Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Lackawanna Cut-Off

Discussion archived as stale, no discussions in a few days. Feel free to re-add if discussions pick up again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • Let's give this new page a try. It's been a while, but the article Lackawanna Cut-Off seems to be continuing to gather images and enormous captions in two galleries (Andover Extension Construction Photos and The Cut-Off – An East to West Photo Gallery). The most recent image was added today diff. Many of the recent images regarding construction seem to be accompanied by WP:OR captions. (In the first gallery, Wally means for it to be a source of updates on the construction, without sources, so far as I have seen. That is more suitable material for a personal blog, I think.) I think Wikipedia is not a repository of images and my reading of WP:IG indicates that these gallery script is being abused here to shoehorn more images into the article. I think many of the images can be returned to their positions in-line with the prose, but the rest should be at Commons. We can't include every image we want if we don't have the space for it. Rkitko (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • Yes. We have spoken about this a while ago here and here.
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Mediate a discussion on the appropriate use of galleries, caption size, original research. Rkitko (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This board seems like a great idea, by the way. How about agreeing to an informal length limit on the captions, maybe 20 words? Anything longer than that probably belongs in the article text itself or just not on the page. Although WP:PAPER reasons for lengthy captions, we're also an encyclopedia, and summary is inherent to what we do. Also, don't forget that the ability to link or reference sources which go into detail is a great way to give readers access to detailed content without it overwhelming the page. Readability is a concern and length impacts readability significantly. Is there any interest in shortening the captions to a single descriptive sentence?

Less may be more here. Succinct captions can lead the reader to the article sections for more information. Don't forget that the point of an image is the image, and the point of the image is to illustrate the article. The point of the image is not the caption...

  • Consider limiting captions to a few lines or 15-20 words.
  • Consider linking to commons or other external sites which have more detail.
  • Consider trimming the gallery to the most important 3-5 images.
  • Consider adding detail to the image description page instead.
  • Consider moving some images from the gallery to the article.
  • Consider moving some caption information to the article instead of the image.

Ocaasi t | c 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all the thought you've put into your reply. This is how the article looked before the creation of the galleries and addition of more photos. I thought that with some selective trimming, the article would be fine. You suggested trimming the galleries to the most important images - why not select those images and put them back in-line with the prose? A limit on caption length is an interesting idea, but if we decide to agree to that, let's not make it a hard-and-fast rule in this case - I'd like to think of it more as a goal. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it might be best to add some of the most significant images inline with prose, perhaps with a brief caption, with the rest linked to a commons category. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 13:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
One of my other ideas from a while ago is to place relevant images into a new column in the existing table at Lackawanna Cut-Off#Stations and landmarks (Port Morris – Scranton), sort of like we do at List of Drosera species. Would that be acceptable? Rkitko (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Your idea about adding images back to the article seems like a decent goal, but it might put too much pressure on the current situation. In my opinion, your first goal should be to make the images and content accessible, not just get rid of a gallery. Galleries are okay, we just want them to be properly sized and captioned. If you can find a place for every important image then great--and that might be the route you prefer--but if you can't, then the best solution is just trimming down the gallery in a way both of you find acceptable. Try to do that first, then talk about what to do with what's left.
Hmm... placing images in a new column, that could work but there would be almost no room for captions and extra information would have to be alt-text. I'm not sure that would satisfy the other party here. You'll have to ask. Ocaasi t | c 13:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the proposals here are reasonable. I agree that the size of the captions in the Gallery need to be reduced. I don't have any specific proposal on length, but let's try to trim the longest ones down and go from there. I note that a couple of the "older" 2011 construction photos are candidates for archiving as well. I also agree that some of the photos--and caption information--should be incorporated back into the article, where appropriate. Clearly the article had become crowded with photos, so that's how the Gallery came about in the first place. I certainly have no objection to some of the photos being placed back into the article. I don't believe any of the photos are redundant, except for a couple within the Andover Extension Gallery, which I discuss farther down. Separately, I agree that the miscellaneous facts list that precedes the Gallery should be incorporated into the article wherever possible.

Where I think where we could use your sage advice is what to do about the somewhat unique situation of a defunct rail line (the subject of the article) that is now undergoing restoration (the so-called Andover Extension). In my opinion, that restoration is not only relevant to, but is to a great extent inseparable from, the narrative in the article: the Lackawanna Cut-Off was conceived; it was born; it lived; it died; and now it is being reborn. (I don't want to present this as a religious theme, but I'm sure you understand how the rebirth could be viewed as an integral part of the story.)

The dilemma, as I see it, is how to describe this rebirth, without using OR and also without having bloglike characteristics in the article. One problem is that the local press has only intermittently covered the story. As such, I'm wondering if it would it be acceptable, for example, for a photo caption (in the Gallery) to say "Ongoing construction of the new railbed west of Port Morris Jct. can be seen in this June 18, 2011 photo," or something like that? Or, would it be better to create a separate section in the article to cover this subject by culling together information from the press, albeit limited, and supplementing that with a current photo or two? (I attempted that separate section approach a while back, but that was deleted by another party--not Rkitko, by the way.) Or is there yet another approach that you might feel is appropriate? In essence, I'm not married to any one way of doing this, but where I'm coming from is that I would like the article to be the definitive source (including current information, if at all possible) on the subject of the Lackawanna Cut-Off. I, too, would appreciate your help and guidance. Many thanks. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wally, great to hear from you and I'm glad you recognize the gallery situation can be improved. The nitty-gritty of how that happens up to you and other editors at the article, but I encourage you to use this page as a guide or come back to work through any sticking points as you pare down of images. I'd also encourage you and other editors to check in with eachother on the talk page before making major changes, and to stick to an informal WP:1RR rule so that you don't go back and forth about changes without discussion.
As for the restoration of the rail line, the key here is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL both of which make clear that Wikipedia only reports on events after they have both occurred and received significant coverage in reliable sources. So, as changes to the rail line, not just happen, but are written about, you can update the article. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to go and do original photography and caption-work to cover a narrative that has not yet been reported on by reliable sources. Only once the media picks up on a story (or a book, magazine, etc.) is it appropriate to do a full photographic series. So the issue here is scope of coverage, and until there's more published, images should only illustrate what is already in the article based on good sources, not what is privately known to bloggers and rail enthusiasts.
I think it's appropriate to keep the article together for now. Once there is a lot of new information on the reconstruction, only then would a content fork be appropriate. For now, create a new section on the Railway reconstruction or somesuch and base it exclusively on published reliable sources. Then incorporate images there as fits the content you can source.
That's my advice. Your enthusiasm for this rail line is palpable and exciting, but Wikipedia takes the slow route, often late to the party and looking backwards. Don't hesitate to take advantage of that: we're not supposed to be the cutting edge; we're supposed to be the best summary of available reliable sources. To the extent we use images it should be to illustrate the article based on such sources, not be closer to the cutting edge. Let me know what you think and if you want to make a more concrete plan for you and other editors to follow going forward. Ocaasi t | c 15:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to concur with Ocaasi here. The best way to move forward would be for both of you, Wally and Rkitko, to work on a draft of changes to the article on the article talk page. There, you can discuss the text to be added, and discuss how many images could go along with that. Might I suggest one or two inline images, with perhaps 4 or 5 at the bottom as a gallery, and providing a link to the commons category containing the rest of the images. I don't see an issue with using the limited info from the local news, and add a few inline images with brief captions for that. But now that you have an idea on how to proceed, perhaps discussing it amongst yourselves on the talk page might be the best way to move forward. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 15:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Speed limit enforcement

Advice and suggestions provided on a way to move forward, with collaboration on changes to occur on the article page. If, after attempting to come up with a version you both agree to, there are significant issues, you can bring the matter back here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USER:DeFacto and I cannot agree on what should be in the article. I believe I have made some valid points on the article's Talk page, but am finding it difficult to get what I would regard as coherent repsonses from him.

There are two unfortunate aspects to this discussion. Firstly, I have the very strong impression that User:DeFacto comes from the school of "Road traffic policing is just revenue raising by governments", and cannot see that another perspective is possible. Secondly, nobody else seems to be around to join in the discussion.

Just about all the points I want to make at this stage are on the article's Talk page.

I am happy to accept that I could be wrong about the addition of this material, but I don't think DeFacto is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Speed limit enforcement, especially in the form of speed cameras, is controversial in many/most places where it is used. A common bone of contention is whether cameras are used to improve road safety or to generate revenue. That they do generate revenue is a documented fact. Whether they have more than a temporary and localised effect on road safety is not so clear, and is the subject of varying opinions - with the positive ones often eminating from those with vested interests in them. For the article to do justice to the subject, I believe that it should cover all the issues. Also we need to attribute POV as whose POV it is, and we need to recognise that the revenue discussion does exist. -- de Facto (talk). 09:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd suggest that the parties stop slinging mud at one another and start looking for reliable secondary sources that can be referenced for the different points of view, rather than trying to carve out their own personal points of view. There's not a "correct" answer here, so the different arguments need to be framed and presented in the article an objective manner. Somewhere like this might be a good place to start to understand what the real experts think... PS: This issue is bigger than the state of Victoria. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is a clear cut case with a very clear solution. It's not up to us as Wikipedians to judge on what the most common POV is regarding matters concerning articles (in this case speed cameras). It's up to us what reliable third party sources state. Some state speed cameras are used for improving road safety, others state jt's used to raise revenue. All that needs to be written is that sources a,b and c state that it's used for safety, and sources d,e, and f state they're used to raise revenue. Nothing more is needed, and personal opinions and views aren't really important. Just stick to quoting facts and you should be fine. I'll add that most of this content in this article should be brief, with it being expanded in the speed enforcement in australia, which is linked in the article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that it's much easier to demonstrate that the cameras generate revenue than it is to demonstrate that they improve road safety, for obvious reasons. --causa sui (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There would be references for both. Just state what the references say, ie "Research has shown that speed cameras can improve road safety<ref1> but is also a common source of revenue for governments<ref2>. The wording needs work but you get the idea. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate what Stephen Zhang has said here. Don't say "X is true" if it is not nearly unanimous that "X is true" (and it clearly isn't in this case). Instead say things like "John Doe says X is true" and "Jane Smith says that Y is true, instead". Both of those statements are themselves unambiguously true. So, to bring this to the specific, say "John Doe in The American Journal of Traffic Engineers states that speed cameras are useful in reducing accidents, while Jane Smith in the United States Journal of Road Contruction states that speed cameras aren't as useful for reducing accidents, but instead are used mainly for revenue generation." That is, we don't need to decide which source is "right". Assuming that both sources are themselves reliable, just report what they say and attribute it to the sources. --Jayron32 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I absolutely agree that well sourced references are crucial when there are potentially contradictory perceptions. However the proposer's inflammatory edit summaries and uncivil behaviour, combined with repeated failures to acknowledge the GF viewpoints raised, has exacerbated some tendentious editing and revert wars. My advice seems to have been ignored. Shame, as his contributions could be valuable. Ephebi (talk)

