Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

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, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours
Ibn Battuta	Closed	Jihanysta (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 1 hours
Palm Springs Air Museum	Closed	BellamyBell (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours
Tesla Inc.	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours
Robert (doll)	Closed	Gabriellemcnell (t)	17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours
Undetectable.ai	Closed	Sesame119 (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours
Ibn Battuta	Closed	Jihanysta (t)	13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel	Closed	PicturePerfect666 (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 05:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

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).[reply]

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

Dispute overview

This is a continuation of a former DRN request on the same subject [1], 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)[reply]

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) [2][3] 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) [4] 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) [5][6] Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy. 4) [7] 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) [8] 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) [9] 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) [10] 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) [11] 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) [12] 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) [13] 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) [14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

I'm not sure that I have anything helpful to say at this point. The disputes about what is on the page arise because of the different views that the disputants hold about the topic. This happens all the time on Wikipedia (obviously). A process by which each and every sentence and paragraph of the article was examined and subject to the scrutiny of third parties - where sources, reliability, etc. were discussed, that would certainly be one way to go. Is that the plan? Is that's what's happening below? My view is that I'd just let PCPP do his thing on the margins, watering things down and deleting things - as long as the main, important points about CIs and the concerns about them are given proper account. That's my overall view, but that's not helpful for the specifics of what is going on here, perhaps. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [15] [16]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

[17] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [18][19] 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: [20] 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: [21] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, PCPP. I look forward to reading your reply. As embarrassingly evident from reading the CI and C&CoCI talk pages, we need impartial help to resolve these long-standing content disputes before they get closed. Thanks also, Guy Macon. Is there any way to increase outside participation? Perhaps notices to suitable WikiProjects? Since our inside-baseball-ish arguments have only involved a few Sinophile contributors, more outsiders might provide consensus on which CI criticisms are appropriate. Keahapana (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. if anyone has a WikiProject they want notified, let me know and I will post the notice (best that I do it so nobody suspects bias). The other alternative is to post an WP:RFC, but RfCs are best for one well-defined question, whereas DRN is better for resolving a list of point where editors disagree.

There is no deadline, and you can take as much time as you need. The comment above by PCPP is the kind of thing that helps a lot -- it lets me know that we haven't all given up. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we haven't given up. The C&CoCI Talk page already has China and Linguistics WikiProjects. Alternatively, any other projects concerned with Chinese language teaching would be apt, perhaps Languages or Education. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C and C over CI discussion 2

It has been over two days since anyone has commented. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pong to your ping, thanks. I've been waiting for PCPP to reply before making further comments. If we knew the reasons for the delay, then perhaps you and he/she could set a deadline. I'm ready to resolve this and want to move on. Keahapana (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of issues on the table, and I was hoping that we could quickly go through the list. ~~I am going to mark this one as "Failed" in roughly 12 hours.~~^{See User talk:Guy Macon#Re: Dispute resolution} The next logical step would be for whoever is in the minority as far as consensus goes to give up and edit elsewhere, or to post an RfC to see if they can swing the consensus their way. Usually the RfC just confirms the consensus among the regular editors, but it does happen that the consensus among the larger community does not match the consensus among the regular editors of a page, which is why we have an RfC process. Another alternative would be formal mediation. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I've created a work in progress replyin addressing Keahapana's concerns.--PCPP (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C and C over CI discussion 3

Hi sorry for the long delay, here's some of my replies:

1) I will compromise on the Huawei allegations, but I think there's a recent US senate enquiry on the issue, perhaps it can be updated. Here [22] Reuters reported that the White House found no evidence of Huawei. Here is also a defence of Huawei from China Daily, don't know if it would prove useful [23]. Still, I think the paragraph should be summarized to a minimal so it doesn't get sidetracked to Huawei instead of Confucius Institute
2) To be added
11) I have no problems with rewriting, but I think the section is overlong, particular according to the State Department the visa issue has been solved [24].
12) I agree that the current naming is awkward. I'm wondering if anything can be extracted from its official websites eg [25] and include cases in which CIs were established with without much controversy?

I will add the rest of my replies tomorrow, if that's ok with everyone.--PCPP (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much. Would be clearer to reformat this discussion below into "C and C over CI discussion 2" (or to create a third subsection)? Keahapana (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to Guy.

