Criticism of Confucius Institutes might be the clearest and most succinct title. As already discussed during the 2012 merger discussion, CIs specifically meet two of the WP:CRIT's exceptions for which criticism articles are allowed: subject matter and independent criticism sources. The CI and C&CoCI diffs and Talk pages fully document that an ongoing pattern of creative paraphrasing resulted in the relatively high number of direct quotes. I've already searched for and contributed many refs expressing "CI's side" for NPOV, but most come from CI employees. Perhaps other editors can find additional reliable sources.

This should be enough to get our discussion productively started. Keahapana (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, we have an agreement on #6. If so, could someone please edit the article to reflect the agreement?

Trying to knock down the easy ones first, let's look at #2 next.

PCPP wrote:

[36] quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence.

Keahapana wrote:

Der Spiegel article. Admittedly, I could be wrong here, but is does WP:UNDUE require reliable sources to have more than one sentence on a topic? Either way, we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America or Soft Power.

My comments:

WP:UNDUE doesn't specify how many sentences a source has to have. It isn't about how much weight the source gives the topic, but rather whether the topic itself is a minority viewpoint and whether we are giving to much emphasis to the minority viewpoint. So, let's discuss any other reasons why we think this should be included or excluded.

(Change of subject) User:Shrigley has asked to be added to this case, and I have made a place for her/his opening comments above. I am also going to ask everyone who participated in previous cases whether they want to join the discussion.

To all the new voices; the most important things where this DRN case differs from article talk pages are: [A] I am trying to get everyone focused on one point of disagreement at a time rather than being all over the map. [B] At DRN, we focus on article content, not on user conduct, so please talk about the article, not about other editors, and if someone else talks about other editors, don' reply -- I will ask them to delete the comment. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The (apparently misinterpreted) reason that I mentioned two other examples of CIs and "cultural superiority" was to demonstrate that it should not necessarily be excluded as a minority viewpoint. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So, do we agree on #6? Is there any progress on resolving #2? Does anyone have a preference as to what point we should work on next? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and will gladly delete it. Any order of discussion is fine with me. Since there is overlap between #1, #7, and #9, perhaps we could deal with them together. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot it's already been deleted (guess <grin> I need more caffeine). Thanks again to PCPP. Keahapana (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to get the ball rolling on a couple of easy ones while I got a feel for the participants (am I dealing with reasonable folks who want what is best for the encyclopedia but disagree about what is best, or am I jumping into a raging battle full of accusations and counteraccusations?) Now that I see that I won't be needing body armor, I would like to follow your lead. Here is a new section so you don't have to scroll so far after hitting the edit button:

C and C over CI discussion 1

---

PCPP #1: [37][38] Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.

Keahapana #1: Associations with UFWD and Huawei. Neither logical association fallacy nor legal collective guilt apply to political controversies, some of which are entirely based on associations (e.g., Bill Ayers presidential election controversy or Jeremiah Wright controversy). Calling espionage concerns a conspiracy theory seems inappropriate.

---

PCPP #7: [39] A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.

Keahapana #7: Rohrabacher's "political rhetorics" and Mosher's testimony. Directly quoting Dana Rohrabacher is more accurate than this distorted "summary." Steven W. Mosher appeared as an expert witness rather than a CI alumnus. Why make an ad hominem attack?

---

PCPP #9: [40] The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.

Keahapana #9: Mosher UFWD quote. Respectfully disagree. See 1) and 7) above.

---

Relevant comments about #1, #7, and #9 by Shrigley: Basically, the problem with this article is that it has turned into a dumping ground and clearinghouse for any old web page that could vaguely be construed as damaging to CIs. There's no editorial control for NPOV and weight; there's no summarizing; there's no merging. [...] Give me highly-corroborated, widely-referenced criticisms from the finest quality sources. Those criticisms will be exactly the ones that merit a response from the criticized party, or a well-documented refusal to respond. Restricting the article to those types of criticisms solves the balance issue.

---

Are we to discuss here the two issues above - i.e. whether Rohrabacher and Mosher's remarks should be included, and if so whether they should be in a short or long quote, or short or long paraphrase? And then, whether we should mention the UFWD link to Hanban? I'm a little confused about the format of the discussion. It seems that whoever wrote the above agreed with their inclusion. I'm just not sure about the format this discussion is supposed to take. One note: for criticisms of something, does Wikipedia necessarily require something to be "highly-corroborated" (what does that mean, when we're talking about expressions of opinion?) and "widely-referenced"? The standard of a reliable source is much lower than that. The guideline on reliable sources is very clear and we can all know what they are. I'm not sure what the standard is for something to be highly-corroborated or widely-referenced. For that reason and others, it may be simpler to keep the threshold at what our content policies say, but then exercise reasonable judgement for the length to which something is quoted and the weight it is given, on factors such as how corroborated or referenced a statement is. Very often these differences are differences of taste between editors. To the extent that the matters can be extracted from personal preferences and made to submit to objective criteria, that's great. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. For TheSoundAndTheFury any anyone else just joining the conversation, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I have added your name to the list of participants and have made a place for you to write an initial statement.

We can discuss any issue that you folks agree to discuss. My only guidance on that is that we all read and understand the Guide for participants at the top of this page -- especially the part about talking only about the article content and not talking about other users -- and that we try to resolve one issue before jumping to the next. Otherwise I am just here to help you in any way that I can. So far we have been working on numbered items from PCPP's opening comments and Keahapanas reply, and right now we are looking at #1, #7, and #9. Once we either resolve that issue or decide that we can not reach agreement, we can discuss anything that we agree to discuss -- not necessarily something from that list.

As for your specific questions, we have an essay at Wikipedia:Criticism that is well worth reading. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, but this one does a pretty good job of summarizing our policies or guidelines. One question we might want to ask after we finish with the point we are discussing now is whether this article should exist at all or whether one of the other approaches would be better. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the lack of replies, I'm still keeping an eye on this discussion, I should have a reply within the next day or so.--PCPP (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Skäpperöd on 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lutici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne. These claims include:

• A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121) [41][42][43][44][45]
• A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke.[46][47][48]

I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. Michalek has published a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk:Lutici#Attempts at removing well sourced material
• Talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages#1130
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (aborted due to ongoing RSN discussion, which was then closed w/o outside input)

How do you think we can help?

• Mediate the discussion that is running in circles for days
• Participate in solving the case(s) by commenting from a neutral, policy-based perspective

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Obviously I disagree with Skapperod's characterization of this dispute. Pretty much all the relevant info has been gone over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne". The Map is based on a reliable source and backed up with two additional reliable sources. It does not claim that "Stralsund" existed at the time, merely that the Duke campaigned in the area - this is simply incorrect on Skapperod's part. Likewise, while the original phrasing of the related text may have suggested that "Stralsund" existed at the time, the text has been appropriately reworded.

The Rugen/Rugia issue is different. First, the Polish-Danish expedition against Wolin is placed by sources at either 1129 or 1130. Second, the source states that the expedition to Rugia took place after the Danes sailed to Pomeranian towns (Wolin). So there's no necessary contradiction here. However, it is true that different source put the Polish-Danish expedition to Rugen at different years (1121, 1123, 1126, or this one, 1130) - this is simply due to incomplete historical record. I'm open to phrasing this better to reflect this ambiguity in the sources. However, what I do object to is the contention (unsupported by sources) that such an expedition never took place.

Overall, Skapperod has failed to back up his claims with a single source, he's just been trying to create pretexts to question the info which *is* based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I volunteer here at the DRN noticeboard. This doesn't mean I have any special powers or what I say is more important that anyone else. It simply means that I am impartial and will try mediate this dispute as best I can.

Now, after reading through the dispute on the RS noticeboard I find myself slightly confused to what the basis of the dispute actually is. There's a lot of claims by one party against the sourcing and inclusion of sourced information. Skäpperöd, are you able to provide a source that contradicts Marek's statements? Additionally, as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity. If this is, in fact, the case then I see no reason for that to be brought to this DRN discussion and would request that Skapperod strikes it from the dispute overview. If he feels that it is not resolved then he is welcome to keep it in but we will be tackling each item seperately to avoid confusion Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cabe6403, thank you for volunteering for this.

My point is that not all information that can be sourced must be included, it depends on how authorative the source is:

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, which is an integral part of WP:V, says that "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" are "red flags that should prompt extra caution."
• WP:PSTS policy, part of WP:NOR, says '"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

The claims and map inserted by VM fail support by any secondary source: The claims regarding 1121 [49][50][51][52] and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map [53] in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question. The claims regarding 1130 [54][55][56] are based solely on the same book (tertiary source) where the map is from, quote and pg nr. were not provided despite a respective request.