Questions: It has all gone very quiet here now - what happens next? Are my edits vindicated and can I continue working on that article in question? -- de Facto (talk). 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Take the info that we've provided here, and use it. Make sure to present both sides of the dispute in a neutral way, backed up with sources. If you do that, things should be fine. If not, you can always come back here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion went quiet because I wasn't around to participate. Life gets like that sometimes. Wile I will admit to some frustration with DeFacto's approach and consequent posts that may have been seen as mudslinging (although I disagree), I have presented considerable argument on that Talk page. None of it seems to have been considered here (and I really shouldn't have to repeat it), unless the recommendations are, in fact, agreeing with me. Part of my frustration was a lack of engagement in discussion by DeFacto. I made many different comments, and he simply repeated himself. I still believe that the material he added was inappropriate (for all the reasons I gave on the Talk page, and more). Can I remove it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't just remove it. Work with them to create a version of the content that presents both viewpoints in a neutral way, both backed up by sources. If you get stuck after trying that, you can go from there, but you two need to work together to create a version you can both agree to. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I really don't believe that can work. As already mentioned, DeFacto seems to have a very narrow view of his role with this article. I have tried in many ways to engage him in conversation, but it doesn't occur. He simply repeats his narrow position, ignoring all that I ever say. There is no working "with" him. If I could work with him I wouldn't have come here in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
But you came here and we provided some input, which you did not have before. I urge you to try that and discuss it on the talk page. Both viewpoints are valid and discussed in reliable sources, so just state the facts they present, equally, and you should be fine. But you need to try discussing this on the talk page now. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you mean this in all good faith, but you are missing my point. I have tried many times to discuss things with DeFacto, not just this matter. But he doesn't discuss. He states, paying no attention to what others say. One reason I came here was to get someone else to look at the discussion, and comment on the style, not just the content. Did you actually look at any of the "conversations" involving him on that page? I see no point in trying to discuss with him alone any more. That Talk page needs direct input from fresh editors. I want others to come and try. Maybe they won't be ignored like me. That will be good for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I did, yes. I am closing this discussion as I feel that we have offered all we can here. Take the info we've provided you and use it on the talk page to work up a solution. You can't say "It won't work" if you haven't tried again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I'm satisfied that discussing the matter further, on the talk page, using the advice and suggestions we've provided, you both can move forward and come up with a resolution yourselves. Give it a go. The situation has now changed. See what you can accomplish by collaborating, giving equal weight to both viewpoints. If that doesn't work, after some serious discussion, you can bring it back here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hinduism

Archiving discussion. The best forum for this issue for the time being, as a complex one, would be to file a user conduct requests for comment. Further instructions are on that page. As this discussion is closed, please direct comments to the appropriate RFC pages. Instructions on how to proceed are on those pages. Thanks.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
Certain users claim that only Hindu sources (not even Indian ones) should be used in the Hinduism article. Western sources, no matter the provenance, are met with extreme hostility. Thigle (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Me, ThisThat2011 and a mysterious IP editor, whose IP changes. Thigle (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed it on the talk page for days. Paul B tried to report the IP editor, but Admins did not take action. Thigle (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
A simple statement on the Hinduism discussion page from an Admin that states that BOTH Western and Indian professors are fine sources. Key word is "professors", because I have noticed a tendency to use junk sources. Thigle (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Just some general questions so I can wrap my head around your complaint. First, the talk page at Talk:Hinduism is huge, can you please direct us to places where the editors with whom you are in conflict have stated that they will not accept non-Hindu sources at all in the article (as opposed to just the sources you specifically want to use)? Secondly, can you explain the details of the sources you wish to use, like where they are published, by whom, and what their credentials are, etc.? I know this is splattered all over Talk:Hinduism, but it is getting TLDR over there, and it would be nice to see it spelled out here concisely. Finally, a concluding statement: Administrators cannot make unilateral statements deciding if one side is right and another side is wrong. That is not what the job of an administrator is. Administrators are given tools to enforce community decisions, but the decision has to come from the community at large first. So, you desired outcome is impossible. What will happen (hopefully) is that members of the community will weigh in on which side of the dispute is right, and then we can move forward from there. But administrator's opinions carry no additional weight regarding deciding the outcome of this dispute. First, we (as a community of editors, irrespective of administrator status) will decide if your characterization of events is correct. Then we will decide, collectively, how to proceed, and then we will enforce that result, hopefully without having to block anyone. --Jayron32 02:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason why the talk page is huge, is because of this very complaint. 75% of the Talk page was just written in the last few days. I cannot direct you to exactly one spot. Also, all I am asking is for a simple statement on the Hinduism page that BOTH Western and Indian professors in Indian Religions are fine sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. I am not here for a content dispute. I am asking you to enforce Wikipedia policy. Thigle (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Opinion: WP:RS holds in all cases. A relevant paragraph:

    Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

    The Cliffs Notes™ version: if it's scholarly, and hasn't been superseded by more recent academic research, it's considered a reliable source. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: please note that nowhere in WP:RS does it specify that the scholars must be of a particular race, creed, religion, national origin, etc. It just says "scholars". And that, IMO, is as it should be. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Although it in itself is a fairly lengthy read, it seems that the section most relevant to this notice is here. I think part of the issue may be that one side wants Hindu/Eastern sources over Christian/Western sources (and that the article uses too many Western/Christian sources compared to Hindu/Eastern), and Thigle's stand may be summed up in his comment "As long as Indians like Dr. Upinder Singh are current professors at major universities, they are excellent sources. Period." This is, however, only my take on summarizing the section, I make no claims that it is accurate. I'm just trying to sum it up as best and shortly as possible for people that don't want to read the entire thing. Thigle, if this is an incorrect assessment of your position on the matter, please clarify. - SudoGhost 02:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My position, clearly evident from my comments going back many days, is that ANY professor in Indian Religions should atleast be given a chance. Thigle (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In general terms, it is self-evident that reliable sources are reliable, and that a reliable source doesn't become reliable based solely on the religion of the author. However, if we are to solve the dispute at the Hinduism talk page, we need to be assured that this problem is in fact the source of the dispute. It could also be that the people whom Thigle is in conflict with have no problem with non-Hindu sources in general, but just with the specific sources that Thigle wants to use, at which point us agreeing with Thigle's rather easy-to-agree-with statement would do nothing to solve the problem. If everyone can agree that non-Hindu sources are fine, but it turns out that Thigle's particular non-Hindu sources are bullshit, where does that get us. I am not saying that they are bullshit, but I am saying that they need to be evaluated individually, and so far I can't see any evidence that the dispute is solely about the non-Hindu status of the sources, and not some more reasonable objection. --Jayron32 02:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • With respect, that is not the issue at all. There is no question about the reputation of Gavin Flood, Alexis Sanderson, Patrick Olivelle, Eliot Deutsch, Rohit Dalvi etc. They are already used all over Wikipedia. Thats not the issue. The IP editor and ThisThat2011 attack all Western scholarship in general. Thats the problem. Again I don't care about my content anymore. I am fighting for the future. Thigle (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You say that is the case. Can you show me where the IP editor states that they believe that all Western scholarship in general cannot be used in the Hinduism article. If it is all over the Hinduism talk page, it should be easy for you to find an unambiguous example. Just one or two diffs would suffice, and would help us all since the talk page is so long and hard to parse for newcomers to this issue. --Jayron32 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I quote: "Are the claims of your sources backed by any ancient texts which say the same thing or are they just fantisies of western scholars?"

"As such, an effort should be made to delete the Christian/Western sources being used, and to find and add Hindu sources into this article so that at least 90% of the sources being used be Hindu sources." "Almost all the Western literature on Hinduism is produced with a view to somehow show the beliefs of Hindus to be absurd. How is such literature not hostile?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thigle (talkcontribs)

    • Yeah, that's bullshit. There may be some Western sources which are bad, but the idea that all Western sources are bad, or that some magical percentage of Hindu sources are required in the article is completely absurd. I find that to be completely against the ethos of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (please note that this is the opinion of one person, and carries no more weight than any one person. Please wait for others to weigh in on this before deciding if you are in the right.) --Jayron32 03:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As an aside, Thigle, I have left a notice at Talk:Hinduism directing editors to this discussion, but you, as the originator of this thread, have an obligation to notify editors directly mentioned by yourself. If you could please leave a note on their user talk pages, linking this noticeboard, that would be excellent. --Jayron32 03:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I notified ThisThat2011. The mysterious IP editor has a changing IP address though. Thigle (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Jayron. I agree that the religion and geographic location of sources is generally a non-issue and it is against the ethos of Wikipedia to select sources on this basis. I too would oppose such issues mostly. The problem in this article is not that Western/ Christian are being used at all. The problem is that the article is sourced almost completely from such sources only. An additional problem is that I see Western/Christian sources as presenting a dishonest, distorted and derogatory picture of Hinduism. This may seem like an unbelievable claim at first. It is very disappointing and disheartening for me too. But the reality is not as nice as we may like to have. I have shown a solid Western source to support the claim that Western sources are MOSTLY presenting a distorted and derogatory and fictitious picture of Hinduism. I have also shown a Christian scholar of Christianity who says that scholarship is completely shaped by the religious beliefs of the scholar. I generally only read books by Western authors, and never faced such absurd and dishonest writing until I came onto this topic. If you were familiar with this subject, you too might begin to agree with what I and the sources say. So far, there is no source to contradict the sources which I show. I don’t think it is proper to source the article overwhelmingly from sources which are known to present a distorted, dishonest, derogatory picture of Hinduism. No other article on a major religion is sourced in this way. The problem with Thigle is that he seems to be acting continuously in bad faith. He claims that any Phd holder is an RS, thinks others do not understand the sourcing policy, finds anything which would be offensive to Hindus, and flies in here claiming that his source is a “top source”, and the material needs to be included in the article. He adamantly knows not what is “field”, “on topic book” and “context”. The matter of “due weight” has hardly arisen till now. It is a given that his sense of sourcing issues is zero and his sources are non-RS. Merely a PhD degree and the material being offensive is sufficient criteria for him to include the material (in the lead of course). Paul B also seems to have begun to encourage him by concurring on his sourcing policy. Paul B is an experienced user and surely knows better. One of my sources explicitly says that the literature on Hinduism is so voluminous and varied that it is very easy to find quotes for any thesis on Hinduism. Just because a PhD holder says something does not mean it is fit for inclusion in the article. Please convey this into Thigles’s top portion. My basic problem is with the overall sourcing imbalance in the article. It is not good to describe me as "mysterious". It creates unnecessary bad vibes. Nobody here is any less mysterious than I am. Plus, it is wrong to say that I am acting with hostility to Western sources per se. It is not my fault that Thigle had come in with a real crappy source and trash material.-117.198.56.229 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


    • Let me put forth my views on different facets here
1 Authority of sources: As it is a topic on Hindu dharma, I am not sure how 'any' reliable source can be considered as a reliable source on Hinduism. For example matter from the [| reverted edits], the author is neither an authority on Hinduism nor claims to be one. The source is taken from experiences of Christian missionary, and therefore biased for Christianity. This is not an WP:RS on Hinduism at all, not to mention the contents are claimed to be 'undisputed'. The other link http://www.bartleby.com/ remains unexplained when inquired about details of sources considered from the link. This is a clear instance of bias on a religious/belief article, though I would like to have an explanation on Wikipedia policy on pages on religions like Christianity/Islam etc.; whether substance from comparative articles/sources or substance published from the viewpoint of another religion or substance for domestic audience of some countries is valid WP:RS for the pages on faith. My view here is that the current substance lacks clarity, an example would be the word Dharma, that has hardly any equivalent in English as discussed here.
2 Discussions on the topic: The editors on the Hinduism topic themselves are not beyond bias, with random comparisons being made on topic of faith with respect to science and a wholesale claim on Western Medicinal Science by Western Religions and so on and on. When pointed out, the ones who point that out are called 'stupid', 'hostile', etc. Other interruptions are of irrelevant comparisons about Hindu diversity eg. Hitler being influenced by Hinduism as an example of the whole point of 'diversity'. I would rather have these editors banned from the page when there are other neutral(according to me) editors around too. eg. SudoGhost, Kanchanamala. These attempts look mischievous in undermining diversity and faith of Hinduism, without even bothering about it and in fact justifying it in the name of standards.
3 General indiscipline: The user Thigle has reported everyone on the page, except editors that according to me are biased for Christianity. His own behavior lacks cohesion and therefore I feel that he is perhaps a sock puppet, but I am not sure of which account. An example would be claim that Shivites in southern parts of India are more Hindu, which he reverted quickly. Such mischief by the mentioned editors should not be allowed at all. I would suggest banning User:Thigle and User:Paul_Barlow, for there are a lot of interruptions and edit reversals made effectively (including on talk pages), whether unintentionally or not does not matter.
..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Everyone has a bias or pov, that is not a problem in itself, it is only a problem when their edits push that bias into an article making the article fail our NPOV policy. This goes for sources as well. Our criteria for reliable sources does not rule out sources with any particular pov, religion, etc. What would be a serious problem is if articles were edited from only one pov, eg for religious articles Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

I note thisthat2011's request to ban certain editors, and it occurs to me that this may be a WP:BOOMERANG case especially given some of his other comments, seg accusations of sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the fact that it is very difficult to engage in a rational conversation with Thisthat2011, who simply does not understand many points being made, leading to long and tedious tangents on the talk page. His post above may seem reasonable, but it really indicates his inability to understand such things as analogies for example. How can one have a sourcing discussion with someone who writes above "I am not sure how 'any' reliable source can be considered as a reliable source on Hinduism."? He states he "reverted" an edit. He did not revert anyone. He removed longstanding material containing undisputed facts. It would have been far more useful to improve ther sources rather than destroying undeniably factual content. The IP expresses extreme views that western sources are somehow inevitably biassed and will engage in elaborate wikilawyering to try to deny the proper use of sources. It is also obvious that the IP is familiar with Wikipedia, which makes one wonder why he continues to edit as an IP.