#1 Agreed. The article currently reads:

Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage.{ref name=Nest}

The Reuters ref is informative; perhaps we could add it in an explanatory sentence like this:

Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and major state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the CI at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei.{ref name=Nest} The U.S. government has accused this Chinese telecom company of industrial espionage, but an extensive security review found no clear evidence of spying.[26]

Keahapana (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is clear, while PCPP asked for a delay until the end of this week, unless there is major progress by the end of Monday I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Let's be patient a few more days. I'm not very familiar with the DRN process. If you close, what does that mean about the changes under discussion? Do we just take it back to the Talk page? I appreciate your volunteering time and attention to this stalled case. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of latitude here at DRN, and in particular we really like to do what the folks involved in the dispute recommend rather than imposing anything on them. If we close this you can open a new DRN case tomorrow, go back and try to work it out on the talk page again, or someone can post a WP:RFC to get input from more editors. Or, if there really is a reason for this taking far longer than normal, we can keep it open. The real question is "how do we resolve this dispute?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest:

2) On futher examination, I have no problem with retaining Spigel, and the Mingjiang Li is good too. I'm not sure if the Atlantic Wire opinion article fits though, as it simply an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media. 3) Should the Zimmerman source be merged with 5)? Also the Swedish source returns a broken link. 4) I have no problem with paraphrasing of Brenner's quote. Perhaps it can be paraphrased to the line of "Brenner questions the Chinese government's large financial incentives to CI, and whether it fits within America's national interests. 5) No problem with readding Zimmerman. But do you think it should say something along the lines of 'In writing for the Christian Science Monitor, Zimmerman argued for greater American scrutiny in the teaching of Chinese languages, and the importance of open discussions. "...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."' 7) How about a combination of both, like: 'Representative Dana Rohrabacher accused China of spreading its propaganda by exploiting the American media and education system, as well as criticizing US universities of valuing money over intergrity. In referencing expert witness Steven W. Mosher, Rohrabacher argued, "Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda."' 8) I really think that the section on Confucius Classrooms be trimmed down to quality sources from AP [27] and Washington Times [28]. As I mentioned earlier, I felt 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. 9) Sorry, the link to the Mosher PDF is down, is there an alternate link? Furthermore, I think Mosher should be introduced as an anti-One Child Policy activist so we understand his background. 10) I really have to get back on the London School issue. As for your links on the talk page, most of them from major newspapers looked fine if you can extract materials from them, but I'm not sure the hard conservative Human Events and the Robertson source qualify under WP:RS.--PCPP (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copernican principle

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

Filed by Uruiamme on 07:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Copernican principle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The question is whether the "CMB Anisotropies" (Cosmic microwave background anisotropies) prove or disprove the Copernican principle, and obviously, whether this proof should appear as a conclusion or theory or argument in the article.

I will answer shortly, but the question is not of "proving or disproving", rather, whether certain structural features of the CMB (alignment of quadrupole and octupole , and correlation to the ecliptic and equinoxes, especially) challenge the Copernican Principle. This is clearly the case. I did not feel an issue answering here, as the filer stated they had no intention of being involved in the dispute. Wyattmj (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been edit warred and talk paged and see-my-link-to-a-Wikipedia-article and see-my-abstract-link-ed to death with the result on the article being that it stinks.

Let's stick to regurgitating the sources on this subject, if it has even come up in the press or in journals.

How do you think we can help?

I am personally uninvolved, so I have not included my name above. I have been watching dispute for a month in my watchlist. I doubt I would have time to resolve it without help from other uninvolved helpers. The subject of the dispute is quite difficult to grasp, so some highly technical user would be great.