My stance is that per the above-cited policies, the material does not meet the criteria for inclusion, regardless of whether there are sources directly contradicting it or not. It is sufficient to note that there are no secondary sources at all supporting either VM's map or VM's edits linked above. I'd like to have an agreement here on this important point.

Regarding "as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity." This has made some progress regarding the wording but is not resolved, as the map is still in the articles, and so is the claim that Stralsund existed in 1121 (VM has just exchanged the word Stralsund for the Polish exonym Strzałów). The 1939 secondary source which was initially thought by VM to confirm the disputed information turned out to not confirm that, it actually says "the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" [57] and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" [58]. That is not stating a route or capture, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121, it is clearly marked as speculation by the author. Apart from that 1939 book, no other secondary sources speculate about the campaign probably taking that route, even though the campaign is widely considered by secondary sources. So we have an UNDUE issue here, we still have a map lacking secondary sources, a map failing to support article text, and a slight falsification (VM's "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" which implies that this place existed and was later transformed somehow, in contrast to "vicinity of today's Stralsund" per the source, which does not imply that this place existed back then).

Regarding the 1130 joint Polish-Danish expedition against Rügen claimed by VM, this is still completely unsettled, no secondary sources supporting that claim have been provided. I have in the above-linked discussions provided secondary sources for a joint Danish-Polish expedition against neighboring Wollin though and think the author just confused placenames, but I maintain that it has not to be proven that the information inserted by VM is false, but that it first needs to be substantiated that this information even meets the criteria for inclusion per above-cited policies before we engage in weeks of discussion. In the context of a mention of Boleslaw and the "Rugi" in 1135, there are some sources directly contradicting an 1130 capture of Rügen, e.g. the expert for Pomeranian history Lucht, Dietmar: Pommern und das Reich vom Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts bis zum Jahre 1181, in: Baltische Studien Ser. NF, vol. 70 (1984), pp. 7-21, here p. 14: "davon, daß der Polenherzog jemals nach Rügen gekommen ist, ist jedenfalls nichts überliefert"; also Barth, Reinhard et al.: Die Chronik der Kreuzzüge, Gütersloh/München 2003, p. 88: "Rügen, das er noch nicht unterworfen hatte." The key issue though, as above, is the lack of secondary sources supporting an 1130 Polish-Danish expedition to Rügen.

16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The claims regarding 1121 [50][51][52][53] and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map [54] in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question . No, this is simply not true.

First, the word "solely" is false. Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map, in addition to the reliable source the map is based on.

Second, not a single source has been provided by Skapperod to contradict the info found in map. Instead he's making exceptional claims that this is an exceptional claim. It's not.

Third, the author of the book is a military historian, the publishing house specializes in history books. I guess one could describe this as a "tertiary sources" but so what? Tertiary sources can be used on Wikipedia. And like I said, it's also backed up by secondary sources.

Fourth, if you really think that "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" is a "slight falsification" then I'm fine with the wording "vicinity of today's Stralsund" (nota bene, a settlement called Strzalow probably DID exist at the time)

Fifth, I would prefer to have the map/text issue resolved before we move on to the Rugia/Rugen issue since that one's much more complicated. This one's here is pretty straightforward and I don't understand why Skapperod insists on wasting time on it.Volunteer Marek 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map - VM, can you provide these sources here for me. It would be helpful also if you could explicitly state which part(s) of the sources back up the map. Skapperod, likewise to you, are you able to provide a source contrary to VMs map. We will tackle the issue with the map before we move on so if both contributors could refrain from discussing the other topic until we have resolved the map I'd appreciate it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure.

The original source is Andrzej Michalek, "Slowianie Zachodnie. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne". [59] [60], 2007, Bellona Publishing House, one of the most respected publishers in Poland when it comes to history books.

The other sources are:

"Bolesław III Krzywousty" by Karol Maleczynski. This is an older but reliable source by a prominent historian, widely cited in subsequent later works [61]. For the relevant passage search for "Stralsund" and use google translate.

Atlas Historyczny Polski - Historical Atlas of Poland, 1989 (I believe there are more recent editions with the same material). This source has a map showing areas "conquered" (that's a bit of a strong word as there was very little actual fighting that took place, the Duke just marched through and obtained oaths of fealty) by Boleslaw Krzywousty, up to Stralsund/Strzalow and including Demmin and Kockow (I assume that Demmin and Kockow are not under dispute by Skapperod any longer)

The Polish Way: A Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, with a relevant excerpt available here [62] (I hope linking to it does not violate copyright). Adam Zamoyski is a British/American historian of Polish descent. The relevant excerpt is "He (Boleslaw Krzywousty) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen" - "as far as Island of Rugen" would include the area of Stralsund/Strzalow.

Volunteer Marek 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re Michalek - the very tertiary source (according to the wikipedia definition in the WP:PSTS policy) which is disputed here. Not a secondary source.
• Re Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975), p. 154 [63] [64] (Same as [65] but not as messy). This is exactly the 1939 secondary source I referred to above. Maleczynski contradicts Michalek's map by saying that probably the 1121 campaign covered Demmin and the vicinity of today's Stralsund. So no implying that Stralsund was there in 1121, as the map suggests, and clearly marking the course of the campaign as mere speculation, not as a definite fact as the map suggests by its arrows. For the map to match that secondary source, it needs to have huge question marks all over the respective campaign arrows and "today's" added to Stralsund, and then there is no point in having that map. This secondary source I provide as the requested secondary source contradicting the map.
• Re Atlas Historyczny Polski - tertiary source, needs pg. nr. and evaluation if it is referring to the 1121 campaign or to the 1135 Hoftag of Merseburg
• Re Zamoyski, Adam: The Polish Way, London 1987 (online excerpt) - tertiary source, no mention of an 1121 campaign, no mention of Demmin, Gützkow, Stralsund. The Rügen sentence might refer to the Merseburg Hoftag of 1135.
• Skäpperöd (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Re Michalek - I don't know what a "very tertiary" source is. Tertiary sources though are fine though. Cambridge Medieval History series are a tertiary sources. You're stretching. What you've left out of WP:PSTS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.", which shows that tertiary sources are fine. They are used throughout Wikipedia.
  • Re Maleczynski - Maleczynski DOES NOT contradict Michalek. He just says "probably" - how is that a contradiction? That is a pretty insane definition of "contradicts". If I say "X went to the store to buy milk" and you reply "yeah, probably", did you just contradict me? Also the map doesn't have "Stralsund" in it anymore, just Strzalow. And I was the one that provided this source not you.
  • Re the other two - the main point is that they don't contradict and support the other two sources.
  • Now can you actually provide a source which really (not "pretend") contradicts the map and the sentence? I've been asking for this over and over and over again, and your refusal to provide such a source or sources is to a large extent what had stalled the discussion at WP:RSN.
  • Volunteer Marek 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283. supports VM re Boleslaw “ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” If there is doubting Thomas, I can make a PDF copy and have an administrator confirm. Please contact me by email and I can forward copy. Also I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization. I can also do a PDF of the map in question and have an administrator confirm. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• You can do a quick and dirty confirm on Amazon books of The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283- do a search for Rugen and it pops up.“ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” --Woogie10w (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The New Cambridge Medieval History is peer reviewed secondary source that that is reliable.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How does "reaching Rugen in 1123" support any of the claims regarding Demmin and Stralsund in 1121 or VM's map for the 1121 campaign or a joint Danish-Polish invasion of Rügen in 1130? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'd say that settles that, the sources Marek is using are suitable. Do both parties accept this and, if so, can we move onto the other issue at hand? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 05:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC

Which one of the sources is suitable for what? Could you please be more clear on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403 Re VM's sources, I can send you by E-mail (berndd11222@yahoo.com) a PDF of map in Polish Atlas and page in Zamoyski book. The New Cambridge Medieval History should ice the cake. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is a sentence about 1123 supposed to 'ice the cake' about the disputed details of the 1121 and 1130 campaigns, and VM's map? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Per The New Cambridge Medieval History Page 283 " In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania."--Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Undisputed. Do you have any sources regarding the disputed details? Do you uphold your claim that the 1123 sentence has anything to do with the details in question here? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod, can you PLEASE present some source of your own? This discussion has been going on for two weeks now and you have failed to present a single source to support your claims. Without that I don't see how we can progress here.Volunteer Marek 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That there are no secondary sources about that is exactly my point. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But there are, or at least is. Given above. Can you please stop denying the obvious.Volunteer Marek 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod's source Herrmann is available via interlibrary loan, it will take me weeks to obtain a copy. Skapperod please be nice and send PDF/MSword copies of relevant pages in Herrman to a 3rd party admin to verify. This is turning into root canal, give us a break we need to close this and move on. In any case I will request Herrmann via interlibrary loan.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what "Herrmann" source you're referring to.Volunteer Marek 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert--Woogie10w (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but I'm not sure how that source is relevant here or if Skapperod actually brought it up in this instance.Volunteer Marek 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Herrmann has nothing to do with the disputed claims discussed here. Please do not discuss issues unrelated to the dispute at hand. Woogie10w claimed that Jerzy Wyrozumski's overview in the New Cambridge Medieval History 4.2, p. 283 "supports VM re Boleslaw". It obviously does not. I have access to the book and neither the 1123 sentence Woogie10w quoted nor anything else in there supports any details in question here, i.e. nothing about an 1121 campaign in or north of Demmin, nothing supporting VM's map, nothing supporting an 1130 Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen. At this point I'd first like to hear a detailed response of Cabe re [66] so discussion does not derail further. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you were supposed to present your sources first, before he responds.Volunteer Marek 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Per CMH4/2in 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania. which includes Demmin and what is today Straslund. Skäpperöd cited Herrmann as a source in the Lutici article , I will request to see this book and see what author actually wrote about Boleslaw's campaign--Woogie10w (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121 is not in the source (and I dispute that), and even if it was, the sentence could not be read as if there had been a military campaign in that specific area in 1121. Herrmann (as above) pp. 384-5 mentions the 1121/22 campaigns to Stettin/Sczcecin and the Müritz (for that referring to Ebo III/4, as most secondary sources do). No other destinations are mentioned for that campaign (since Ebo does not mention anything but the Müritz). Again, that Wartislaw became Boleslaw's vassal in 1121/22 and that Boleslaw in 1121 launched a campaign from the Oder to the Müritz and back is undisputed, the 1121 dispute is about the claim that this campaign led Boleslaw through Demmin and the area north of it. So far, the literature provided here does not make such a claim, except for Michalek, and we should await Cabe's response on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map, or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted a request at the New York Public Library for Das historische Pommern : Personen, Orte, Ereignisse / von Roderich Schmidt and Die Slawen in Deutschland : Joachim Herrmann. Both books should be available by Saturday. Lets see what German historians have said about Boleslaw's campaigns. Both of these German sources were cited in the Lutici article as support for the campaign in West-Pommern.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding. I was pulled offsite in work today so didn't have a chance to drop by. The way I understood the dispute was that Skapperod was primarily disputing the 'source' of the placenames and details on the map created by VM. Woogie10w then confirmed the reliability of these sources (I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization) and the details presented in VMs version of the map.

Skapperod, you are looking for explicit statement in a RS that 'the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121' am I correct? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, whether Wartislaw had been in control of the area by 1121 or not is not relevant here. I am looking, for quite some time now, for secondary sources supporting the disputed information introduced by VM into two articles and referenced to Michalek, i.e. a 1121 campaign by Boleslaw in the area of Demmin/north of Demmin, VM's map (there, the arrows pointing at Demmin and Stralsund), and a 1130 joint Polish-Danish campaign against Rügen. Apart from the secondary/tertiary issue, I fail to see how the sources presented so far support these claims. You say that "Woogie10w then confirmed [...] the details presented in VMs version of the map." I fail to see that either. Do you see, in any of the presented literature, a confirmation of either the 1121 campaign to Demmin/north of Demmin, or the respective arrows in VM's map, or a joint Danish-Polish campaign in 1130 to Rügen? Where? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The book (Michalek) on which the map is based on is a reliable source. The other sources which support what is in the Michalek's book are also reliable sources. The only thing you've done is claimed, strangely, that somehow because one sources (Maleczynski) says "probably" that "contradicts" the Michalek source. That is a patently ridiculous understanding of the word "contradicts". You have not presented ANY sources which contradict the map, or the fact that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of Demmin and future Stralsund. At a certain point you need to put some sources on the table rather than just obfuscating, otherwise the discussion becomes pointless.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And we can discuss the issue of Rugia separately.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is This?

In 1121/22, Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area west of the Oder and took duke Wartislaw I of Luticia as a vassel, Boleslaw then controled the region up to Demmin (Dymin)-SourceSchmidt Das historische Pommern , later in 1123 Boleslaw III campaigned in the area of Rugen-Source NCMH4/2. The Polish domination of the region west of the Oder was short lived and Luticia reverted to German control after 1124 Source NCMH4/2 ----Woogie10w (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod, are you able to present any sources that contradict the map created by Marek? I'm also feeling that this is more of a WP:RSN issue. I'm willing to keep it here however if Skapperod is unable to produce a source and continues to question the reliability of sources provided then I will ask that that issue be taken back to the RSN and we move onto the second issue. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403: This is not a RSN issue, and RSN has already failed to solve this. Please, as a neutral 3rd party could you reflect on the following to get the discussion focussed again:

• (1) Michalek [67] is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades [68]. It is not an expert source for Pomeranian history, and it does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. Can you confirm this assessment?
• (2) Said book includes a map about the 1121 campaign of Boleslaw III from the Oder river to the Müritz lake [69]. It does not detail the campaign in the text and does not give any sources for the map. The map is basically the same map as the one VM had drawn [70]. On Michalek's and VM's maps, campaign arrows point at Demmin and Stralsund (Demmin, Stralsund and Müritz lake are depicted by their Polish exonyms Dymin, Strzalow and jez. Morzyckie respectively). Can you confirm this assessment?
• (3) Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975) qualifies as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. On p. 154 he says about the 1121 campaign: "Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin" and "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu", i.e. in the West the Polish conquest most likely covered Gützkow (Kockow) and Demmin (Dymin); and German and Polish expansion met in the areas of Müritz lake (jez. Mor.), Peene river (Piana) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund (emphasis added). Maleczynski does not say that the campaign targeted Demmin, he considers it "most likely," which contradicts the map presenting that as a definite fact. Maleczynski does not say that the campaign went from Demmin to Stralsund, as depicted on the map, he instead says that German and Polish expansion probably met in that area. Maleczynski does not claim that Stralsund existed in 1121, he is talking about the area of today's Stralsund, thus not supporting the "Strzalow" dot on that map. Can you confirm this assessment?
  • (3a) That Stralsund/Strzalow appears in an 1121 context is especially surprising as expert sources for local history say it was first mentioned in 1234, i.e. more than a century later - Niemeck (2002), p. 78: "Nahezu zeitgleich mit der Gründung des Klosters Neuenkamp findet sich erstmals in der Überlieferung die Siedlung Stralow, das spätere Stralsund erwähnt. Im Jahre 1234 ...;" Kroll & Papay (2007), p. 101: "Stralsund wurde [...] vermutlich um 1230 gegründet und 1234 erstmals urkundlich erwähnt;" Schäfer, Igel & Schindler (2007), p. 213: "In den erhaltenen historischen Urkunden wird die Stadt Stralsund erstmals im Jahre 1234 erwähnt. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Stadtrechtsverleihung, die zeigt, dass Stralsund damals als Ort bereits bestand, wenn auch - wie zu vermuten - noch sehr jung war." Do you agree that a mention in 1121 is thus an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim?
• (4) None of the other sources brought up here, i.e. Atlas Historyczny Polski,The Polish Way and The New Cambridge Medieval History p. 283 support the claim that the 1121 campaign targeted Demmin and the Stralsund area. Can you confirm this assessment? If not, please cite how which source references which detail.
• (5) So all we got here about Boleslaw in/north of Demmin in 1121 is a map in a tertiary source not specialized in Pomeranian history and we do not have any secondary source or expert source to confirm this, despite week-long research. We only have one secondary source (Maleczynski) from 1939 speculating that there was a chance that Boleslaw targeted that area in 1121, and which does not claim that Stralsund/Strzalow existed back then. Do you agree with this assessment?Skäpperöd (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section of the Lutici article Lutici#Division and conversion of the Lutician areas there are two German language sources cited: 1-Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: and 2-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern. You quoted from both sources on your talk page yesterday. I ask Skäpperöd to please tell us what these two sources tell us about Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Please cite the actual text, not your rendition of what the authors have written.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this on my talk page, where I have already provided full quotes. I want the 5 questions above settled first, and though I am primarily interested in the mediator's response, you are of course free to answer them, too. But please, do not add anything beyond that here before this is settled, we can use my talk page for matters unrelated to the question of whether there are any sources supporting the 1121 Demmin/Stralsund bit in Michalek's map. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion belongs here not on your talk page. The two German sources cited in the Lutici article are relevant to the issue Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Deminin is in fact mentioned as part of the region he controlled. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Demmin is mentioned as part of the area Wartislaw controlled, and it is not mentioned as a target of an 1121 campaign. Full quotes and translation are here, let's continue there. I think we agree that there is nothing in there about a campaign by Boleslaw to Demmin/from Demmin to Stralsund in 1121, so this is not relevant to the discussion here. Let's first hear Cabe6403's assessment of the points I raised above. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, we're just repeating everything from RSN here.