These matters make the talk page an immensely frustrating place to engage with. The continuous claim that anyone who does not accept a particluar version of what Hinduism is is "biased for Christianity" is particularly depressing. I am not a Christian, nor is Thigle, though I resent having to parade my beliefs or non-beliefs in front of editors in order to be allowed to edit. We should not have to do this at all. The central issue is that Thigle has been placing modern academic souerces in the article, but because these challenge the POVs of the IP and Thisthat2011 they are being removed. The IP has stated that "there is every reason to conclude that this article has been subject to editing by Christian bigots. No other article on a major religion is sourced so overwhelmingly from hostile sources." There is no evidence of this whatever. While some sources used may be weak, they are overwhelmingly academic and certainly not "hostile".

This article has for a long time used rather weak sources partly because of the efforts of editors like Thisthat2011 who remove Western academic sources on the grounds that they are "offensive" to Hinduism. Both the IP and Thisthat2011 have clearly stated that "offensive" sources should be removed and that they have the right to determine what is offensive. The IP states "You [Thigle] will face opposition only if you continue to cherry pick material which would be offensive to the Hindu mind. And just having a PhD in the relevant field does not make one an RS." But Thigle is a Hindu. By the "Hindu mind" the IP means "my mind". And of course having a PhD in a relevant field is pretty good evidence that a writer is RS. Thisthat2011 mentions a book in which the Hindu god Ganesha is presented as "an 'example of a story representing the primal Oedipal triangle of a son, father and mother' - this as it was in 1991, in USA, Department of South Asian studies, University of California, Berkeley. Is this also secular since it was part of very legitimate a department of SA studies, or is it that the entire western discourse on Hinduism is completely based on such biased views?" Note that this book is not being used or even suggested as a source; Thisthat2011 just plucks it out of the blue in order to declare that "the entire western discourse on Hinduism" is biassed. Of course a Freudian thoery of the symbolism of the figure of Ganesha is a legitimate POV, but rather a minority one. It does not represent "Western" views, just one view. It is this kind of bizarre logic-chopping and sweeping generalisation that is the problem, along with the removal of better quality scholarly sources of the kind that Thigle has been trying to introduce. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

    • Please remember to try to keep discussions here focused, and concise. Based on what I've seen here, this case seems to be one that will require a lot of discussion, so might be suited best if a case is filed for mediation at the mediation cabal, where a volunteer can assist in resolving these issues, as this board is best suited to somewhat briefer discussions, and it seems to me that it might be best if this is done at the mediation cabal, where time is not necessarily an issue. I'm going to leave this discussion open for a few hours, but will then close it so discussions can continue at the mediation cabal case page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Given the comments made here and elsewhere by Thisthat2011, specifically those calling for bans on other editors and the accusations of sockpuppetry, I don't see mediation as appropriate. And looking at Thisthat2011's talk page as well, I'd suggest that the editors concern start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Or, as I've said above, there may be a WP:BOOMERANG issue here where a topic ban may be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I didn't see that. That makes the most sense. Once conduct issues are sorted out, if required, other forms of DR can be pursued after conduct issues are addressed. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • That Thigle's talk page seems "clean" may be due to the fact that he has removed lots of warning notices. In all cases of bad behaviour, he is the instigator. He is also asking for banning of other users and even assumes that I am already a banned user.-117.198.60.113 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mercedes-Benz article omits the car companys World War 2 war record entirely.

Archiving discussion. It should of been on article talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wikipedia article about Mercedes-Benz does not mention any thing about the company's world war 2 record at all. Like using slave labor, or being an early supporter of the Nazi party. I think this needs to be added. Too many people suffered at the hands of the Nazi's and Mercedes-Benz, not have have coverage of this. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/23/books/books-of-the-times-daimler-benz-and-its-nazi-history.html?src=pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max20122 (talkcontribs)

  • Have you brought this up at Talk:Mercedes-Benz? This noticeboard is about solving a specific dispute you are having. Since this comment is literally the first edit you have ever made, you are not involved in a dispute, ipso facto. If you find that a Wikipedia article is lacking in some information, and you have a reliable source that you can cite, cite that source and add the information yourself. If others object to your additions, the next step is to discuss the matter at the article talk page. IF that doesn't lead to good results, then you come here. This is at least the third step, not the first, in fixing your problem. Come back after you have tried the first two. --Jayron32 02:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm closing this. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homeopathy - to mention a summary or the conclusion

Issues are being discussed on the article talk page, with what appears to be a strong consensus forming. Please continue to discuss the issues there, as this board, as it states in the header, is not the place to bring disputes that are already under discussions in other places, and especially not when the result of the discussions is one you don't agree with.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • This is a specific issue, though within it are more significant issues of a perceived one sided perspective held by all but one (me) of the active editors there. The article itself is a contentious one, nothing will change that. As such it is important that the article represents wiki in a positive light.
The one sided perspective referred to is that of the skeptics that effect a large part of what is and has been published in the article, and have left it as a critique of homeopathy from a particular perspective ie grossly imbalanced. As a practising homeopath I have my perspective too. Its not about right and wrong. Obviously there is a big difference between our two takes on homeopathy. I accept that and am very prepared to discuss and work on the article as a whole so it is one that shows both perspectives whilst coming from a neutral place.
I have raised a few topics to discuss and whilst I'm unhappy with the general manner in which all these discussions have gone, the one at Talk:Homeopathy#Arsenic Poisoning is fundamental and clear.
I raised an objection to a sentence in the first paragraph of Homeopathy#Ethics and safety. I suggested a very minor change that would put the sentence into the context that is expressed in the source[1] ie changing:
Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations.
to
Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations diluted at the ratio of one in ten or 1X.
As it stands I see it as misleading. Other editors are insistent with it remaining as it is. Discussion of the issues of changing it are ignored except for one; their argument being that its policy to write the conclusion from the source directly into the article. That is all that matters in their expressed opinions.
More recently, the discussion has degenerated, much like other discussion on there.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • No.
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • We need help and guidance in how to conclude this particular discussion with respect to concerns raised, respect to one another, clarity and process. Guidance on how consensus works in such an editing group as ours. Within this I hope we can look at future topics productively, which with all the best will shall be contentious and many.

Discussion

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

Simply put, WP:V and WP:RS trump other concerns. And per previous Pseudoscience arbitration, WP puts the mainstream scientific view ahead of fringe views for WP:WEIGHT. I've seen no good reason to change the statement in the article per these policies and processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full source, but the final sentence to the abstract is clear enough: "Conclusion. Arsenic used therapeutically in homeopathic medicines can cause clinical toxicity if the medications are improperly used". I fail to see why the use of '1X' or similar homepathic jargon is necessary here. Our article stated that such accidental poisonings "may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution", which seems to cover just the situation described in the abstract. Arsenic poisoning can have serious effects, as the abstract describes, and I see no reason to attempt to mask this with questionable equivocation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment- I'm closing this discussion, after having read the discussion on the talk page. This issue has been clearly discussed on the talk page, with discussions continuing, but this is not the forum to get more input on a dispute if it's already being discussed, and especially not if you're taking it here because users on the other discussion pages simply don't agree with you. Please continue discussing the issues on the talk page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Discussion closed. Please discuss this issue on the article talk page, if you don't agree with the consensus formed there, you can discuss it there, but here is not the place to ask again when you don't agree. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chinaman (term) - whether to include information on speakers' intent

Discussion archived as stale, no discussions in a few days. Feel free to re-add if discussions pick up again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • This dispute is about the newly-added modern usage section in the article Chinaman (term). Specifically, it is about whether to include information on the intent of speakers that use the word Chinaman. At present this information consists of two sentences, which have been reverted four times ([1][2][3][4]) since they were first removed by Dwarm12345 (talk · contribs) on June 18. The present wording is a result of quite heated debate between myself and Medeis (talk · contribs) about how to interpret the two available sources we found on the topic ([5][6]), which ended in an agreement that I believe we are both satisfied with. Dwarm12345 has disagreed with inclusion of knowledge on intent from the start ([7]), whereas both Medeis and I are in favour of its inclusion. SudoGhost (talk · contribs) has also chipped in with a comment saying that the issue of intent wasn't seen as irrelevant at the similar pages kike, nigger, and yankee.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Help to mediate an acceptable solution between Dwarm12345's position and the position Medeis and I have agreed on. Mr. Stradivarius 09:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The wording that was proposed to be added here is not clear. You can't use one source that states something, and use it to claim that is the universal opinion. It might be better to state, as a rough example, instead of "Despite the word's negative connotations, its use is not usually intended as malicious", something like "according to (list source name here), the use of the term, while having negative connotations, is not generally intended to be malicious" or something like that. Play around with the wording, but it's more important, in this situation, to state that it's a viewpoint, but a viewpoint of that source, and not a universal one. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, that sounds like a sensible thing to do. Both of those sources were compiled using corpus data, so they should be pretty accurate, but there's always the issue of the corpus being biased, and as Medeis was pointing out, spoken language versus written language, etc. So I shall change the wording to better reflect where it came from. I am not 100% sure that this will satisfy Dwarm12345, however, as they have been saying that any information about the intent of the speaker is irrelevant, but I shall give it a try and see what they think of it. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, see how that goes. Best, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Stradivarius, your new wording is more accurate. However I still have serious doubts about the necessity of discussions on intents without contextual or historic substances for the same reasons I had given earlier. Dwarm12345 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Give it a go. Sometimes a solution that all can be perfectly happy with is difficult or impossible. Try working up a compromise, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. All the best. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, does that mean that if there was some sort of context that you would be happy with its inclusion? What kind of context do you mean? Mr. Stradivarius 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Dark Side of the Moon

Discussion archived as stale, no discussions in a few days. Feel free to re-add if discussions pick up again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • A user is attempting to force {{Album ratings}} into this and related articles. Personally I don't think its useful to have this template in the articles, I didn't mind so much when the ratings were included in the main infobox as they were fairly unobtrusive, but as a separate floating box they're just fluff, and ugly fluff at that. Add to that the fact that I regularly have to revert the additions by others of trivial information (non-notable cover versions, non-appearances on stamps), and you can see what a fight it is to keep these articles from degenerating into a mess. I don't feel that the ratings template is that useful since music appraisal is primarily subjective; practically all the ratings are attributed to organisations, and not people. The most significant contemporary reviews are already included as prose, in the relevant section. I've offered to add to that prose more modern reviews, so readers can gauge the album's continuing popularity, but my voice seems to pale into insignificance when compared with otherwise uninvolved editors who feel that just because a template exists, it should be forced into all articles, regardless of the fact that they've had absolutely no interest in that article before now. I'd provide a list of diffs but there's no need, the edit-warring is immediately obvious from the article's recent history. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Two people, me, and an anon IP editing under three addresses: [8], [9], [10]
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • An informed consensus on this matter would be helpful, but whose opinion counts - the editor who's almost single-handedly improved most Pink Floyd album articles from start-class to GA/FA, and who continues to ensure their standards remain high, or an anon IP with no declared interest?