Opening comments by Wyattmj (edited to shorten)

The WMAP satellite temperature map anisotropies, analyzed with spherical harmonics indicated clear signals that pointed to anisotropy at large angular scales (especially the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole; though the dipole is usually dismissed as Doppler effects). The quadupole and octupole are correlated (this is non-gaussian) and are perpendicular planes intersecting at an axis referred to BY COSMOLOGISTS as the "axis of evil". This axis actually points directly to us, and it is clear that the quadrupole/octupole is aligned to our ECLIPTIC and EQUINOXES. There are tons of science articles about this and its implications, some of which I pasted into the talk page. In addition, there are journal articles by mainstram scientists. This is a major in issue in cosmology, and EVERYONE with any knowledge understands its implications for the Copernican Principle. If the universe at large scales points back to us, this is not Copernican (because we are in a special place). Kate Land and Joao Magueijo tied this to the Copernican Principle in 2005 (The axis of evil, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0502237v2.pdf) based on WMAP 1st year results, "The homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe – also known as the Copernican principle – is a major postulate of modern cosmology. ...Yet, there have been a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe..., making use of the state of the art WMAP first year results [11]. These claims have potentially very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology."

Copi et., al., in their 2010 paper, analyze these alignments and correlations and report (see talk page for reference): "...(i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.; (ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.;... (iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.; (iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, ...this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L. ..."

Copi, et. al., then look to the Planck satellite with its improved sensor technology and scanning pattern to referee these results. The Planck release report XXIII (Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB) specifically states:

..Deviations from isotropy have been found and demonstrated to be robust against component separation algorithm, mask and frequency dependence. Many of these anomalies were previously observed in the WMAP data, and are now confirmed at similar levels of significance (around 3). .... Whilst these analyses represent a step forward in building an understanding of the anomalies, a satisfactory explanation based on physically motivated models is still lacking.

Other independent observations also support the axis of evil (i.e., galaxy rotation, Longo). Other observation such as quantization (though more controverial) also support questioning the Coperncian Principle. The sum of this data, especially with the recent (March 21st 2013) Planck release behoove us to not sweep this issue under the rug.Wyattmj (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 4twenty42o

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.

Opening comments by 78.50.199.189

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.

Opening comments by 91.183.53.247

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.

Opening comments by Materialscientist

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.

Opening comments by Lithopsian

I became involved in this article when I was asked to review the literature and references relating to some recent edits. I concluded that many of the recent changes were simply own research and opinion, and were not unbiased representation of the references. I reverted some edits, attempted a rewrite of two sections that were trying to make the same argument, followed the arbitration request, and am now waiting for this dispute to run its course. Over the last few days the article has slowly reverted to multiple sections pushing a fringe viewpoint that is not representative of the research or the quoted references, albeit somewhat more subtly than before. Lithopsian (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 74.100.71.90

kheider believes editor 74.100.71.90 is the same as Wyattmj.

Opening comments by Kheider

The references fail to even mention Copernicus. At this time there is nothing more than a weird coincidence combined with original research (assumptions) by Wyattmj. -- Kheider (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Diamondandrs

My involvement was making a few changes which I felt was vital to keep the page unbiased because the previously edited page gave the impression that there was no evidence against the Copernican Principle. Also, I contributed a new subject on the Talk page titled, "The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite should not have been removed". I think some of the editors are threatened by the fact that counter-evidence (evidence against one's position) exists for the Copernican Principle which would explain why so many wild accusations were being made in the Talk page. Some of these editors fail to make the proper distinction between evidence and proof.Diamondandrs (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Drbogdan

As before, my involvement in the Copernican principle article was limited to the questionable quality of newly posted text and references - and urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reach WP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows => "rv edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Aunva6

my involvement was limited to reverting an edit that had previously been removed. after looking at the source, I found that it contained no mention of the Copernican Principle. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 7&6=thirteen

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.

Opening comments by 74.100.51.204

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.

Opening comments by 78.50.195.154

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.

Opening comments by Thucydides411

I've not been involved in any of the disputes here, but I think I could contribute. We should orient the discussion towards the sources on the "axis of evil."

Before we do that, however, let's recall some basic facts about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is radiation which pervades the Universe, and is a remnant of a time when the Universe was much denser, hotter, and was in a plasma state. As the Universe expanded, it cooled to the point where neutral atoms became stable, and it rapidly transitioned from a plasma to a neutral gas, becoming transparent to most radiation in the process. The radiation which existed at the time has continued to stream without being scattered or absorbed (for the most part). As the Universe expands, the wavelength of the CMB has stretched, so that it is now visible at long wavelengths (hence the term "Microwave" in the name). Different cosmological models and assumptions predict different things about the CMB, but all modern models predict a few things in common:

There is a CMB.
The temperature of the CMB is nearly uniform across the entire sky (i.e. nearly isotropic).
The anisotropy of the CMB temperature is caused by density perturbations in the early Universe, as well as a number of smaller effects (which are too complicated to go into here). These anisotropies are usually decomposed into spherical harmonics.