• (1) Michalek is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. - it is an overview work but there's nothing wrong with that. And it has an extensive bibliography.
• (2) - I don't know what the problem is supposed to be here. You're basically saying that my map represents the source accurately (and no, it is not a copyvio as I made sure to make it aesthetically different)
• (3) - The text and map only state that Boleslaw campaigned in the Strzalow/Stralsund area. It makes no claim that a city or name "Stralsund" existed. Strzalow did exist before Stralsund, though, but that's really irrelevant. Our article on the subject, Stralsund, says At that time (circa 1168-VM), the Dänholm isle and fishing village, both at the site of the latter town, were named Strale / Stralow, Polabian for "arrow". Yes I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but that does suggest that Strzalow existed before 1234. Anyway, like I said, that's actually irrelevant here. The wording states "in the area of future Stralsund", so that's taken care off.
• (4) - The other sources support the claim that Boleslaw controlled these areas, including Demmin and Kockow. They don't explicitly state "Boleslaw campaigned in these areas" but, given that we have OTHER sources for that, it shows that the information is broadly consistent across several sources.
• (5) - Again, saying "probably" is not just "speculation" (I guess that's a better way of putting it than claiming that the word "probably" "contradicts" the map - I'm happy to see you've backed off that ridiculous claim), it actually supports the source. The Malezynski source, while a bit old, is widely quoted and respected. I can provide a link to a book review from the 1970's which basically says it's still THE source on Boleslaw (gimme time to find link and get jstor access).

And again, Skapperod has not provided a single source to contradict the map or the text. Rather he's just been running the discussion in circles over and over again.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Strzalow is just a Polish exonym for Stralsund. If you have a source that a place named "Strzalow did exist before Stralsund" please present it. For the rest, I am looking forward to see Cabe6403's assessment. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also essentially the name of the place before it became "Stralsund". But like I already said several times, that's irrelevant here.Volunteer Marek 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the first documented name of Stralsund was Stralow, which was used in the first mention of Stralsund in 1234. I have provided the respective sources in point (3a) of the list above waiting for Cabe's assessment. Please provide a source that some place named Strzalow existed before that, especially in 1121. That is relevant here as you put a place named Strzalow on your map for the 1121 campaign and claim it was targeted. How is that not contradicting the expert sources on Stralsund above who maintain that the place was first mentioned in 1234 (under the name "Stralow")? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Stralow" is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of "Strzalow". The distinction doesn't matter. This is an irrelevant and minor point whose only purpose seems to be to derail the discussion.Volunteer Marek 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Where did you take that "'Stralow' is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of 'Strzalow'" from? "Stralow" appears in the charter of 1234, as the first mention of Stralsund ever according to the sources I presented. You can view the document here. If you say it existed in 1121, you need sources of equal quality saying so or that information needs to be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow. It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!). You're pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a "Stralsund" existing in 1121 in order to get rid of the map as a whole, simply per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The map/text makes no such extraordinary claims, they're purely your inventions.Volunteer Marek 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is easily proven false.

First, re "It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!)" - I have maintained from the beginning that no history of Stralsund sees its beginnings that early (i.e. in 1121 or before), and I have provided sources that it was first mentioned in 1234. If it was first mentioned in 1234, this excludes a mention in 1121.

Second, re "all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow." That is also not true and one of the reasons for this discussion. If the map and the text were actually talking about "future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow" we would not have this part of the dispute. But this is what you actually wrote:

• The Pomerania during the HMA article, as of now states "1121 [:] Expedition east of the Oder. Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund) and Müritz lake" That wording was added by you [71] [72] [73].
• The Lutici article, as of now states that Boleslaw in 1121 probably campaigned "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)". That wording was added by you [74] [75] [76] [77].
• The map [78] drawn by you and added to above articles, claims to be about Boleslaw's 1121 campaign and has a dot described as Strzalow with a campaign arrow pointing at it.

So your statement that I was "pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a 'Stralsund' existing in 1121" is false, the text and the map are indeed claiming the existance of that place in 1121, and that claim was added by you. If you do not uphold that claim, fix the map and the wording accordingly to make it clear that there was no Stralsund/Strzalow/whatever in 1121, and we are done with that part of the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen the sources cited in the Lutici article. They make it clear that Boleslaw led the crusade against the pagans and that Deminin was destroyed.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"crusade" - in 1121? source? ---- "Deminin was destroyed." - in 1121? by Boleslaw? source? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On pages 105-106 of Schmidt writes about Boleslaw’s mission to bring Christianity to Pommerania. Boleslaw had the support of the Church hierarchy as well as the German Emperor. I characterize this as a Crusade. On Page 386 of Herrmann there is mention of an account by Edo in June 1128 of the destruction in Demmin.

On Page 386 of Herrmann there is an important point-in 1135 Boleslaw agreed to pay tribute to the German Empire for his 12 year occupation Pommerania and Rugen. In other words Skapperod, Herrmann puts Boleslaw in Pommerania and Rugen from 1123-1135. Boleslaw led the Crusade against the Lutians with the support of the German Empire and the Church. The Pommeranian Duke Wladislaw was an alley of Boleslaw in his campaign.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood Herrmann, I have the book in front of me. Neither did Ebo report a destruction of Demmin in 1128 (per Herrmann or the original), nor did Herrman claim that Pomerania and Rügen were occupied by Boleslaw. I can provide you with translations/quotes from Herrmann on my talk page if you want, but let's focus on 1121 here. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd I don't need your translation - 1.Ebo reported the wartime environment in Demmin in 1128 2. Boleslaw agreed in 1135 to pay 12 years back tribute to the German Emperor for Pommerania and Rugen.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Skapperod I see your point re Edo in 1128, that was during Lothars campaign. However Schmidt mentions Demmin as an objective in Wladaslaw's campaign, Wladaslaw at that time was vassal of Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

VM's map is correct, he just needs to tweek the dates a bit 1122-1124, erase Straslund and add Rugen(per NCMH4-2). At this point we are spinning wheels. Lets move on.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Without access to these books it is hard for me to make a statement one way or another. However I will remind you that what I say is, by no means, binding. I am not given any additional authority over any participant in any dispute on the DRN. My judgement carries no more weight than others. That being said, Skapperod, your points:

1. You are claiming that the source is not a secondary source based on your opinion because " The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades". I do not see why this means the source is not reliable and viable. Additionally, another user with access to the book states there is an extensive bibliography.
2. Yes, the maps are similar. This is not an issue. Regarding whether its sourced or not, without the book I can't say. I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author. Sources can do that, it is us that cannot [[WP:SYNTH[[
3. The author does not say the settlement was mentioned by name in 1121, you say that point yourself. He never makes this claim, he is referencing the name of the area as it is known later in history. Therefore it is not an exceptional claim as there is no claim to begin with. I actually see no one claiming that the settlement existed in 1121, rather that events happened in the area. This is similar to referencing ancient history in, say Mesopotamia as taking place in today's Iraq - true but no claim that a country called Iraq existed thousands of years ago.
4. No, not without the sources. I rely on others who do have access and WP:AGF.
5. I do not agree with your assessment. First off, it's a loaded question due to your phrasing and as there are many variables to consider.

Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• re 1: You misread part of my statement, I wrote that Michalek "does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS." WP:PSTS the policy defining what in wikipedia is considered a secondary or tertiary source and how they are to be used in articles. It says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources [...]" and Michalek does not do that. He is referencing not one primary source with regard to the 1121 campaign. In contrast, eg. Maleczynski does reference primary sources and provides his own thinking, thus being a secondary source per policy. WP:PSTS says about tertiary sources that they "are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." That is Michalek, a broad overview summarizing the West Slavs' history. Novel theses are not expected from tertiary sources.
• re 2: "I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author." No, the information in question here (Boleslaw's campaign in 1121) is only in Michalek's map. No reference, no in-text discussion. You can ask VM to confirm that if you do not want to go through the google books preview. But I think this is undisputed.
• re 3: Exactly. Maleczynski is very precise about that, and that is in line with the sources provided in (3a). But the exceptional claim I am talking about, i.e. that Stralsund (under whatever name) existed in 1121, is not in Maleczynski, but in Michalek's map [79] and VM's reproduction of it [80], which depict such a place in 1121. If it was the case that, as in Maleczynski, Stralsund is mentioned as a future place, then this part of the dispute was settled. But VM claims that it existed in 1121 in the articles [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] and the map [88].
• re 4: The sources are online and linked above, except for the atlas, but Woogie10w had offered above to send you a scan of the respective page per mail. Some are non-English, you can ask VM for the respective quotes and translation for Polish ones and you can ask me the same for German ones. Whether a source references that Boleslaw's campaign in 1121 targeted Demmin and (future) Stralsund is a yes-or-no question, either it is in there or not.
• re 5: Then please name the variables and we sort that out. Basically, whether something is in a given source or matches WP:PSTS is a yes-or-no-question which can be solved one by one.
• re "Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety?" --
  • I want it clearly marked in the text that whether Boleslaw's campaign to the Müritz in 1121 targeted Demmin and areas north of it is speculative.
  • I prefer to have Stralsund (under whatever name) not mentioned at all, and if, it needs to be unambiguous that it was not there in 1121.
  • I maintain, that per WP:UNDUE, a mention about Boleslaw's expedition to the Müritz possibly targeting Demmin/areas north of it, needs to be as short as possible, because it does not have sufficient coverage in secondary sources.
  • We can follow Woogie10w's proposal to remove Stralsund from VM's map.
  • The map has other issues, too, eg. presenting a speculation about a possible route (eg Demmin) as a given. That could be remedied by applying question marks to (a) Demmin and (b) the campaign arrow pointing from Demmin northwards.
• If we have agreed on that, we can move on to discussing another problem with the map, i.e. discuss how it can be properly shown that Stettin/Szczecin was taken in the winter of 1121/22, while the Müritz campaign was in 1121. If this is disputed, I will provide the respective sources. Right now, the map looks like Boleslaw first went to Stettin and then to the Müritz, while it obviously was the other way around.