Discussion

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

relevant pages: MOS Infobox, WP:CIVIL, The Wrong Version (protected pages), WP:OWN, WP:Disinfoboxes (essay), WP:Disinfoboxes can be Useful (essay)
  1. Whether or not to include album ratings: Album ratings that are sourced to notable publications are appropriate in a reception/review section. They should be cited inline. A representative sample should be used; not every rating is equally relevant or necessary. Reviews convey important information about what the critical response to the album was. Although music preference is subjective, music ratings have been published and become facts, official records of how a work was seen by critics. That record, appropriately summarized or selected from, is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
  2. Whether to include an infobox: Infoxboxes present information in a visual-summary style. They are often helpful. They are not required. The focus should be on this infobox's strengths and weaknesses in this context. If this particular article has a general problem with excessive illustrations and other 'fluff' it has only indirect bearing on this case and must be carefully handled by looking at the article as a whole. Also, editors who work on infoboxes should not assume they will be included everywhere and that consensus is needed at the particular article.
  3. Whether the album ratings infobox is ugly or should be deleted: This infobox is useful and it exists. The remaining focus should be on whether this particular infobox could a) be improved and b) belongs in the article. I don't see a clear reason aesthetically or by policy why it should be excluded. It is relevant and conveys information effectively. The argument that readers could just go to the text for a summary belies the entire purpose and existence of infoboxes: they box info in a convenient package. Infoboxes can make an article useful, accessible, and attractive. Useful and accessible are more important than attractive though. Thinking something is 'ugly' is not a sound basis for deciding against its use; aesthetics are subjective and secondary to content. On that point, perhaps editors would like to spend a little time improving the template itself.
  4. How to interact with other editors, including ips, to reach consensus:. It's a common mistake to think that because someone is (or thinks they are) right that they can stop being civil. Please remember that all editors, including ips, and including those who disagree with you, deserve respect and the right to an opinion. We are equals here in that regard, new comers and unregistered editors, and heavy contributors alike. Also, waiting for a page to be locked because you prefer the current version, or because ips are the other party in a dispute, is not an okay way to go about things. Long time contributors to an article have a valued role but not a privileged one. Nobody owns articles. Finally, all editors should seek consensus rather than edit warring. What's most important is that editors start speaking to eachother with respect and make good compromises towards consensus. That consensus must take into account all relevant voices, not voices weighted by their prior contributions to the article. Consensus is still needed to include the infobox but it must be based on the right reasons. Ocaasi t | c 19:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you seem to have missed the point. This infobox is not mandatory, and I do not believe it is needed. Another user thinks it is, and we are therefore edit-warring. I came here to ask how to proceed, so what should I do? This is dispute resolution, right? How do two users with completely opposing views resolve this dispute? Or should I just keep reverting until someone starts kicking arses? Parrot of Doom 22:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
When two can agree open an RFC or Third Opinion. Gerardw (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree here, seeking a third opinion might work here. We have given you some guidelines on how to proceed from here, failing that, getting a third opinion or opening a requests for comment on the matter might get some wider input. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
PoD, I was trying to structure and guide your discussion with other editors, not render a verdict. It would be easy to say, a) it's a featured article and doesn't need a random ugly template laying out random ratings or b) the the template looks fine and is useful and should be included... but that's not our role, really. My interest is in removing "it's ugly" from the discussion and improving dialogue with ip editors who deserve a say. I also think you need to reevaluate your opposition to this template since it seems to be informed by aspects of the article or its editing history which are only tangential and circumstantial. Off hand, I think the template could be included and it's not ugly. But I'd rather you get a more official third opinion. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings paternity issue and how it's presented in related articles

Closed, this noticeboard is not one to be used for forum shopping.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
  • I believe certain statements made within the article on Thomas Jefferson regarding his relationship with Sally Hemings and alleged paternity of her children and other related articles are improper within the scope of Wikipedia, that they misrepresent cited sources and overstep with definitive statements that aren't warranted.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • Argued about it on the talk page. I've been accused of agenda pushing, they're being stubborn about including these definitive statements.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Does Wikipedia policy support these unqualified statements? I don't think it does.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There has long been speculation regarding whether Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings. There has been research that indicates that Jefferson was in proximity to Sally Hemings at times when she became pregnant. There is limited DNA evidence from modern descendants that indicates that someone from the Jefferson family did father the children. However the DNA evidence does not conclusively implicate Thomas Jefferson. There were other Jefferson males who could have theoretically and plausibly fathered the children. The issue is further muddied by the fact that Jefferson never publicly addressed the matter, nor did Sally Hemings.

While there has been extensive research that shows compelling circumstantial evidence, because of the lack of direct DNA evidence which would have to come from Thomas Jefferson's remains, it all stops short of being able to state with the level of certainty possible with available technology that Thomas Jefferson was the father. The conclusions are qualified - evidence strongly suggests, seems likely, etc. While researchers have been lauded for their efforts, they can't create definitive evidence which doesn't exist.

My issue is that wording within the article makes definitive statements that Jefferson was the father without qualification. I've objected to this because I believe it's overstepping. My understanding is that article content should state what the sources say in correct context, taking care to not take it upon oneself to assert definitive conclusions outside the scope of the sources. I also have issue with how some of the content is framed. The material at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation site also uses qualified language - "most likely" the father, etc. Curiously, the TJF site also includes a Thomas Woodson as a purported Jefferson offspring (with extensive qualifiers) though there is no evidence even of a connection to Sally Hemmings beyond that of "family oral history"...??

Further as a result of this disagreement, other articles such as the article on Madison Hemings, one of the offspring purported to have been fathered by Jefferson have now been altered to include such definitive, uqualified statements - "...Madison Hemings, born James Madison Hemings (18 January 1805 – 28 November 1877), was the son of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson..." Followed by a statement regarding such DNA evidence that exists. As previously outlined I believe this to be improper as I believe it is in any of the related articles. It also seems out of balance with other statements (also found in the Thomas Jefferson article) such as "It is now widely believed that Jefferson had a 38-year relationship with Sally Hemings and fathered her six children." "Widely believed" along with other qualified language is a more proper reflection of the research, but to simply say "he is" is not.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I'm closing this discussion, after reading the discussion on the talk page, I don't think that any input from this board is required. It's an issue that has clear consensus on the talk page, that reliable sources state that Thomas Jefferson is the father. Given the fact that he died over 175 years ago, direct DNA evidence is not going to be available, therefore we report what reliable sources state, and that's what's been done. I'd like to remind everyone that this noticeboard is not the place to bring a dispute if it's been under discussion, and as a result of the discussion you are the only editor who has a different opinion. This is used to resolve content disputes, and this one is already resolved. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Union University

Discussion archived as stale, no discussions in a few days. Feel free to re-add if discussions pick up again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • General edits and requests for additional citations on the Union University article have been met with stiff resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_University&diff=435900658&oldid=435826316

  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Provide us with guidance.

Discussion

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

A past edit on this article link resulted in someone in the public relations department of Union University calling the public relations director my former alma mater, Lambuth University, inquiring about me (if I was a student there, etc). I was informed about this by the Dead of Students of Lambuth University at a homecoming event. I believe this has something to do with the editor 69.167.204.2. This editor also referenced my real name on Talk:Union_University. [11]

I have suppressed those edits. If it happens again email User:Oversight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All past edits aside, the article really is lacking in citations. I added a few and requested more, but they were reverted and I was accused of vandalism by Sweetmoose6. Detsom (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the discussion on the talk page, and it is very brief. Try discussing the issue further on the talk page, and see what you can come up with. Discussing issues on the article talk page is the first step in resolving Wikipedia disputes, so if you try that for a while and get no-where, you can look at other options. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edit was rather provocative, Christianism is a highly charged concept, "ideology of the radical right"; they doubtless see themselves as good Christians whose faith informs any political activity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
With respect to references or lack of them, there seem to be almost no third party references, other than to the tornado. This is rather typical, as there may not be many or very good third party sources available in the case of many schools. My thought is that the requests for references should remain, but material from the University's history of itself should be freely used, although not for controversial issues or for claims of excellence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

War Rape

Discussion archived as stale, no discussions in a few days. Feel free to re-add if discussions pick up again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
  • On the article War Rape certain users keep adding Sri Lanka to the page despite the lack of sources to back it up. The sources tend to be pro-Tamil sources or articles that say that unverifed footage seemingly shows the aftermath of what could be rape. Amnesty INternational for example does not mention Sri Lanka here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4078677.stm BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • HudsonBreeze
  • Hillcountries
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • I've reverted the edits and specified why in the edit summary and talk page.
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Halt HudsonBreeze, etc. from editing these pages.

Discussion

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

  • WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:WEIGHT
  • Articles should tread carefully involving controversial areas such as this. Sources are required. Sources which have a bias may be used but it is appropriate to use in-text attribution explaining where an opinion is coming from. In general, we describe debates, so you might say, The leading Tamil newspaper says War Rape is occurring; Amnesty International and other human rights agencies have not added Sri Lanka to their list of War Rape incidents.
  • Try to draft a balanced description which covers both sides in proportion to the prevalence, quality, and neutrality of the involved sources.

Ocaasi t | c 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

America Invents Act

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • The nature of this dispute relates primarily to these edits [12], [13], [14] on America Invents Act. I initially removed the content under the rationale that there was a COI, as some of the citations used actually linked to a company's product and services page and relied on information from a company's presentation (now deadlink) [15] . I believe that such links are in violation of WP:REFSPAM and WP:RS. The second point of debate is the insertion of lengthy quotes. While the information may be relevant, it is not productive to insert lengthy quotations [16], [17]. There are over 15 quotes, each taking an entire paragraph. This is not constructive and is in violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. This edit however, could be salvaged. User:ChagSameach rejects the notion of COI and believes that such quotes are necessary and cannot be summarized. -Cntras (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Mediate an appropriate compromise.