The details of a given cosmological model (the ratio of dark matter, dark energy, and baryonic matter; whether the model assumes standard General Relativity or some form of modified gravity; the infationary model used) determine what statistical properties the CMB anisotropies should have. The currently accepted model is the Lambda-CDM model, and the recent papers by the Planck team have greatly bolstered this model in most cosmologists' opinions.

With that review behind us, let's turn to the papers on the "axis of evil." One of the early papers on the subject is Oliveira-Costa, Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton (2003). This paper defines a measure of the direction of the greatest anisotropy for each spherical harmonic order l. It finds that according to this measure, the l = 2 through 3 multipole modes are within a few degrees of each other on the sky, and gives the probability of a chance alignment as 1 in 62. There are a couple of other papers which deal with this issue. Here is a short list:

The last paper is a review paper, so it gives a good overview of what the issue with the low-order multipoles is. An important point is that none of these papers state, "the Copernican Principle is dead," or anything similar for that matter. I think you'd have an extremely difficult time finding an astrophysicist who believes that the Copernican Principle is invalid. The papers are basically framed from the point of view, "We found something that is a bit strange, but we're not sure how strange it really is, and it might be due to some systematic errors in how we're measuring the CMB, or some foreground radiation that we're not properly accounting for." It is also important to note that the recent Planck papers have not made mention of the "axis of evil."

There are a lot of interesting and important finds in the Planck data, but given the very small amount of attention being given by astrophysicists to the "axis of evil" question, I don't think it merits mention in the Wikipedia page on the Planck spacecraft. It may be worth a sentence or two in the Cosmic Microwave Background article, but that might be undue weight. I don't think it bears mentioning in the Copernican Principle article until astrophysicists actually decide that it is a major problem. I don't think it rises to the level of significance for inclusion there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copernican principle 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 DRN. I'd be happy to help with this issue. The next step is to wait for the parties to post opening comments above. After all (or nearly all) opening statements are posted, we can begin discussing in this Discussion section. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm peripherally involved in this, but probably not enough to be a party; I'd just like to point out that this issue is spilling onto the Planck (spacecraft) article, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit-war over it, but he's reinserted this content into the Planck article over my reversion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd note that his content additions, at least to the Planck page, definitely look like synthesis to me, as the sources he's citing don't talk about the axis of evil or any challenges to the Copernican principle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs ... but can I suggest that we wait a couple of days (until all parties have posted opening comments) before we engage in discussion? That should help things flow more smoothly. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I wasn't making these posts as a bona fide DRN volunteer; just as a pseudo-opening-statement from a party involved enough to have an opinion but not involved enough to have an "opening comments" section of my own. If it's easier to put this stuff in my own opening comments section or something, just let me know. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article edits: I have noticed that Diamondandrs and Kheider and 78.50.234.140 and 85.179.84.51 are variously adding and removing some content and references in the disputed article. I am recommending that these minor improvements and edits stop while the dispute process is underway. The edits to the article actually increased since I opened up this request for Dispute Resolution. Thanks for everyone who chose to participate! I like to saw logs! (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial changes were being made to the second half of the article. I did my best to preserve the original article. Apparently, nobody but I was aware of the substantial changes being made at the time even though I complained about it in the Talk page under the section "Dispute". I gave the editors what they wanted, but they wouldn't stop. They just kept on making more and more substantial changes. Had I not intervened, the article would have become substantially different than what it was before.Diamondandrs (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 April discussion start - It is starting to look like some parties may not post opening comments. Some editors only edit WP sporadically, so we don't want to rush things; on the other hand, we cannot wait forever. I suggest that we wait 2 more days, then start the discussion around 21 or 22 April, even if some parties have not posted opening comments. In the meantime, it is clear that this dispute revolves around sourcing issues, so parties that want the ariticle(s) to include the material should prepare quotes from sources that substantiate the material per WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Noleander (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed the Conqueror