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting extremely tiresome.

(1) Yes Michalek is a tertiary source. But there's no "novel theses" here. You've made that up.

(2) Boleslaw's campaign as a whole IS discussed in text of the book. Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". The Chyzans are the Kessinians, with their main fort at modern day Kessin, which is actually to the West of Stralsund. Hence, the text and the map are consistent with each other. The map just provides other details.

(3) If by "very precise" you mean he says "future Stralsund" sure. In Michael's map "Strzalow" is explicitly marked. For what it's worth - and like I keep saying, this is an irrelevant red herring pretext - Michalek has maps for later time periods where he includes both the name "Strzalow" and the later name "Stralsund". This suggest he is aware that Strzalow was not Stralsund yet. At any rate (3a) we actually don't know whether Strzalow as a settlement existed and (3b) it doesn't matter because the map just marks the location.

(4) I guess he *could* ask you for quotes and translation from sources you provided... oh wait. You didn't provide any sources

(5) I agree with Cabe6403 that your presentation of the dispute/issue/sources is highly misleading. Your phrasing does not reflect the sources. As pointed out over and over and over again, if a source says "probably" it is NOT contradicting the claim. And it's "speculation" in the same sense as ALL history is speculation, since we can't jump in a time machine and confirm events for certain. Bottom line is that if a source says "probably in the area of future Stralsund" then that supports the map. You're the only one who somehow tries to flip the logic on its head here and that's why this discussion has been getting silly.

As to what you want:

• I want... - The current wording is duke Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area,[60] most likely took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin) and probably campaigned in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund). So the words "most likely" and "probably" are already in there! You already got what you want.
• I prefer... - sorry, not going to happen. Stralsund is mentioned in the Michalek source, in the Malezynski source and also in this source [89](add that one to the pile).

Quote: W rękach polskich ponownie znalazł się Szczecin, wyspy Wolin i Uznam a ponadto na lewym brzegu dolnej Odry szeroki pas ziem, ciągnący się prawdopodobnie na przestrzeni górnego biegu rzeki Piany, od jezior Morzyckich aż po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu.

Translation: Szczecin, the islands Wolin and Uznam, were once more in Polish hand, and whats more, on the left bank of the Oder a wide pass of land, stretching over the area from the upper flow of the Peene river, to the Murtiz lake, to the area of today's Stralsund.

So we got multiple reliable sources which talk about Stralsund. On the other hand we have an anonymous Wikipedia editor Skapperod who just doesn't like the mention of Stralsund in there for some reason. Sorry, we go with the sources.

• We can follow... - I don't know if that's actually Woogie's proposal, but no, we do not remove Stralsund from the map, just because some guy Skapperod thinks so. It's in the source. Other sources support its inclusion. Sources, sources, sources. If you can present a source which contradicts the map then please do so already!
• The map... - No, that'd be Original Research. You might want question marks in there but then find a source that has a map with question marks in it. This source doesn't. We stick with sources. The map stays as it is.

Bottom line: Sources vs. Skapperod? Sources win. Sorry.Volunteer Marek 07:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

re "Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". " Can you please provide a pg. nr. and the respective quote? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

re Kowalski (1980), p. 108: "dzisiejszego Stralsundu" / "today's Stralsund" - "today's" ! No claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121. It makes no mention of 1121 anyway, but in the following sentence says that Boleslaw had to pay tribute to the emperor for Western Pomerania, which is referring to 1135.

re "we do not remove Stralsund from the map, just because some guy Skapperod thinks so. It's in the source. Other sources support its inclusion. Sources, sources, sources." --- Please cite here, with full quote, sources that claim Stralsund existed, under whatever name, in 1121, in addition to Michalek's map. You have so far failed to do so.

re "No, that'd be Original Research. You might want question marks in there but then find a source that has a map with question marks in it." --- It certainly does not violate WP:NOR to draw a map based on a secondary source, i.e. Maleczynski as cited above. If the source says that a campaign probably took a respective course, there is no OR in depicting that with a question mark. Cabe6403?

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"land of the Chyzans" - the page is 101, but actually I was imprecise. The text states that when Lothair got to the land of the Chyzans he could not go further east as he would encounter and risk a war with Boleslaw. My mistake (it's late here and I'm tired), but it doesn't change anything.

No claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121. - So what? No claim that Stralsund existed is being made. That's just a bad faithed excuse you invented to try and get rid of the map.

Please cite here, with full quote, sources that claim Stralsund existed - No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made. That's just a bad faithed excuse you invented to try and get rid of the map. The only claim is that Boleslaw campaigned and controlled the area around future Stralsund.

If the source says that a campaign probably took a respective course - yes, and then there's another source that has a map with an arrow in it. I know! Why not we use the source that actually has a map. Maybe some guy named Michalek has wrote a book about it or something... The "question marks" are you a product of your own imagination - i.e. unsourced OR. What's next, we attach confidence intervals to the arrows?

And for the millionth time: PLEASE PROVIDE AT LEAST A SINGLE SOURCE WHICH CONTRADICTS THE MAP OR THE TEXT!!!! The fact you have steadfastly refused to do so pretty clearly indicates that at this point you're not conducting this discussion in good faith. This is just being tendentious on your part. Which is why this is so frustrating.Volunteer Marek 09:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

re Chyzans - Ok, that is what I thought.

re "No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made." Can you please state explicitly that you do not claim that a place named Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121? That would resolve this part of the dispute.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a single source which contradicts the information in the map or in any of the other numerous sources which have been provided? Volunteer Marek 10:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You have NOT provided numerous sources supporting the disputed details in the map. Stop claiming that or provide actual page numbers and quotes that support that Boleslaw's 1121 campaign targeted Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow (which obviously includes the claim that this place existed back then). All you have provided is one secondary source, Maleczynski (1939), that says probably and today's Stralsund. All other sources provided do not say anything about an 1121 attack on Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow. Prove me wrong and provide respective quotes or stop claiming that anyone besides Michalek says so.

I have provided, with quotes, [90] expert sources saying that Stralsund/Stralow/whatever was first mentioned in 1234. This contradicts Michalek's map who has it there as a target in 1121. I have also provided quotes of the sources [91] I used for the Müritz campaign, who make no claim about the 1121 campaign targeting Demmin or Stralsund. This information appears only on Michalek's map, a tertiary source written by a non-expert for Pomeranian history. Prove me wrong and provide respective quotes or stop claiming that anyone besides Michalek says so.

I repeat my request re "No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made." Can you please state explicitly that you do not claim that a place named Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121? That would resolve this part of the dispute.

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that Marek is providing a map faithful to the source while Skapperod would prefer every detail of the map be sourced individually (name of the settlements, direction of the arrows etc).

It is clear we are unlikely to come to a compromise in this situation so I will make two statements in the hope that this dispute can be resolved.

1 - Marek, a few tweaks have been suggested to the text regarding the map clearer. Would you be willing to implement these suggestions to ensure that readers know that parts of the map are speculation on the behalf of historians (as are all reports about history many years ago - as they say, history is written by the winners)

2 - Skapperod, it is my opinion (in purely a third opinion point of view) that the case for including the map outweighs the case for removing it. I will therefore ask you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is already a consensus here that Michalek's map is a tertiary source. The WP:PSTS policy is binding for us. It says

• "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow was attacked by Boleslaw in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. Policy forbids inclusion.