Discussion

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

  • I received a similar notice on my talk page, and I offered to help with sourcing. The article is one of several repetitive Patent Reform Act articles being abused/edited by skilled SPAs and IPs and need significant attention from a number of experienced Wikipedia editors. Flowanda | Talk 09:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This case is somewhat complicated and both editors are either acting in good faith or are skilled at debating. I'm looking into the SPA issue, meanwhile, here are some basic principles:

  • Conflict of Interest: COIs are not by themselves a problem. COI editing which leads to bias or promotion is a problem. COI allegations are rarely helpful. Most COI editors are not ill-intentioned, and many don't understand the policy and instead think they are just contributing in their area of expertise. Tendencies of general editors don't justify conclusions in particular cases. Assume good faith.
  • External links: External links should be for reference and should be a unique resource for readers. We don't usually link to commercial websites without good reason.
  • Civility: No personal attacks. Focus on content, and focus specifically on this article. New editors should be welcomed and guided not bitten. New editors should also be patient and not accuse others of violating policies they may not understand fully. Respect is useful, civility is required. Jargon and policy citation are not friendly for new editors and can be unintentionally BITEY. Prefer simple language and talk page explanations where possible. Also, a reminder that this is a collaborative community and not a courtroom. Focus on improving not accusing. Personal sparring matches are a waste of time. Note that anti-vandalism work is a vital part of Wikipedia's moderation; that doesn't mean either editor involved here is involved in vandal or anti-vandal work; editors work in diverse areas and vandalism only applies to intentionally disruptive behavior.
  • WP:QUOTEFARM: Extended quotes are rarely appropriate for an encyclopedia. They should be paraphrased, summarized, and cast in the light in which other sources see them. Quotes are more appropriate for amendments and speeches, where the actual text is famous. This is not true for mere legislation or commentary. Wikipedia is not a legal journal, and the exact text of statutes is not needed beyond brief in-line exceprts. Quotes and commentary can always be paraphrased, and the summary should come from secondary sources which recognize the significance of the text. There's also some confusion about adding sources vs. adding hiqh-quality, published, independent, authoritative, reliable sources. We want sources that are third-party, fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and from a source with a clear reputation in the field. There is not parity of sources between contemporary commentary and original (or historical) documents. The purpose of encyclopedias is to summarize for a general audience, not primarily a specialist audience. Articles should be structured to be primarily accessible to the most people. Ocaasi t | c 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cntras's recent history of Wikipedia edits (User Contributions page) reveals that Cntras objects to and undoes much of the work of others. During the one month period between 23 May 2011 and 22 June 2011 Cntras undid the work of each of the following Wikipedia contributors:

In the same one month period, Cntras filed 94 reports of vandalism.

The month above appears to be representative sample of Cntras's activity on Wikipedia, based on Cntras's User Contribution pages back to January 2011. Assuming this is so, annually Cntras reverts the work of approximately 3,348 contributors and files 1,128 reports of vandalism.

Predictably, Cntras's undoing the work of contributors discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia. As one administrator noted on Cntras's Talk page, "Not surprising they [a new contributor Cntras targeted] immediately ceased and have not edited since." (Spartaz Humbug!, 28 January 2011) Administrators have admonished Cntras against reverting contributor's work without explanation (Drmies, 6 April 2011) and for tagging articles for deletion two minutes after page creation (Spartaz Humbug!, 28 January 2011). Cntras reverted my work, without prior contact, three minutes after posting.

Given these enormous numbers of reversions and vandalism reports, one must ask whether Cntras's actions are in concert with Wikipedia's policy of encouraging the contributions of users. How many of these 3,348 contributors are no longer contributing because Cntras erased their work or harassed them by reporting them as Wikipedia vandals? Would the Wikipedia encyclopedia today include significantly more information and be significantly more useful to its audience had Cntras's access been barred some time ago? Going forward, will Wikipedia's audience be better off, on balance, with the contributions of these thousands of users, some of whom have expertise in the subject matter of their articles, or with the Cntras's solitary contributions?

You can add my name to the list of the thousands of people who have been dissuaded from contributing to Wikipedia's content by Cntras. I no longer have any interest in playing any role whatsoever in Wikipedia. ChagSameach (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So you've taken a look at those reversions and AIV reports and verified that they were not justified? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those reverts and reports are entirely justified. People adding miscellaneous profanity, garbage, article blanking or just plain wrong information. Blanket claims as you made above are essentially attempts at deflecting attention and poisoning the well. Please focus on the specific situation. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
ChagSameach posted the same rationale on my user page. Anyhow, in terms of a viable compromise, I would suggest that we review the validity of the quotes and the references used. The content can be salvaged, although it would evidently require a significant amount of effort. -Cntras (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree and hope ChaqSameach will work with other editors to help improve the entire article to better meet Wikipedia standards. Flowanda | Talk 01:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War

Dispute has been resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • HillCountries, HudsonBreeze and me


  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • Yes, through discussion.
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Halt HudsonBreeze, Hillcountries, etc. from editing this article.

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Allegations found credible by the Panel" section heading in the Executive Summary, page 4 of the report. Not proven, but credible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Burt, the Foreign Service officer appears to be speaking for the British government, "The recent UN panel of experts' report, this documentary and previously authenticated Channel 4 footage constitute convincing evidence of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law." This information does not appear to be at all unreliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The opinion of the British government doesn't warrant going in the opening. And he has no authority over Sri Lanka unlike the UN. BlueLotusLK (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding such matters the British government has considerable credibility, as does the Guardian. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Links to the photos and videos are somewhat troublesome, despite their apparent authenticity, clearly a site with genuine grievances they are highly motivated to present. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times article, which User:BlueLotusLK removed, has this lead, "A United Nations panel investigating allegations of war crimes by Sri Lankan troops at the end of the bloody battle against Tamil rebels in May 2009 found credible evidence that government soldiers made civilians a target, shelled hospitals and attacked aid workers, according to an unauthorized copy of the panel’s report." A generally reliable source which clearly supports the language in the lead. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The piece in International Business Times cannot support inclusion of such conclusions as "It seems that it has, under the eyes of the International community, also been used as a cover up for a conflict that was nothing more than a racist war." That is biased, ignoring, or minimizing, the nature of the Tamil Tigers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Fred, thanks your for your help. I would like to close this discussion if possible. I'm going to move away from editing these pages. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Per comments above, closing this discussion as dispute has been resolved. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz and CSD tagging

User in question has gone idle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • There is a dispute over User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's use of CSD tags. See [18], [19], and [20]. Also, see Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page and talk page history. Basically, I believe Maher-shalal-hashbaz over-tags for speedy deletion, especially when patrolling new pages, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz believes he can tag based on a "gut feeling", and that if others want to rescue the article, they can.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
  • We have discussed this on Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page. Rather than respond to my concerns about the effect of what he is doing on new editors, Maher-shalal-hashbaz indicated he will continue doing what he has been doing.
  • How do you think we can help?
  • Some general input about whether this type of CSD tagging and new page patrolling is appropriate. This is clearly a dispute between myself and Maher-shalal-hashbaz over the appropriate use of CSD tags, so some outside input will be helpful. Singularity42 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

  • Comment from involved editor (and initiator of this thread). I believe when new page patrolling, there's a lot that can be easily tagged for speedy deletion: "Bob is the best guy in the world", "The band has self-published its first album, and will soon be known by the entire world", "The company will help you solve your IT problems", etc. But some authors write articles that clearly need a little bit more review before tagging. These are usually lengthier articles, or articles where the claim of importance cannot be dismissed out of hand. Usually a quick Google check will so;ve it one way or another. By tagging these articles for deletion based on a gut feeling, it can bite the newbies, especially ones who have actually put together a semi-decent article but are now told it will soon be deleted for not complying with our policies. I would like Maher-shalal-hashbaz to err on the side of not nominating rather than err on the side of nominating (as he put it), and realize that there are enough editors doing new page patrol that there is no need to rush into a decision of whether to tag an article for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • NPPer Observation. As a fellow NPPer, I'm looking at their work and discovereing that their quality of tagging with the various toolset is significantly out of line with community consensus. I reccomend that Maher consider reading WP:BEFORE,WP:NPP, and their associated talk pages. The prefered method if you're going to be NPPing, is to first fix any problems you can immediateley, then do a maintanance template tagging, then if the article is still helpless use the PROD mechanisims. CSDs are only supposed to be used for very narrow and very specific definitions. David Dyment was an article that Maher tagged for CSD:A7, when clearly the subject has established enough of a presence to qualify under the GNG and as such I declined the A7. Should this activity continue, I would reccomend that the user be progressiveley be sanctioned for improper use of tools and editing against community consensus Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment New page patrol is one of the most thankless, necessary, contentious, and potentially harmful aspects of the site. It has to be done, yet it is constructed in such a way that it bothers, confuses, and alienates new editors. Patrollers should make a reasonable effort to minimize the negative effect that NPP has. One of the clear ways to do that is to ask a few basic questions when they review a page. 1) Does it have a reasonable chance of being improved? 2) Was a minimal effort made to follow notability, sourcing, and formatting standards? 3) Would tagging it for CSD unnecessarily turn off a potential good editor. Relying on a "gut feeling" without asking those questions is a bad idea and NPP patrollers should find a way to internalize those into an efficient system. Where there are borderline cases, NPP patrollers should not assume that 'someone will save the article if they care enough' as often the process of contesting a CSD is unfamiliar and new editors are not prepared to do so. There is an easy alternative which is marking articles with PRODs instead. This should be used in all borderline cases. There is nothing lost by letting an article sit for 7 days, and if it's not an unambiguous CSD candidate that is what policy directs. Save CSD for the worst cases and use PROD for the rest. Since this dispute involves one editor's behavior, an RfC/U might be useful later. I don't suspsect the community would support a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach here, as much as they sympathize with the demands and crap-ful-ness of NPP.Ocaasi t | c 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I had considered an RfC/U, but besides there needs to be two editors who have tried to resolve it first as a minimum requirement (which is not the case here), I agree that NPP is a thankless job, and I don't want to penalize Maher-shalal-hashbaz for spending his time doing it. I'm still trying to figure out what this noticeboard is for, but based on the description it seemed to me a useful way to gain additional input and come up with a resolution that might show Maher-shalal-hashbaz that his use of CSDs needs to change (or, alternatively, that Maher-shalal-hashbaz is right and I am incorrect). Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

User has gone idle, and has not done anything since this DRN was opened. If it becomes a problem again, please feel free to file a RfC/U and to encourage them to slow down on their tagging. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abortion

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • Abortion (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

    There has been quite a bit of discussion on the lead sentence. Put simply, one group of editors wants the first sentence of the article to read Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, caused by or resulting in its death. This is the way the article has read for quite some years now. Other editors, myself included, would prefer that it be written as Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it is viable.

    Although it seems like a rather silly dispute, it has been going on for quite some time. Allow me to summarize the two parties. Party 2 believes the word viable should be used because it most accurately describes the medical and otherwise-real world consensus on the plainly stated definition of abortion. To this effect, I have gathered a very comprehensive list of sources. Every source that I looked up is listed there, bar perhaps one or two exceptions (same publishing company as another source, a derivative source, etc.). Out of the 23 sources listed, 1 uses the word death. The rest, including every major OB/GYN textbook, every major medical dictionary (as determined by an uninvolved editor, a physician who does a lot of work WikiProject Medicine's scope), and encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica, do not, and the vast majority of those state non-viability as a clear criteria for abortion. This position has the majority's backing right now, but does not have the level of support I would like for a stable article.

    Party 1 believes that using the word death is preferred. They state that viable has a number of problems, including: the fact that aborting viable fetuses do occur (partial-birth abortions, late termination of pregnancy), defining viability is problematic and the limit of viability does not have medical consensus, the fact that a reader might infer embryos will not become viable, and the fact that writing it this way would "redefine abortion". They also objected to "termination", on the grounds that it was an unnecessarily technical term (seen has euphemistic by pro-life), confusing, that it frames abortion as a medical procedure and that encyclopedias have a wider scope, that it refers to pregnancy ending, does not clarify what happens to its contents, and because selective abortionsdo not end the entire pregnancy. (this past sentence adapted from a post by RoyBoy; I believe it adequately represents Party 1's position). Some editors have also noted that because "death" is a term used by some scientists to refer to the termination of a POC, it is an acceptable term to use here. Other editors believe that as "death" is not a term contradicted by any of the sources provided, it can and should be used here.