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

Filed by DragonTiger23 on 09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Mehmed the Conqueror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs)
Contaldo80 (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

A 15th century Ottoman ruler, the dispute is about adding stories according to some sources who describe him raping little boys. These events are disputed by various historians, so my idea was to have one sentence which summarizes these claims instead of adding detailed text and then mildly refuting them. I have explained on the talk page why these stories are unlikely by using sources. But the other user Contaldo80 insist on adding, he adds a text based on a combination of different sources, some used in the wrong place, which imply these raping as facts. He claims these stories are properly sourced and should be included. He also accuses me of being pro-Turkish/Ottoman nationalist, he tries to discredit me. He also undid all my contribution to other LGBT people, by claiming they were not sourced, they were, I had only edited on those pages to see if he would be hypocritical and he was. On those pages he immediately reverted everything by saying weak source but on this page he insists on adding "weak sources". He seems to have developed a personal vendetta against my user and edits.

There is also one person involved who for a long time uses different IP's to mostly remove my contributions without discussing and makes personal attacks against me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This dispute was already viewed by other admins. The version I want to remain was accepted and the page was protected for a while. After the protection the same IP's came and changed it, without explanation. Afterwards Contaldo80 wrote an entire new section with detailed information with weak criticism.

How do you think we can help?

I think my version is sufficient, because it is short and doesn't discuss all these controversial stories in detail. There is also a lot of criticism from Turkish historians and if I would add all of these then the page would turn into one huge chunk of text about these controversial stories. That will put the article completely out of proportion and I don't think that is necessary. I want this page to be indefinitely protected from IPs because the IPs are constantly vandalizing.

Opening comments by Contaldo80

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.

Mehmed II was a 15th century military leader. A number of contemporary sources claim Mehmed sexually exploited the sons of vanquished nobles. Some editors, including myself, have tried to refer to this in the article in a relatively brief way and using mainstream academic sources. The complainant above has a problem because they argue the primary sources were written by hostile observers (whereas local - Ottoman - observers do seemingly not cover the issue). My argument is that the sources cited are good ones and we do not know for sure that the primary sources are incorrect in their claims. Nevertheless I have also made sure theat text has remained in place citing the counter-argument - ie that the primary sources are potentially open to bias. That seems a good balance to me. The complainant continues to insist this is a LGBT issue" (the term is anachronistic here). Despite their protests they are clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/ Ottoman polemic which is skewing the balance of the article. The complainant has also been personally abusive on several occasions. I have explained I am happy for them to challenge the robustness of the secondary sources, or to include mroe secondary sources which support the claim of bias; but I am not prepared to leave the whole section out on a personal whim. The complainant is also mistaken if they think I have been operating under different IPs. Separately, the claim of my hypocrisy relating to LGBT coverage on other articles doesn't warrant any serious response as it's utterly silly. Thanks.

Opening comments by DragonTiger23

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 have been editing Wikipedia for years and I am not pushing a pro Turkish/neo-Ottoman/Islamic agenda, where did I do this, why is this user the whole time allowed to discredit me with false accusations? If I wrote one accusation against him he would use this to report me non stop. This article is about an Ottoman ruler, first it was presented that it was a fact he was raping boys, later I added criticism which was first not accepted and only after admins watched it was accepted, then an IP removes the criticism, then Contaldo80 adds more stories where boys are raped in detail but he adds at the end the criticism I added. But I say this detailed amount of controversial stories is not necessary to the article, it is controversial and will always invite further edits challenging this. These stories are controversial claimed by some( not all) Byzantine authors) and not mentioned at all by contemporary Ottomans, the greatest likelihood seems to be that they are written as anti-Ottoman propaganda so historians dispute this. I don't see why so much disputed content is to be added? I am not saying to remove all negative image but these stories seem to be basically large amounts of personal attacks on a historical person and the camouflage to add this is, "it is sourced", "criticism was added". I don't see on any other rulers page several accounts of how they supposedly raped children. DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed the Conqueror 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 all. I'm Steve Zhang, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I apologise for the delay in your dispute being attended to. Let me read over the discussions and the article for a bit and I will come back with my thoughts. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell

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

Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Ghost in the Shell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am engaged in a long running debate over the content and structure of a page with Lucia Black and Ryulong. Discussion has yielded no results and a key article viewed by 60000 people is effectively two smashed together articles, with the manga page on top of a minimal franchise branch. Policy-based discussion is rejected for 'we already did otherwise'. Relevant policies are WP:SS specifically WP:DETAIL. Also WP:UNDUE andWP:SPINOFF. Though WP:SIZE and WP:NPOV are also probably relevant for readability and scope.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first step, Lucia Black's dramatic ANI and Mediation about me 'not discussing' was summarily closed as false. The RFC to oppose my GA close was also rejected for procedures.

How do you think we can help?

Assist in obtaining a resolution to this matter.

Opening comments by ChrisGualtieri

To make matters short and simple. Back in October 2012, Lucia merged the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page to Ghost in the Shell. Later put it up for GA and no one took notice until I reviewed the material. I failed the article for numerous reasons and went about trying to fix it, as I was contesting her unilateral change which was hard to detect. Lucia Black overreacted and opened a RFC to contest my GA close, brought me to ANI after I laid out my fixes and tried formal Mediation as well that same day. They both closed as I was discussing with Lucia. I end up taking a wikibreak and come back before Ryulong repeats the merge and begins the dispute anew.

My stance is that the manga page is distinctly different from the franchise material. The original mangas comprise a minority of the content yet dominate the franchise page. Ryulong and Lucia Black are intent on removing the franchise page (Lucia claimed the franchise as not-notable previously) and Ryulong believed the articles were short. The manga was 25kb at merge, but was over 35kb. The original franchise page at Ghost in the Shell is so damaged as needing to be entirely recreated. The page is very important and due to the Ghost in the Shell related items containing numerous entries bearing the exact same name, it is more important than ever to have a franchise page to serve as a proper navigation and bring context and clarity to the media.

Examples of the ridiculous titles of the system Ghost in the Shell corresponds with a manga, a film adaption and an unrelated but based upon video game. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is a tag that runs for 2 seasons of an anime, two video games bearing the same exact name but released on different systems (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PS2) and its sequel Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PSP)), another manga and novels. If the absolutely weird naming of the content wasn't enough, three distinct 'universes' seem to exist, so that Stand Alone Complex is based on, but distinct alternate universe. Same with the newly released Ghost in the Shell: Arise which is both a series of film and a manga with the same name. All of which bear the obvious prefix Ghost in the Shell, and the majority of the content is not even from the original creator anymore. Masamune Shirow's original manga may have started it, but it comprises about 10% of the material. A franchise page should not be primarily about the original manga in their fullest depth with the other franchise parts tacked on as an afterthought. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Ryulong

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 have had no problems working with Chris until he and Lucia began fighting over the formatting of the page after we came to an agreement to merge everything fairly recently. Both Lucia and I think a single page will suffice but Chris's actions to unmerge the page, his fight with Lucia, his work to produce an "under construction" live version for his claims of a 60k visits a month page, and his insistence that there be two pages to cover very similar subjects is keeping anything from moving forward. Also, Niemti, to my best understanding, is not for or against any version of the page, but Chris is latching onto a comment he made over similar actions taken on an unrelated article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to come up with a compromise between the two differing opinions on where the page should go with this edit, but Chris is now accusing me of edit warring because of these two edits, as he reverted between and I just thought I forgot to make the change in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Lucia Black

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.

Ghost in the Shell is divided by several alternate series. Considering the article has the original media (manga) merged back, and all other spin off adaptations that also meritted their respected spin-off media have their respected article, it only makes sense to cover the media closest related to the original media, and not so much on the other media thats more related to the alternate series (that are already covered in their own media). It would duplicate too much info to the point that it would make the other child articles virtually useless. Ryulong some what agrees with what ive said (if not completely). Chris insist his reasoning on that it is a franchise article, and should cover all media equally, in which case would only convolude the article as multiple series and adaptation share the same media but are less related to eachother.

EDIT:To clarify what i mean, there is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex that fully details its respected media. But the TV series is the original Stand Alone Complex. And the same goes with Arise series. Unlike certain other stories, the Plot between the original and its alternate universes are still similar enough to show they are based off the original series.Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Niemti

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'm actually not really involved, but my proposition is that Chris & Ryu work out something on their own (without LB). That's also "closing", because I'm out. --Niemti (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell 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.