---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. Policy forbids inclusion.

---> The claim that Demmin was attacked by Boleslaw in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. There is one secondary source, Maleczynski (1939), saying that it probably happened. Policy forbids inclusion.

Unless policy changes or secondary sources are presented for either claim, or the map is changed in a way that it only has information that can be supported by secondary sources, there is no chance for inclusion policy-wise.

Next, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is also policy, i.e. binding for us. It says

• Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; [...] claims [...] that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in [...] history [...]"

---> The claim that in the 1121 campaign Boleslaw targeted Demmin and Stralsund is a surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, i.e. not by any secondary source, there is only Maleczynski (1939) who says that it probably happened. Policy asks for multiple high-quality sources.

---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121 is likewise a surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, i.e. not by even one secondary source. Mainstream consensus is that the first mention was in 1234. Policy asks for multiple high-quality sources.

As long as these concerns are not eliminated, best by providing high-quality secondary sources explicitely supporting an 1121 campaign by Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow, or changing the map accordingly this map must not be included per the policies cited.

Cabe6403, how do you want to make your proposal fit with the cited policies? I really only see the chance of either sourcing it to secondary sources (that has failed) or changing it that it fits the secondary sources we got. Same goes for the sentences added by VM that say the same thing as the map and are sourced to the map. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is this kind of purposeful stonewalling and obfuscation that is making a resolution of the dispute impossible here. 1) There are no exceptional claims here, just Skapperod's own invented excuses, unsupported by sources, for getting rid of the map. See red herring fallacy. 2) And bad faith is evident in the selective quoting of the policy in regard to tertiary sources (historical atlases, Cambridge Medieval History, historical encyclopedias, are all tertiary sources used on Wikipedia all the time). For example, the policy also states Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics - that's exactly what the map does. Finally 3) secondary sources supporting and consistent with the map HAVE in fact been provided but Skapperod continues to act as if these didn't exist. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PSTS policy also says "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources" (you omitted that part in italics here). Where are these secondary (or even primary) sources for Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund in 1121? That tertiary sources can be used as cited from the policy above does not invalidate the fact that there must be secondary sources, too, which is unambiguously stated in the same policy (quoted above) and which is also the premise for using tertiary sources (as quoted in the first sentence of this para). That's policy, and binding. So instead of repeating ad nauseum that secondary sources have been provided for Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund in 1121, cite one that actually says so. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod the map can be sourced to secondary sources that have been presented in the discussion:

• New Cambridge Medieval History 4/2 Page 283- Boleslaw was responsible for bringing Christianity to Pommerania. In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania, he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” In 1124 he eased the rigorous conditions of this suzeranity.

• Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, p. 113: Boleslaw reached lake Müritz and his vassal Wartislaw I conquered the Demmin area.

• Atlas historyczny Polski (1998) shows Polish control of West Pommeranian region as a vassal state from 1122-1127.

I rest my case on these sources--Woogie10w (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these reference Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121. These are the disputed details, and we need secondary sources for this and not for something else. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd VM's map is supported by reliable sources, IMO it needs some minor tweeking, 1121 to 1122. We should be thanking VM for putting in the time to prepare the map.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"VM's map is supported by reliable sources" - then please, cite where they reference Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121, which is a central part of the map. So far it's only Michalek, and he is a non-expert tertiary source. If you change the date to 1122, you need secondary sources for Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1122, and also for the Müritz in 1122 which is problematic (since in literature it is 1121). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Per NCMH By 1119 Boleslaw subjugated Gdansk-Pommerania he then conquered western Pomerania in 1123 reached Rugen. In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania. VM's map is correct --Woogie10w (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

NCMH says nothing about the 1121 (or any other) campaign targeting Demmin and Stralsund. The conquest of eastern and western Pomerania and the imposition of feudal overlordship is already in the article and is not disputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From one of the source provided: Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin - "In the west the Polish conquest most likely covered the towns of Kockow and Dymin" (i.e. Demmin). So it's sitting right there, it has been mentioned above, but yet Skapperod STILL keeps on insisting that this isn't backed up by a secondary source (in addition to Michalek), as if the source had magically evaporated between yesterday and today. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek 16:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is Maleczynski (1939), and you can not source an information "that and that happened" with a reference saying "that and that probably happened." Also, there is absolutely nothing about Boleslaw targeting Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 in Maleczynski, he just says that German and Polish expansion probably met in the vicinity of today's Stralsund. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're just engaged in playing semantic games and trying to deny the obvious. One more time. If one source says "X happened" and another source says "X probably happened" the two sources are NOT in conflict with one another, they support each other. To deny this is simply bad faithed stonewalling. Likewise if a source says that "German and Polish expansion probably met in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" that SUPPORTS the contention that Boleslaw campaigned in the vicinity of today's Stralsund's. Again, to try and pretend that this isn't case is just pure SPIN. You've invented your own particular red herring and are trying to make the argument about that red herring, not about the actual issue. And there is the third source which says that Boleslaw came to control an area up to (future) Stralsund, which is, again, consistent with him campaigning in the area.

Can you provide a single source which contradicts the information in the map or in any of the other numerous sources which have been provided?Volunteer Marek 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is a source - on a not really related topic - which uses the name "Stralsund" for 1168, when "Stralsund" is supposed not to have existed [92]. Here's the thing - some settlement on the spot of future Stralsund most likely existed (in 1168 and probably 1121). It was probably called Stralow/Strzalow. Not sharing Skapperod's obsession with... with, well getting rid of a particular map and obtaining his way and only his way on Wikipedia, historians will sometime refer to "Stralsund" before it was actually called "Stralsund" or as a simple short hand for "area around future Stralsund". There's nothing wrong with that.Volunteer Marek 17:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod, At this point I am beginning to get pissed offWP:IDHT, we have haggled way to long about VMs map. The sources clearly support the map, there is no doubt. It is time to move on.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Break

Skapperod, consensus is against you in this matter, from a third opinion POV I believe the points Marek and Woogie are putting forward are legit and you are fixating on details per WP:IDHT. I will therefore ask again that you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. If that can be done we can move on to the other dispute. If you are not willing to accept this then I am unsure what other avenue to pursue regarding Dispute Resolution since it is a voluntary process and requires one or both parties to compromise. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403, as a mediator in this content dispute, where one party says "it's not covered by secondary sources" and the other party says "it is covered by secondary sources," I expect you to actually look at the sources provided, most are online and each one can be made accessible to you and translated if you wish. My claim that an attack by Boleslaw on Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 can not be referenced to any secondary source can be easily rebutted by providing quotes from secondary sources unambigously saying so. Likewise, VM's claim that there are secondary sources stating an attack by Boleslaw on Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 can be easily confirmed by providing exactly the same quotes. I think that not looking at the sources and asking me to agree [93] on this proposal [94] which got the dates wrong (that the Müritz campaign took place in 1121 is referenced and undisputed) is not a solution here.

What I'd settle for re the article text about the Demmin/Stralsund bit is quoting and attributing the only secondary source we got that actually refers to these places in connection with Boleslaw's 1121 campaign, i.e. Maleczynski (1939). That would look like this:

• ... [sentence about Boleslaw's campaign from the Oder to the Müritz in 1121].^{[fn for sec. sources and Ebo]} Maleczynski (1939) says that Boleslaw thereby "most likely took Demmin/Dymin and Gützkow/Kockow" and, with reference to the contemporary campaign of Lothair of Süpplingenburg, "German and Polish expansion met at Müritz and Peene, and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund/Strzalow."^{[fn for Maleczynski with original quote in Polish]}

After that sentence, I'd add that it had also been proposed that Boleslaw went via Nieden, and about the dispute about that.

I'd still strongly advise against keeping the map in its current state because of the lack of secondary sources supporting the Demmin/Stralsund bit in it. If this is going to be decided by numbers and not by sources here, I'd at least want an attribution in the caption like Route proposed by Michalek. I maintain though that per WP:PSTS policy the map should not be in there at all.

Skäpperöd (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

on page 51/52 of Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, -Google Books

Wladislaw was a vassal of Poland, he promised Pomerania to Poland, he paid tribute and was required to provide armed forces. He agreed to accept Christianity. In 1121/22 Boloslaw conquered the Settin-Oder region, his offensive toward lake Muritz was a brief episode, next Wladislaw with "total Polish approval" "wohlpolnischer Billigung" engaged in a campaign to subdue west Pomerania and conquered the fortress of Demmin.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Woogie, you mean Wratislaw. Skapperod, what's a source for Nieden? The map satisfies all wikipedia policies and more. It's fine.Volunteer Marek 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) And I should note that I'm only asking about Nieden out of interest. It's actually significantly to the East so it has no bearing on the Stralsund issue. He went through both - there's no "alternative" route here. Nieden is basically that big arrow from Szczecin to Demmin, just not marked explicitly.Volunteer Marek

All three of the arrows on VMs map are backed up with reliable sources:

1-lake Muritz by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52

2-Demmin by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52

3-Rugen region and Boleslaw is mentioned by name as seizing west Pomerania by the New New Cambridge Modern History 4/2 pp 283 (NCMH is a secondary source, there is an extensive bibliography of primary sources listed in the back of the book, the articles are by recognized scholars)--Woogie10w (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

White privilege

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by UseTheCommandLine on 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• White privilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs)
• Apostle12 (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Back in October 2012, an edit war broke out at this page after some edits were made to the lead paragraph, inserting a bunch of mitigating language that was clearly intended to cast doubt on the idea the article is written about. at the time I filed a DRN case, calling them weasel words, but DRN did not really become involved. Several months of protracted discussion followed from multiple editors.

Recently, an ip editor removed some of the mitigating language that had again crept in. This removal was promptly reverted by an editor involved with the previous dispute (Thucydides411), and re-reverted by me -- briefly, I thought the mitigating language violated WP:SPADE, WP:WEASEL, and perhaps WP:UNDUE, since substantial space is given to criticisms of the idea in the lead section. Then the editor who had instigated the edit war in October (Apostle12) became involved. I attempted to open a talk page discussion about wording, but I am frankly unwilling to try and negotiate with this editor on my own. I have encountered this user's edits in other contexts and have had enough experience with their poor sourcing, POVPUSH, and other disruptive behavior that it is quite hard for me to WP:AGF.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion (current), extensive talk page discussion (October 2012)

How do you think we can help?

Additional eyes are needed. I am unwilling simply to argue with Apostle12; I genuinely wish to come to consensus, but my experience has been that without intervention or interest by other users things go in circles, and I do not have time for that. While Thucydides411 seems much more amenable to genuine consensus-building, they still are clearly critical of the concept. Other editors involved with previous disputes have largely abandoned editing, AFAICT.

Opening comments by Apostle12

UsetheCommandLine asserts that the current content dispute dates from Oct, 2012 and involves mitigating language that recently "crept" into the article. In fact the so-called "mitigating language" (really just language acknowledging some degree of dispute) was a compromise proposed by Thucydides411 on Feb 14, 2013. UsetheCommandLine was actively involved on Feb 14, accepted Thudydides411's compromise and engaged in collaborative editing supporting the compromise.

On Jan 22, 2013 an unnamed editor had inserted mitigating language into the first sentence of the lede so that it read "White privilege refers to what some individuals perceive as advantages that white people enjoy in certain societies..."

On Feb 14 UsetheCommandLine eliminated the mitigating language, along with the word "controversial," which he called "weasily." In a clear attempt at compromise Thucydides411 added the words "are argued to," so that the sentence read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to enjoy in certain societies..." I made some unrelated minor edits that day, then UsetheCommandLine engaged in collaborative editing, leaving "are argued to" intact and changing the sentence to read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies..." I was relieved that UsetheCommandLine had accepted Thucydides411's compromise and that the dispute had been resolved.

On March 2 an unnamed editor removed the "are argued to" compromise, and longtime editor MalikShabbaz reverted, insisting that the unnamed editor take the matter to Talk.

The compromise held until March 14, when an unnamed editor attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; Dawn Bard supported the compromise and reverted.

On March 25 Beloki once again attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; UsetheCommandLine supported the compromise by reverting and retaining the "are argued to" language.

On April 2 an unnamed editor attacked the compromise by removing the "are argued to" language, calling it "silly." Thucydides411 reverted, supporting the compromise he had originally authored and which up to that point had been supported by all other major editors including UsetheCommandline, Thucydides411, Malik Shabbaz, and myself. Suddenly UsetheCommandLine abandoned the compromise and reverted Thucydides411.

I viewed this as a clear violation of Bold/Revert/Discuss and changed the sentence back to the version incorporating the Thucydides411's original "are argued to" compromise. Both Thucydides411 and I appealed to UsetheCommandline on his Talk page, however he refused to discuss the matter and opened this extremely premature DRN.

I believe we are unlikely to find a better solution than the "are argued to" compromise. It does not fully satisfy those, like UsetheCommandLine, who will only be satisfied by full endorsement of the "White Privilege" concept; he wants the article to refer to "White privilege" as an uncontested fact. Nor does it fully satisfy the many other editors who believe the "White privilege" concept is unproven and is often overstated. I believe the first sentence should read something like, "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies." Fully satisfying no one and adequately satisfying everyone is what compromise is all about.

The real mystery is why UsetheCommandLine abandoned this compromise, which he himself supported. I can only conclude he is demonstrating, as he has so often before, an "all take, no give" attitude, refusing discussion and collaboration in favor of intransigence, wikilawyering and attempts to discourage editor involvement by insisting on time consuming RFC's and DRN's.

Opening comments by Thucydides411

The White Privilege article has many problems with neutrality. The most glaring problem, which I have been trying to address, is the lead, which was changed in November 2012 from a fairly objective overview to one which is highly partisan. Around this time, a number of other highly partisan additions were made to the article, particularly in the section on Australia, which violate the neutral and objective tone which Wikipedia is supposed to employ.

I have added a section to the article succinctly describing some of the objections to the idea of white privilege. On the talk page, I also provided a number of sources which disagree with the term and its use in historical research. The relevant discussion is here. None of these efforts have been able to move the discussion, which seems to be driven largely by ideological concerns. This is bad for Wikipedia: whatever we personally believe, we must be able to write neutrally.

White privilege discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: I initially closed this listing today for lack of talk page discussion based on the comments of the listing editor, but in fact in looking further into the matter there has been some recent talk page discussion and, indeed, the prior DRN listing was closed to send the matter back to the talk page without prejudice to refiling. I am not opening or "taking" this dispute and will leave it to other volunteers to decide whether or not they believe there has been sufficient recent talk page discussion. @UseTheCommandLine: Your opening statement makes it unclear whether you will or will not take part in any discussion which occurs here. Will you or will you not? — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I intend to take part in discussion here, which is why I removed my name from the list of DRN volunteers. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The talk page discussion of this matter is at Talk:White_privilege#weasel_words.2C_again. It is a relatively small/short discussion ... only a couple of days; only a couple of editors. Yesterday, April 5th, the article was protected for a week by admin Beeblebrox, in the hope of getting consensus, presumably on the talk page. My recommendation would be: close this DRN case; let the discussion happen on the talk page for a minimum of 7 days (until 12 april); and if it is stalled at that time (after 12 april), then open a DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason for that. this discussion and to a lesser extent this one deal with what are substantively the same issues. The lead paragraph at that time made even less mention of criticism of the idea than the current one does. I noted in the filing that I did so in part due to my interactions, both on this page and others, with Apostle12. I feel like if the same ideas, i.e. inserting additional mitigation language, are going to be revisited by the same editors, then I see is little reason not to pick up where the issue was left last time, which was at DRN. Doubly so, given that there are fewer editors at that page, I believe in large part because of the protracted, hostile environment that was produced by that discussion. I am keen to avoid this. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(There is also this one.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at AN/I about this article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

85 (number)

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

Filed by Marqaz on 23:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 85 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marqaz (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Very minor but annoying dispute over a edit I made, adding a qualification (that is was the lowest number with this property where all squares were all non-trivial i.e. >1) to an observation (85 is the sum of two squares in two different ways). This was then undone by the other party initially without discussion. I reinstated as I considered it valid. We have since reverted back and forth, with some discussion on the talk page, with no progress. Various policies have been cited by both parties but with no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none - have consider a topic forum or a third opinion listing, but for me (as a relatively new user) the issue is as much about the reasonableness of my actions, the appropriate policies to apply and the best way to resolve this sort of issue.

How do you think we can help?

A third party view on the merit of the disputed edit would be useful, but as indicated above views on the appropriate policies and conduct and in particular clear guidance on the appropriateness of deleting signed good faith edits without strong justification are probably more important to me.

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I was trying to apply the guidelines from WP:NUMBER, but I can't find the consensus I remember that mathematical properties of integers should only be included if they would be sufficient to make the number notable, per WP:NUMBER. I suggested that the other person contact WT:MATH or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers to look for comment from people familar with the number articles.

Speaking as a mathematician, I particularly object to the term "non-trivial" for "greater than 1", and writing "greater than 1" makes it clear that the concept is not notable. Perhaps the fact (if accurate) that it's the 2nd number which is a member of a Pythagorean triplet in 4 ways could be included, but that still seems uninteresting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

85 (number) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I have examined the facts in this case and made the following recommendation:

Hello, I am Solarra and I am here as part of the dispute resolution process. I have overlooked all of the edits and done considerable research on the subject including perusing results here and here and having looked at the facts, I have to side with Marqaz in this case. 85 is in fact the result of 9^2 + 2^2 = 7^2 + 6^2 and several universities have it displayed prominently in the "Special properties of numbers" sections of various math themed sites including the fact that this is the lowest integer to have this property. This page is dedicated to valid mathematical facts that are not commonly known, if you look here the number 4 lists it is the smallest squared prime for example. The fact should be included in the page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Tracklacers

– New discussion.

Filed by Rayman60 on 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Rayman60 (talk · contribs)
• 86.176.249.75 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For nearly two years I have struggled to bring some structure to this poorly written, self-promotional and superlative article. My only motivation, proven by my editing history, is to assist in bringing existing content to within Wiki guidelines, especially when it is such a blatant abuse of the open editing policy such as in this article. Unregistered users from a series of IP addresses (with no other contribution to wiki prior or post) revert my edits and change the tone of the article from what I try to present (unbiased, neutral) to something that I believe is inappropriate for this site. There are some obvious COI signs (e.g. the page was created by a user with the same username as the article subject), and they believe it is their right to direct the page as they so wish. They do not grasp fundamental basics (references, hyperlinks, grammar) but even revert my edits regarding this. My most recent tidy up was reverted in less than 4 days by an unregistered user who challenged me in the talk page. I invited them to visit several guidelines on relevant areas and justify their edits, giving justification for mine, but they almost immediately reverted my edits, removed my tag, posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals. Rather than get drawn into an edit war and breach the 3RR rule, I'd like to get a more experienced eye to pass judgement or offer an opinion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In 2011, I used the COI board. It attracted the attention of an editor who performed a small tidy up but didn't continue to monitor the article, so the editor resumed activity. I've repeatedly used the talk page to point out policy+explain my reasons but to no avail. The current incarnation of the phantom editor is particularly confrontational, the first ever of their 6 edits was this afternoon and they've really tried to wrestle control of this article from neutral/unbiased editors (i.e. me)

How do you think we can help?

This person is convinced I have a personal vendetta against them (the editor and the subject of the article), and as I'm not conforming to their demands, are refusing to accept anything I put forward. I believe there has been repeated and substantial breach of several policies and if a senior editor was to review the happenings and make a judgement call, perhaps the article can be edited freely by Wikipedia editors in line with Wikipedia policy rather than controlled by a closely connected party

Opening comments by 86.176.249.75

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Please see the talk page, I have invited Rayman60 to work with me in making the article one that everyone can enjoy, not just Rayman60 whom I would say has a personal attachment to the subject / article as in his words he has been working the page for over a year, I cant comment on that as this is my first batch of edits on the article. I have been nothing but courteous and polite and I am met with what I would describe quite frankly as rude and offensive comments like "posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals" and terminology like war and call the shots as if to display some sort of power struggle eg "Rather than get drawn into an edit war" and "…you think you can Rock up here and call the shots". Every argument put forward by Rayman60 can be mirrored for example, the edits that I have made, which I might add were in place before Rayman started this onslaught to remove my comments, has been undone by he or she ill assume 'him' from the name.

Rayman60 clearly wants to 'Run the show' with this article, I have tried to accommodate his wishes and tweak my edits rather than just dismiss them example 'Grammy' over 'grammy' I have removed dead citations and added new ones as per his request. He has done nothing but ignore my requests to work together, he has used offensive language towards me and my edits and even since this dispute has gone back into the page / article and posted an other banner which holds no weight as it's clearly something we're discussing here, in asking for some sort of mediation. Rayman60 I have n problem with you, my only problem is that I have an extensive knowledge of music, the article and some of the artists mentioned and I have as much right to update the article as you do, it seems that most of your edits are based on your point of view and therein lies the problem. My edits, in my opinion fall within the Wiki guidelines but again i am open to adjust accordingly and keep it fair, I'm afraid that I can't comment on the previous editors. Thanks guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.18.223 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tracklacers discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Male Privilege

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Rgambord on 22:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Male Privilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rgambord (talk · contribs) UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I noticed this article has very poor sources, and what I see as biased and unsubstantiated content. Some of the references appeared to be vandalism (article mentioned female genital mutilation as an example of male privilege, yet the reference was a site on male genital mutilation aka circumcision). A large portion of the article appears to be a poorly written essay that was copy-pasted into wikipedia with inline (author, YYYY) citations intact. The article also spends a lot of time not covering male privilege, but instead covering alleged instances of it (no sources stating that each things is male privilege, just sources stating that the things mentioned exist, such as the wage gap). I also take issue with the POV-ness of the article, because women do enjoy quite a few privileges in many societies, and Female Privilege links back to this article. Basically, the whole thing is a mess. User:UseTheCommandLine is repeatedly reverting my good-faith edits to remove unsourced, biased, or irrelevant material, and accusing me of edit warring. I've gone to the talk page to discuss why I removed the material in the article, yet my edits were still reverted. I then (without removing any content) went through and inline-tagged each part of the article that was POV, unsourced, dubious, or undue. That edit was again, reverted. My edit to add POV tag to the top of the page was reverted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss with User:UseTheCommandLine on the talk page in vain. I saw that User:UseTheCommandLine was also recently involved in an edit war with other editors on White Privilege, and the article was locked for a week due to POV pushing. Due to this recent event, I asked if we needed to take this to DRN, to which User:UseTheCommandLine replied, yes. How do you think we can help? I would like User:UseTheCommandLine to justify her reasoning for completely reverting all of my edits, and I would like an impartial third party to read the talk page and the arguments here and help build consensus as to what, exactly Male Privilege should include, and whether it should be referred to as a given, or a hypothesis, and whether the article violates WP:UNDUE in covering only one side of a two-sided issue. Opening comments by UseTheCommandLine I reverted a large deletion and explained myself on the talk page even before making the reversion; I feel this is consistent with WP:BRD. I attempted to engage the other editor directly at that time. I reverted another removal of what I interpreted as sourced content, and engaged the other editor on the talk page about it. Further, I made good faith efforts to help address some of what I was interpreting the other editor's concerns were, with subsequent changes in wording. This editor immediately started leveling accusations of bias after their first deletion. I realize this is more of a behavioral issue, but I also feel like this makes it difficult to drill down into the specific criticisms of the other editor. I agree that because of the controversial nature of the subject, word choice must be deliberate, but at other controversial pages I have edited there has been an unfortunate tendency of some editors to try and insert too much mitigating language, which does a disservice to the reader. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) (further, my mention of edit warring was related to statements of intent to re-revert without additional discussion, as here.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I note that there is now a posting at WP:ANI regarding this article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Male Privilege discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. ---- 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.

Article on Harold S. Koplewicz

– New discussion.

Filed by Ramondelante on 03:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Harold S. Koplewicz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ramondelante (talk · contribs)
• Jacksonjones1972 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over the past two days or so another user and I have had on-going disputes as to wording, whether certain citations should be used, appropriate titles and references, etc. We have tried communicating with each other on the Talk Pages, but it seems that we are talking past each other, with each stuck and feeling that the other has some sort of personal agenda toward the subject of the article. I think the other editor is biased toward the subject and is manipulating the wording to promote the subject, and that editor accuses me of having a negative agenda of disparaging the subject. Since it has devolved into an edit war, I have advocated that we request Dispute Resolution and help from the community. He has not agreed, but I am asking for it. We both advocate that the article be deleted, but neither of us wants the other person to change our edits in the interim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continual communication in the Talk Pages, but this does not seem to accomplish anything. We both agree that the article should probably be deleted, but for different reasons. I agree because I don't think the subject is notable. The other editor because of the belief that there are NPOV violations.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps it would be helpful if a neutral third party reviewed the article, our edits and Talk entries, and proposed either alternatives or suggested a way to insure that what is written is in conformity with WP guidelines.

Opening comments by Jacksonjones1972

My point of entry to this article was numerous obvious and veiled anti-Semitic references to the subject within the article, almost all of which were the product of a small number of posters who had no WP history other than editing this one article. Antisemitism is a topic that interests me greatly.

In the course of editing out this violation of BLP standards, I found that two of these posters seem intent on editing and reediting to hold the subject in the worst possible light in every case. One small example is the insistence on identifying the subject by a reference to his work from a 13 year old article, rather than his professional title. Another is insisting (by repeated reversion) he be referred to as the "manager" of a publication identified by a woman's name (part of the publishing company), rather than his actual title as Editor in Chief of a research journal. There are many, many others, including personal conclusions of the editors not supported by the articles.

Taken in total with the antisemitic references, I believe there is an effort here being made to disparage the subject for some combination of his religion. and other biases of the editors involved. Thank you.

Article on Harold S. Koplewicz discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.