    I believe that's a decent enough representation of both sides? Trout me if it isn't, and tell me how I can fix it; I would be happy to. Any uninvolved commentator here would probably be best served by reading the entire talk page at minimum before commenting anyway. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
  • Yes, there has been many a talk page section on this matter. One of the parties has also opened a request on AN, but that is likely the wrong venue and has not gathered any significant input. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How do you think we can help?
  • I have no idea. We have clearly reached an impasse, and with the article protected until next Monday, I figure it might be best to try to get outside input. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I agree with the use of viability in the lead. The issue of death and its context can be dealt with lower in the article where all sides of the issue can be addressed. The question is has "human death" occurred. Similar to the issue of organ transplants with some countries/cultures recognizing brain death and some not. Some do not consider "human life" to have occurred and thus "human death" has not occurred with abortion. Without context stating "death" in the definition is not WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue definitely falls out of the scope of this board, it's too big. The question here is, whether it could be absorbed into the current MedCab case, with the case renamed, or whether a case should be filed with the Mediation Committee. It'd seem odd to me to have two different mediations on the same topic running concurrently. If absorbing the issue into the current MedCab is the way to go, let me know, but keep discussions here now only focused on what to do with the dispute now. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's related but I think distinctly separate from the issues at the current mediation. I would prefer to keep the two issues separate if possible. Would you have any other suggestions on where to go? I'm reluctant to try formal Mediation, as I forsee only a huge time sink because of two or three of the editors (I hasten to add though, that I do believe that most of the editors are acting in good faith, and a mediation with them alone has the potential for success.) NW (Talk) 02:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the privilege that comes with formal mediation, hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an Etymology and/or Definition section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think something simple in the lead like, "artificial termination of a pregnancy" followed by a major section ==Definition of abortion== outlining all the issues you raise would be the best solution. I wouldn't worry that the short lead introduction does not comprehensively address all issues. I think it is a good general rule to not attempt to resolve issues in the lead, as then there must be winners and losers, and, of course, the biggest loser is the reader who needs to be informed about the issues not told the "correct" answer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Artificial termination of pregnancy would perhaps run for induced abortion, but the recurrent misunderstanding seems to be that the article is specific to induced abortion whenever it is a generic article covering both spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced (artificial) abortion. The dispute is a non-dispute because pro-life advocacy is impossible as the first sentence that the dispute is over was defining abortion broadly and comprehensively from several reliable sources and is the fruit of a well established and tested consensus. DMSBel (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There can be no such consensus. Taking a point of view in the lead paragraph is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is the heart of the problem. The old guard says things like "The dispute is a non-dispute because[...]the first sentence that the dispute is over[...]is the fruit of a well established and tested consensus" and then does not engage new sources and new editors and their concerns. That's why we're here. JJL (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As someone totally uninvolved in these issues, the problem to me is that the debate is being framed as an "all or nothing" binary choice of two possibilities, hinging on the use of the "viable" vs. "death" phrasing, i.e. the sentence must include exactly one of these two versions. Has anyone explored or broached the possibility of rewriting the sentence entirely, so as to a) avoid using either term or b) use both terms. I have no idea what that sentence should be in the end, and I have no opinion one way or the other on the subject of the article, either within Wikipedia or in the real world. I am just trying to see if some third way, a compromise or alternative way forward, couldn't break the deadlock here? --Jayron32 04:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Yes I offered a suggestion of a wording with both terms a few days ago. It would of course need further discussion to find a consensus, but as there is no consensus seemingly, (although that view is held only by editors seeking to advance a new consensus), we would be discussing things anyway. JJL seems not to like the option of both terms. There has been little said by other editors either for or against that as yet. Removing both terms leaves the definition rather vague. And I still am waiting for a coherent explanation of how the term death could introduce a POV to a generic definition of abortion.
Also, could we stop caricaturing editors as "old guard" it says more about the one saying it than the editors working on the article. I have been with the article only slightly longer than JJL, but several other editors know the debate much better, and have been involved in working to the compromise that is the consensus version of the lede before JJL took issue with it.
The trouble with the current version is that is based on a straw-poll which had a narrative change in the middle of it if I recall correctly, and no one thought it was going to be used as the basis of consensus.DMSBel (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Page on Media Lens

Per comments below, this issue seems to be resolved now.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • I request that someone who is better versed in Wikipaedia rules look at the discussion page and the exchanges by me and Philip Cross. I fear that both of us have conflicts of interest which prevent consensus. Hitherto I have mostly looked at historical pages where differences over content are less vulnerable to politically loaded editing.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Keith-264 and Philip Cross.
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
  • I suggested arbitration which PC agreed to.
  • How do you think we can help?
  • Someone better versed in Wiki policies can scrutinise our comments and refer us to them. Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

  • I've read the article and the discussion pages. In general, the article is written a bit too much from an insider perspective, sounding like ML is explaining itself rather than Wikipedia giving a neutral overview. The thinly veiled pro ML slant reflect that people who like the subject wrote the bulk of the article. The criticism section is an improvement on that, but it still has a tone of support and case-making in the main section. The talkpage discussion slightly confuses notable figures and RS. Someone whose opinions are notable for political commentary, such as Monbiot, may be relevant for inclusion even if they are not a reliable source for hard news. RS is always applied in context and is not a blanket determination of someone's accuracy. We can always quote and attribute relevant, notable figures' opinions whether they are right nor not (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Are there any specific issues you are getting hung up on? Ocaasi t | c 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Wiki policies, I like much of what The Daves write at ML and so have a conflict of interest and I don't trust PC's comments as I think that he has a reciprocal axe to grind. I don't want to abandon the page and I don't want to get into a mud-slinging competition.Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Start by reading WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. The best way to get to know our policies (there are only 55 of them!) is to read the ones that are relevant to your discussion. Also, read WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, since it's the base of our editor interactions. The talk page looked unremarkable and a bit foggy but not like you were getting stuck. The article shows some signs of imperfect construction, but I don't see a major dispute or any fundamental policy misinterpretations. Just because you like what The Daves writes, doesn't mean you have a true conflict of interest. That's more for someone whose personal life, ideology, or fortune is at risk based on the outcome of an article. You just may have a bias, but that's fine. Editors can have a bias as long as the writing comes out straight. Working with editors who have opposing ideologies is one way to make that happen. Stay civil, use the talk page for contentious changes, continue to rephrase and structure opinions so that they are described from a neutral point of view. Come back if you run into a specific issue or would like a third opinion on anything. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Issue now seems to be resolved. Closing. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of comments on George RR Martin's wiki page

Discussion is proceeding on Talk:George R. R. Martin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • I added several edits to the George RR Martin wiki page which were all removed by the editor Amalthea. The comments from Amalthea were as follows: "(rv: Have a grudge, do we? Fan forum link is not relevant enough (especially in comparison), your other points aren't sourced (although I read the "shit out of luck" comment somewhere)/not relevant. Whole thing needs reorganizing, TTTT.) (undo)"

As I pointed out in my response to Amalthea on his talk page, I do not consider it to be a grudge to point out that it is Martin's policy to censor fan comments that may be considered critical. Readers should know this prior to trying to post at one of his sites. I sourced this with a reference to a recent New Yorker article which can be viewed online at [21]. I also added a comment about the "Is Winter Coming?" website which has become the alternative for many fans who have pro/con views regarding Martin and his books. I added this site [22] to the external link section as a balance to other sites in the section which do practice censorship.

Lastly, I added a comment that Martin has said that he will not allow any other writer to complete the series in the event that he dies before it is completed. In the past, this was an ongoing question among fans. Now, it has recently been confirmed by Martin himself in the New Yorker article. I think that people (especially those who have been introduced to the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series by the HBO show) should know this before they decide whether or not to invest their time and money in reading these books. DavidG3276 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
  • Originally, I said that Amalthea had not responded but as Hasteur points out later I was wrong about that. The comments were moved to the talk page for the article. I apologize for my mistake and the wrong impression it gave others of Amalthea. I am deeply embarassed.
  • How do you think we can help?
Since we will be attempting to resolve this on the talk page, there is no need to continue this process.

Discussion

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

  • The comments were not removed. The comments were moved to the GRRM article's Talk page, where the discussion needs to take place. This is a content question and not a individual editor question. Taking a look at the items you added I'm agreeing with Amalthea that the commentary doesn't really belong. It's interesting, but until it gets picked up by someone else I think that this is just a bit of WP:UNDUE weight on the criticisim. Hasteur (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur is correct and I was wrong. I am very sorry for that. I will be updating my earlier comments to reflect that. We will attempt to resolve this now on the talk page instead of needing the services of this resolution board. DavidG3276 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

As this issue will hopefully be resolved on the talk page for the article, there is now no need for assistance. My apologies for having taken up the time of others.

Sometimes it's a second set of eyes to look at a problem is all that it needs. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now That's What I Call Music! 79 (UK series)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • There have been multiple discussions on the talk page about whether or not to include Madrasah's in the article. Common but reliable sources like UNESCO state that they are Universities, whereas academic sources do not. Once I understood this fully I was prepared to not include the Madrasah's in the article, but due to the confusion of the different sources and editors (along with myself: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]) I felt that a disambiguation link at the top and an explanation in the lead was necessary to clarify the matter to our readers. User:Gun Powder Ma and User:Athenean object to this being included in the lead.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • Extensive discussions on talk, and on the users talk pages (1, 2).
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • Come up with an acceptable compromise to clarify why Madrasah's aren't included in the article without over-burdening it.

Discussion

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

  • One of the other issues as far as I'm concerned is the great reluctance of the other participants to discuss the matter, or to suggest possible compromise proposals. Its pretty difficult to solve the dispute when you are the only person suggesting any sensible ways forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Are other religious schools included? If so, it's a simple matter of a topic sentence to say that 'Some of the oldest universities are religious institutions including... and X, Y, and Z'. A disambiguation would be overkill, just use a clearly phrased introductory sentence in the introduction's second or third paragraph. Ocaasi t | c 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The article states that Universities emerged from cathedral/monastic schools in Europe, and it states they were "intrinsically linked to Christian faith".
    • The other difference with Madrasah's is that a number of decent sources including UNESCO and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam do call them Universities - thus confusing the issue as to what the definition is - especially for non-academics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • There's a definitional issue here as well as a cultural one. You should be careful about applying academic standards in this area since they are culturally and geographically dependent. It's strong Euro-centrism and Christian-centrism to define university as an educational institution which has its roots in or follows the model of that culture and style. The familiar type university is a model with certain characteristics; in the modern world it has been further codified with standards and certifications. Madrasahs may follow a different model but we should be very careful to exclude them from the broader category of educational institution because of that.
      • The first issue you have to decide is whether this article is narrowly and clearly defined as universities in that Eurocentric model. If not, if you are already including other cultural-educational institutions, then Madrasahs would obviously included, since for Islamic cultures they the analogous institutions. If you are defining university narrowly, then you still have the question of whether Madrasahs meet the criteria. There are sub-question of composition and program: a) do Madrasahs do non-religious education as well? If so, that reasons for their inclusion. Do Madrasahs have clear or rigorous curriculum and graduation standards. That would also support inclusion. Do Madrasahs have a history of educating the society's most intelligent and important individuals. Further support. You would need good sources to answer those questions.
      • I think a 'way-out' of the conflicting sources bind is to distinguish primarily academic from primarily religious institutions within the article. Perhaps create a separate section for religious universities, or--if that is a redundant notion historically--you might create a separate section just for Madrasahs. You should also be mindful of distinguishing religious schools, from schools that were also religious, from purely secular schools--and applying the same rubric across the board.
      • In general, you want to have a list of the oldest Madrasahs somewhere on Wikipedia. And, you want to maintain a meaningful category for what a university is at the same time. The practical solution is to clearly lay out which definition or model you are using, briefly explain its trends and its background, and point readers to where they can find related information if it's not all in one place. I don't know if there's a right answer here, but it makes sense to me to group this information together, organizing it helpfully, and take some extra introductory text to give the available and necessary information about the subject. My hunch is that inclusion of Madrasahs will make sense, but perhaps qualified. If the only point of excluding them is to maintain the purity of a Eurocentric definition, and there are some sources which clearly include them, an easy solution is to include them while mentioning that they fall outside of the standard definition in the eyes of some sources. Ocaasi t | c 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. Let me first say that I don't agree that other participants haven't been willing enough to compromise, something which I consider important as long as the quality of the article is not impaired. Eraserhead's latest substantial edit was kept in its entirety, only re-arranged, something which other users have also noticed.
It is also true that I have invested a great deal of time and effort into explaining Eraserhead the fundamental difference between Madrasas and Universities in terms of their history and characteristics. I am glad that he has come around to largely acknowledge these differences, although I have to say it is normally not the job of other editors to explain fundamentals of the article which can be easily gleaned from Google books or other easily available sources.
I happen to think that the remaining dissent between Eraserhead and several other editor, inlcuding me, are in fact quite small. All what Eraserhead now seems to argue for is to move the link to the Islamic madrasas from "see also", where it has been for over a year, right to the very top. There are several reasons why I don't think this complies to WP guidelines and standard practice:
  1. a list usually does not define the topic, at least not overly. For this, there are the main articles medieval university and university. Particularly, a list does not define what the topic is all not, what is Eraserheas wants with his discussion of unrelated centers of higher education like the mosque school
  2. Top links are mostly reserved only for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but here nothing needs to disambiguated as Christian university and Islamic madrasa are semantically and historically totally different
  3. If there were a need for a disambiguating top link the first choice would be naturally to related Christian educational institution like the cathedral school and monastic school, both direct forerunners of the university, but there is no need either.
In sum, arguing, like Eraserhead does, that university should overly refer to madrasa just because both were/are educational institutions of higher learning is as absurd as arguing that church (building) should be referring to mosque (or vice versa) because both share being places of worship. The article needs urgent attention in other matters, like the problematic definition of "continuous", but this constant side-issue of trying to put the madrasa in the limelight in a completely unrelated topic, which has been dragging on for months now, makes this unfortunately impossible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't be so sure that Wikipedians shouldn't explain their knowledge whether it's available in sources or not.
  • University is a cultural and historical term, but it is also a common term. The broad definition of "community of teachers and scholars" may well include Madrasahs in spirit and in current usage, even if it did not historically.
  • If you want to stick to the European/Christian university model, then you should make that clear in the introduction if not the title. You should indeed offer disambiguation as a courtesy to the reader who may be looking for related information. This may be in a hatnote, or an introductory note, or the See Also section. It is not obvious what terms are used for inclusion in a list, and defining terms and identifying criteria, as well as locating a category among related categories, fields, and ideas is indeed appropriate for the introduction to a List Of articles. We want our readers to be informed explicitly, so long as length is conserved and links to information are used where explication would be excessive. Ocaasi t | c 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Ocaasi, in the most general sense "community of teachers and scholars" may well include every type of school and centre of higher learning, yet nobody has ever argued to include them all in the list. In a more narrow sense, the madrasa ceased to be such a community, since there was never the legal framework between these two bodies which ruled their interaction in the university.
  2. This has already been done a year ago. Since then the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation is in the See also section. But Eraserhead now wants a disambiguation (like the railway station of the same name got in Roman bridge) for which, however, I haven't found yet any solid basis in the WP guidelines.
  3. WP:Lead defines that the lead has to summarize the article which is exclusively about the university. Apart from that, I think it is most obvious to the reader what a list of universities refers to, namely to the university and this is linked directly on top. As long as university does not offer a lengthy discussion on why it is not a mosque school or a Greek philosophical centre or a Chinese Confucian school, there seems to be little reason to do so in an ancillary list. Lists don't at all discuss these things to such a depth.

I would think a one paragraph contextualization would be useful. Universities are X. They are different from philosophical centers, Confucian schools, Madrassahs, Yeshivas, etc. It could be brief and hyperlinked. We want to give readers access and understanding. In this area, where university represents the common name of a center of learning, we would help readers by showing them the sketch of centers of learning which are not included at the University article. I've seen several lists which do this in the introduction typically with less than 3 paragraphs. A short disambiguation hatnote would also work. This approach would blend naturally with a definition of the University as you have described it. You could also, even mention that there are cultural or etymological debates and though some sources include non-western Universities, this list does not. That's not a very big concession to make here assuming Madrasahs are kept out of the list. Although the lead summarizes the body it also provides context, basic etymology, and disambiguation.
  • WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ..."Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." ..."It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time.")
  • WP:DISAMBIG: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."..."Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one of the templates shown below."
  • WP:HATNOTE: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed (this may happen because of redirects, because the article they are looking for uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because its name is otherwise similar to that of the article with a hatnote). They accomplish this by providing links to the article in question or to a disambiguation page." ..."[Legitimate] information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about [the book], or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." Ocaasi t | c 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @ GunPowderMa, I don't think my last edit was kept in its entirety and the other user who argees with you has also been named as a party here so they aren't a neutral person. Besides if you really believe my last substantial edit was kept in its entirety why didn't you let me just revert it to the previous state? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It has been kept in its entirety as anyone can see for himself in the edit history. Those parts which define the university negatively (= not an ancient centre comparable to those of Greece, China etc.) have only been moved to the definition section where they belong and which is still very close to the top to be swiftly digested by the reader. It is this buoyancy of material related to the madrasa to the very top of the list which makes me, to be frank, somewhat suspicious of your motives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My objection is that its now in a different - otherwise totally unrelated - section. If you want to move all the content on the definition into the lead - or move it into a section in its own right I have no problem with it being after the other information. I suggested both of those on the talk page before coming here, and you didn't like either of those suggestions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how someone could confuse Madrasah with University. Different word, different meaning, different connotation. Give our readers some credit. Perhaps creating a separate article List of oldest Madrasahs in continuous operation might do the trick? Athenean (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

People clearly have got confused between Madrasah's of higher learning and Universities - including several reliable sources. Refusing to accept that after it has been pointed out many times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm perfectly content for there to be a different article on Madrasah's but I think it needs linking to prominently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What Ocaasi points out seems sensible and reasonable. I see no reason not to go along with what he says - I presume you guys are OK with that as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Zakat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Discussion moved from main page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Zakat.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • I've added unreliable tags on a citation that was continually inserted; however, User:Misconceptions2 is continually removing the "unreliable" tags I insert, after a WP:3O joined and confirmed the source is unreliable. Exampleshere and here. ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
  • Tons of previous discussions & advice on articles' talkpages, leveled reminders and warnings on his talkpage with detailed discriptions from the user warning project, and (regarding this last incidence) suggesting him to join the article's discussion two times on his talkpage (which he recently deleted--history proves) ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
  • The editor stresses and ignores any suggestions from me, so a direct message to his talkpage might help, hopefully.
  • My main concern, which held me from getting a mediator after the WP:3O, is to find suggestions of how to deal with this editor in the future, as we're in debate since I started editing. I actually stopped my actual contribution, as discussions were always going on-and-on at each topic (trying to clean his generalizing edits, based on unreliable/uncredible sources). ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

  • Most scholars (in secondary sources) agree with the religious scripture (primary sources) that Zakat (Muslim-tax) is taken from the rich of the community and given to the poor of the community. Mr. User:Misconceptions2 wants it to be "only for Muslims", based on a manual of Zakat that was made by a bank in Pakistan for his clients. The manual was refering to a footnote that we couldn't verify. I added in the talkpage a citation of Zakat to non-Muslims is South-Asia, and the WP:3Oadded 5 more reliable examples of Zakat to non-Muslims. He still removed my unreliable tags, as linked above.
  • The other problem is his accusations, considering that a comment by any editor on me means a conviction. He also barely comments on my edits, but mostly on me on articles' talkpages like this and this, and my-own talkpage like this and this. ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's another incident where he admits that one source might not be reliable, but he added it again just because he thinks that the second source is reliable. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I keep explaining to him that an unreliable source should stay out-of-Wiki (no-matter-what). ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are critical here, and from observing the discussions I've seen, there are plenty that state that Zakat is distributed to both muslims and non-muslims. The other thing to remember here is to not give sources undue weight. If the source they are adding cannot be verified, and it is in dispute, which it seems to be given the number of references presenting an alternative viewpoint (Zakat distributed to muslims & non-muslims) then it should probably be removed. The larger issue here is conduct, yourself and another editor have refuted their point about Zakat only being distributed to Muslims by citing several reliable sources. If issues were to continue, a user conduct requests for conduct might be the best course of action, as it does not appear that they are getting the point. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You got straight to the point, thanks. I've explained WP:DUE, WP:RS (especially self-published sources), WP:LEAD, ...etc, at least ten times. I'm seriously looking for a solution, because my contribution fell from 80% articles to only 5% now (personal estimate). I'm not sure if I should keep the community busy by bringing each topic to reliable source incident & meditations (when each article has 5-6 disputes by the same 3 editors). But if no solution is found here, I guess I have no choice :( ~ AdvertAdam talk 19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be using Meezan Bank's guide for anything. If that guide quotes a scholar, find the scholar published in a reliable secondary source and use it. The source should be independently published, peer reviewed or fact-checked by some authority or publisher with a reputation in its field, and be beyond questionable accuracy or bias.
  • Civility is important and attacks at other user's supposed motivations should stop. Editors should not be accused of 'whitewashing' or 'ruining articles' or be threatened with armies of contribution stalkers. Those are uncivil tactics. Instead, politely disagree and focus on the issue.
  • The issue here is whether Zakat is intended solely or primarily intended for Muslims. This is a topic about which we can find much better sources than Meezan Bank. Find them. Describe the dispute you find within them. Maybe some sources say it's for Muslims and others say it's for humans and others say it's mostly Muslim but some non-Muslims. Do research, find the sources, draft a compromise based on the sources.
  • Note, this issue and others involving reliable sources should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard first. If you have future issues with a source, that is the place to go. Ocaasi t| c 10:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The book was not published by Mizaan Book, that is wrong (it was published by a religious institution called MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN), please see the Zakat article (the issue which the user mentions has already been resolved), and i did say Zakat is for both Muslims and non muslims, here (which the user was complaining about). He opened this dispute about 3 days after the dispute was fixed !

Secondly, i have many problems with this user, regarding whitewashing Islam articles, i have already opened a dispute against him which never got solved, here (as admins weren't willing to comment on the controvertible Jihad article dispute, i say they weren't willing to comment because i talk to them live on IRC and they said so). And many other users have opened disputes against him for constantly leaving warnings on there page and on mine here , and he tried to get the admin to support his edits on Islamic Terrorism, but it didnt work out,here , he kept being reverted.

I also would like to add that the user has been doing everything he can to remove statements from wikipedia that go against his idea. In the Caravan raids article User removed 2 references and added a synthesis taghere . Before being reverted by the user doc tropics, here All for a sentence which said “they were generally offensive in nature” . User then removed the same 2 references and added a citation needed tag here Before being reverted by me.

Then user added 2 unreliable sources tag here , i then added a third source from William Montegoary Watt, and the user stopped his game. User has been accused by doc tropics of twisting the introduction of the Offensive Jihad article to suit his own view, you can see his edit which was reverted by him here . In summary, i feel this person has been trying to white wash islam articles and is a defender of the truth , the user also joined the "wikiproject Islam" and said that he will help it by explaining the "peaceful truth about islam" on wikipedia here. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you stop accusing me of whitewashing, and start commenting on my edits instead. Yes, "they were offensive in nature" is a great example you brung up. You're still adding-back the same self-published material, but the phrasing was kind-of fixed. A source says that the Muslim raids were offensive, and you insisted that the Muslims were offensive in nature (by a self-published source). That's a huge manipulation, but I'm glad it was fixed (after looong effort). Following is replies on your same sequence:

  • NO, the issue was not solved. "By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim" is not a proper phrasing according to WP:DUE (which was pointed to you above). Also, how credible is what you called a "religious institution". As long as stronger sources say the exact opposite, as explained by an editor above and by the WP:3O in the talkpage, the source is automatically unreliable.
  • You were again told to stop you accusations just above (not by me). It was never resolved because it was biased, sorry. Accusations from 3 editors (out of 100s I dealt with on higher-traffic articles) don't make me convicted. Also, Islamic Terrorism wen way out-of-topic, but it did come back to my suggestion at the end. I'll be fixing the article based on that within a couple days (10 days with no objection is enough).
  • The article is still full of unreliable sources. When a source is pointed unreliable, don't put it back just becaue you found another source. Remove the unreliable and only add the addition source to be verified. You confirmed on my talkpage that the other source might be unreliable, and you're still adding it till now.
  • "Doc tropics" is not the founder of Wikipedia, he's the third user that made false accusation on me (and couldn't get any support on the incident). He failed to even protect his opinion that my source is unreliable. I just gave that article some time, and I am coming back. I haven't stopped "my game", as you called it. Please stop taking my statements out-of-context. What I said is with reliable sources, if you ever read the whole sentence. You still added the same unreliable (self-published) sources, which will be removed when I send it to the reliable sources noticeboard. ~ AdvertAdam talk 19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeh, but i have provided some proof for my accusations haven't i. where i proved that you said you are on wikipedia to explain the peaceful truth about islam? as my justification for calling you a "defend of the truth". Or am i misinterpreting what you meant by that, you already accused me of taking those comments out of context (what more context is needed when you said it on wiki project Islam)? Anyway, lets see you rephrase the sentence "By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim" , which the source says. Second this was added by DavidElah, so please get him involved, see his side of the story. Thirdly, again i would like to tell you that i have said that some scholars believe Zakat can be given to poor non-muslims who have a potential to convert. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's quite enough, both of you. Keep this focused on the content issues at hand. Further comments containing personal attacks or mudslinging will be removed. If there are some sources that state that Zakat is only for Muslims, but a majority of sources that state it is also for non-Muslims, then the content of the article should read as such ie "(First group of sources here ie "Scholars from Harvard") believe that Zakat is for both muslims and non-muslims, however (source here ie Religious cleric) believe that Zakat is only intended for muslims. I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to write something up properly, but it seems to me that the supermajority of sources here state that Zakat is used both for Muslims and non-muslims, with a minority stating otherwise. This is what should go into the article. It would be giving undue weight to the minority of sources to state that Zakat is only for muslims first in the article, given this fact. Play around with the wording, but the key fact here is giving undue weight to sources based on personal opinions. Personal opinions should never get in the way on Wikipedia. Play it by the rules, work together on coming up with a compromise and you both should be fine. But don't be at each others throats over it. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeh, thanks for the feedback. But i want to point out that I DID NOT ADD the sentence By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim . I only reverted AdamRce edits (and tags) claiming it was an unreliable source, because Mizaan Bank published it, when they did not! It was published by a religious institution called MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN. I added the part that Zakat can be giving to non muslims as per the 4th category, to help convert them. In summary, the dispute was mainly between DavidElah and AdamRce, i only got involved later --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry. General suggestion needed: when a user denies to join the discussion, is the formal "mediation" the best place to go, or do I just take the list of sources to WP:RSN? I am a WikiWizard, but I don't have enough spells to fix everything at once :p. There's other content on the same article that needs opinions, as I backed-off just to avoid edit-warring. ~ AdvertAdam talk 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I consider this issue resolved, as i added that Zakat can be given to non muslims (which AdamRce was complaining about)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not resolved. My previous edit solved the phrasing, based on consensus in the talkpage, stating "As a general rule, the recipient must be a person who does not possess wealth equal to or in excess of a prescribed threshold amount".
  • The revert, stating "can be given to non-Muslims" is not enough, favoring a weak source over the majority. If you insist in containing Muslims and non-Muslims, then I changed to balance it to the following: "By consensus of thejurists, the recipient can be a Muslim or non-Muslim within most of the categories, but some scholars say non-Muslims may only receive Zakat as payment to get them to help stop hostile public campaigns against Muslims and as per the "4th category" to pay potential converts to Islam.".
  • If we keep the weaker sources, then we'll need to add 3-4 other stronger sources to balance (from the talkpage). To avoid it, I removed all sources, and added a message linking to the talkpage instead. ~ AdvertAdam talk 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what a weaker or stronger source is?Let me guess, if it fits your point of view, it is a strong source? or maybe if you think its a strong source,then its a strong source. Please wait till DavidElah responds to your rephrasing of his edit--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked your new phrasing for which you did not cite any sources. I removed the part where you wrote "within most categories" here, add proper references instead of saying that "list of sources are in the talk page"! Any content with no source will be challenged and remvoed as per Wiki policy. In fact if that sentence you added stays unsourced i will remove it!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There's many issues involved, including what you mentioned (just-kidding). Most important, the "Maktaba Maariful Quran" source is self-published; as the publisher is owned and managed by "Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani" and his son (the author of "Guide of Zakat"), which doesn't give his published material any credibility on this topic (according to WP:USERG). The publisher has no comparison, credibility-wize, comparing to Taylor & Francis and Edward Elgar Publishing. I refuse to keep that source anywhere in the article, unless you get an approval from WP:RSN.
  • David asked for a third opinion and he didn't object his decision in the talkpage.
  • Removing "within most categories" lacks the first section of any value at-all, when you read the full sentence. I reverted your removal and added two reliable balanced sources (from the talkpage) with the content. I also have reliable sources to make it "within all categories", but I avoided that to not keep this discussion loooooonger. It looks good this way, as it answers your last concerns (here). ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed abusing sources. You added the sentance: "By consensus of the jurists, the recipient can be a Muslim or non-Muslim within most of the categories" , but your source Islamic finance: principles and practice, pg 29, says: "Some state that Zakat may be paid to non-muslims after the needs of Muslims have been met" (the exact opposite of that sentence), and none of your sources mention the word consensus ! your second source: The power of sovereignty: the political and ideological philosophy of Sayyid Qutb, does not even mention anything about non muslim receiving zakat, instead it says simply that muslims must participate in jihad and must pay zakat, and non muslims must pay jizyah ! You also removed my source "Islam in focus", proof that you used those sources arehere --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved with this from the start and maybe I can clarify some things. The examples that Adam gives of tags being removed is examples of disputed content being restored. Also Adam says that he before the WP:3O, added a source with citation of an example of Zakat to non-Muslims in South-Asia, when this is not the case. His source actually said that zakat could be used to serve the Ummah at large, and Ummah is defined by two dictionaries as meaning the Muslims community. I already explained this to Adam repeatedly in what became a very long repetitive discussion. About the third opinion, I respected the third opinion and his argument. I thought it was published by Meezan bank, but now that Misconceptions points out that it is published by MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN, I can see why he might would restore it since the 3O argument was based on that it was published by Meezan bank. And the founder of MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN, Taqi Usmani, is extremely authoritative and a reliable source, so I can't see why the publisher should be unreliable. - Davidelah (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Miscenceptions2:
    • I think you forgot the previous discussions. I told you that I'm avoiding to reference a list of sources after that sentence. Do you want me to add 10 more references, to get the point of majority/minority? I added two sources, each relating to one-half of the sentence. You could of asked for a quote instead of deleting a reliable source. What you removed has a full paragraph explaining Zakat and Jizya, as payments. Then in the same paragraph it said "Other than that...Muslims and non-Muslims are equal in every aspect. An Islamic state should grant financial support and benefit the needy of the non-Muslims" (that's in a paragraph about Zakat). Will you kindly revert your removal?
    • The other source, that you left, was to balance the sentence when it was counting certain scholars. The "Islam in focus" was repaced with "Islamic Finance"; considering that "Islam in focus" giving a strict focus, from an un-notable publisher, on their single pov. The other sources is more credible and give almost the same purpose.
    • If you want to only keep these two sources, good; otherwise, we'll need to ask for the community's advice here (if we should include a large list of sources, for a single silly sentence). ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Davidelah:
    • This dispute was is noticed on the article's talkpage, so whoever wants to follow will follow. I also, now, corrected the link there to come straight to this section. The WP:3O's decision wasn't only based on the sources' credibility (based on his explanation), but specifically on the group of sources he found himself.
    • We don't need to go out-of-topic, as other sources were already provided. Just as a correction, you have not provided any dictionaries as you mentioned above. The largest Arabic-English Dictionaries translate Ummah to Community "only". (Like Oxford, Merriam, Al Mawrid,...etc).
    • While Usmani's books are published by his own publish-house (MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN), then that's considered self-published. Please read about it in WP:RS again, because tagging my sources in multiple articles with "unreliable" proves that you're unaware of the reliability policy.
    • Do you have any other concerns about our topic here: the new sentencing with credible reliable sources? ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
A short correction: I did link to a book titled Historical Dictionary of Islam that explains what it means as an Islamic term and not just the Arabic origin (don't play dumb!), and another user also removed your source in the incident you mentioned where I tagged a source unreliable.
Another clarification; the 3O did not provide 5 examples of Zakat to non-Muslims, it was just five examples of reliable books, and some of the books confirmed that zakat is for Muslims only. - Davidelah (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I thought that the discussion here would be about the incident between Miscenceptions2 and Adamrce, and not about whether Adam's new edits is acceptable. - Davidelah (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your comments precised, as I'm not the one who started the dispute by changing the long-lasting neutral phrasing of the original sentence. This dispute was open to fix the recently changed phrasing, when the article's talkpage's result was ignored. Please, I'm not here to argue so it's better to concentrate on the content. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam talk 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: many of the "Islamic" type articles are disaster areas as far as sourcing is concerned: tehre is far too much "google book" sourcing, where people just google for text and then stuff in whatever ref they find, with checking it or even reading it. A recent example from Adamrce at Quran: he adds a dodgy ref [28] under a deceptive edit summary, the ref gets tagged as dodgy, A removes the tag[29] with edit summary rm tag, as the academic publisher and author are mentioned. The publisher was not, of course, academic and indeed he'd got the publisher wrong. He then went after [30] the person who had tagged the ref in a most unpleasant manner William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Query: is this dispute still relevant? The article has been subsequently largely rewritten William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not relevant anymore. So I am going to go ahead and close it. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Article has been rewritten, using high-quality scholarly sources. The sourcing issues here are no longer relevant, as there was consensus at WP:RSN to dispense with them altogether. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three frames from a commercial of a fictional character shapeshifting.

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
  • On the page Doubledealer Black Kite removed the image of the fictional character based on NFCC 3a, stating that there are three images. It's one image with three frames of a character shapeshifting in a commercial. He claims the artcile is only due ONE image. I say this triple image is justified since it illustrates the character shifting forms.
  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
  • Yes,
  • How do you think we can help?

Discussion

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

  • Stop edit warring. Consensus first. Since this involves NFCC there's a slight bias against over-inclusion so just leave the article without the image until it can be sorted out.
  • Policy. NFCC 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
  • Definition. Is this one image or 3? It's a derivative image including 3 non-free images.
  • Licensing. Each image needs to be part of the usage rationale. There's no meaningful difference between a 3-in-1 and 3 separate images, although there's nothing inherently wrong with using a series of images.
  • Usage. It might be less of a copyright issue if the images were smaller.
  • Significance. Does 1 image 'convey equivalent significant information'? One image is enough to identify the character, but not to illustrate the character's forms. As Transformers are noteworthy for changing shapes, I think more than 1 images does convey significant information beyond what a single image can.
  • Discuss. Sort out what I and others say here, otherwise the logical place for this discussion is non-free content review. Ocaasi t | c 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:NFCR (or WT:NFC) would have been the best place for this anyway. Incidentally, size of images is irrelevant to NFCC. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it's very relivant that the character in question is basically a shapeshifter. To illustrate the character for the reader to recognize him, you have to show what the character may look like. In this case the character in questions is a spy with a couple identity and a different shape for each. Which form do we show? Mathewignash (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).