Derwick Associates

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

Filed by Justiciero1811 on 23:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Derwick Associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Justiciero1811 (talk · contribs)
FergusM1970 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

FergusM1970 and I have been going back and forth on the page for Derwick Associates for over a month now. Derwick Associates has been identified as a money laundering operation for the Venezuelan government by a number of highly-credible sources (by Venezuelan standards).

These sources have been discussed here[29], here[30], and here[31]. He is especially critical of information published by the Venezuelan investigative journalist César Batiz who writes for Últimas_Noticias.

FergusM1970 is insistent on removing all negative material—which is all sourced in RSs[32]—and replacing it with self-published PR material about how the company is involved in charity work[33] (although he posted the information without a source, the information can be found here[34] on Derwick's website).

He is also intent on outing me as "Alek"[35]

There is also a dispute over the Spanish word "sobreprecio"[36]. I am fluent in Spanish and I have translated a number of articles for this page. One of the articles is titled "Bariven compro con sobreprecio", which means "[the company] Bariven contracted with surcharge". FergusM1970, who does not speak any Spanish[37], insists on fighting me on this minor semantic issue.

There have been sockpuppet investigations[38], an RfC[39], and an ANI[40]. I was advised by Dennis Brown [41] to take it here. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been several attempts to use other steps. RS/N[42] and AN/I[43][44]

How do you think we can help?

A third party taking a look at the page - including the Talk discussions and other attempted steps - would be very beneficial. The various Talk discussions and noticeboard posts break down many of the pieces of information and also detail the reliability of the sources used.

Opening comments by FergusM1970

I absolutely agree that a third party examination of the article's history would be useful. The original article was merely a thinly disguised attack piece. Repeated attempts have been made to return it to this state. Frankly the company is not at all notable; it seems to be of interest only to Venezuelan journalist Cesar Batiz, delusional blogger Alek Boyd and Justiciero1811. Practically all the media coverage has been generated by Batiz, and Boyd's blog makes it clear that he is far from rational on the subject. There doesn't seem to be any very compelling reason for Wikipedia to cover this company, but if it does it should be a balanced article and not a crazed rant.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derwick Associates 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.

neurofeedback

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2600:1013:B02B:CBFE:0:0:0:103 on 23:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Neurofeedback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Sterling.M.Archer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article is extremely biased and attempts to give it a neutral point of view are continually erased by one user, Sterling M. Archer. The description and treatment sections are attack pieces. The articles in the criticism section are shoddy and not from recognized scientific publications. Attempts to address these issues are blanked by the user listed above. The article needs to be reviewed by neutral third parties. The bias and poor quality of the article have already been discussed on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempts to correct the article, discussion on the talk page. Request for help on this board.

How do you think we can help?

Place a notice on the article that it is biased. Assistance in finding neutral third parties to rewrite the article and remove bias. Assistance to stop blanking.

Opening comments by Sterling M. Archer

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.

neurofeedback 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.

Template:DRN achive bottom

Jane Davidson

– 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 Crocels on 04:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jane Davidson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The user, FreeRangeFrog is defaming our news service - Crocels News - by saying it is an unreliable source. We meet all Wikipedia's rules at WP:Source, but these do not apply in courts of law in any case. Our news service is run by The Crocels Press Limited, which is a incorporated company in the United Kingdom. Crocels News is edited by experts in the fields it is in. This user has no right to defame our brand and good name, and should cease doing so.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We served a legal notice on Wikipedia who said the editor would be told not to describe our service as unreliable. FreeRangeFrog has however removed a link by a different user to our news service. This means they are maintaining their defamatory view on our brand.

How do you think we can help?

Instruct FreeRangeFrog to cease defaming our brand. An attack on one project or member of the Crocels Community Media Group is an attack on all. FreeRangeFrog has no credentials in our industry and no greater authority on us than the user Politicool, so should cease these malicious attacks on our brand, which are completely unfounded.

Opening comments by Politicool

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.

Opening comments by FreeRangeFrog

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.

Jane Davidson 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.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards