Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 14

24 articles infobox images

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 24 (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 24 (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? About a week ago, I was doing some cleanup of a few articles relating to the TV series 24, as part of my effort to get one particular article to good article status. I had noticed that the info boxes of the season articles (linked above) had the image changed from the main cast in the info box, which was in effect from 2006 until a few months ago, when InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) uploaded DVD cover art (from Region 1) to the articles. I proceeded to upload over the images with cover art from Region 4, and requested an administrator delete the old revisions under our non-free content criteria, where old revisions are deleted after seven days. Admittedly I jumped the queue, and should have waited the 7 days. A thread was opened on my talk page by Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs), in regards to the differences between using Region 1 cover art as opposed to Region 2/4 cover art. As a result of that discussion, it was agreed that we revert back to the cast images in the info box, so I did so, and requested the DVD covers be deleted. I was then notified of a thread on the WikiProject TV page where InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) raised objection to the deletion of the image, and requested that the Region 1 images be undeleted and restored to the articles. My argument was that the articles weren't broken in the first place, that adding DVD covers has brought up a dispute over which region cover to use (Region 1 encompassing US and Canada, Regions 2 and 4 which use the same art encompass the rest of the world where it was released). Their argument was that DVD cover art is always in the info boxes, and that it is always of the cover art where the series premiered. I feel that discussion on the project talk page has not been effective at coming to a consensus. As a believer in the dispute resolution process, I think that getting more opinions and outside views is the best way of resolving this. Personally I think that if we cannot come to an agreement then we should find a compromise, which I feel is reverting back to how things were previously, but understand that this is a discussion that should have more eyes and opinions, thus it is why I am bringing the issue here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) AussieLegend (talk · contribs) Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes, I have notified all the editors on their talk page, additionally I have placed a note at the Wikiproject discussion page. 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=24 articles infobox images}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have attempted to engage in the discussion on the WikiProject Television talk page, but we have not been able to come to an agreement. How do you think we can help? I'd like the input from other editors here. I invite comments on what the best resolution for this dispute could be, as I do not feel that continued discussion on the project talk page will garner a consensus. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 24 articles infobox images discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This would seem to be rather premature given that discussion about this matter really only started at WT:TV#Deletion of covers four hours before this dispute was opened, with only nine posts in the discussion so far. I've only made a single post in that discussion and Drovethrughosts, who is also named, hasn't had a chance to post yet. DRN is not for disputes "which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page", and that's the case with this. I don't think Steven Zhang has given that discussion reasonable opportunity to reach a conclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I feel that I discussed the issue in detail on the talk page. I also feel that the discussion on the talk page was somewhat unproductive, and that comments (admittedly not by yourself) stating "I will put those DVD images back, would you like it or not." is unhelpful. I feel I made reasoned arguments in favour of my viewpoints, and feel these were not considered on the talk page, so I have brought it here to be addressed by those who volunteer at DRN. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You may have discussed it, but others haven't had opportunity to even reply to posts you've made there. You really need to give things time and not be in such a hurry to get things finished. Being in such a hurry is what led to this discussion in the first place. Not everybody sits at their keyboard 24 hours a day, discussions can often take days or weeks and rarely reach an impasse in only four hours. To be honest, this seems a bit like forum shopping. You had one editor express concern at your talk page, two more have expressed concern at WT:TV and now you've opened this discussion at a third location. Everything needs to be in one place and the WT:TV discussion is an open forum where the opinions of other editors can be sought. One has just replied there. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I was quick to file this, but I stand by it. I dispute that it is forum shopping however. I'm willing to take the high road, however. The MOS:TV recommends posters, then DVD covers, then lastly any other images, and as DVD covers are causing an issue in regards to regions, we should search for promo posters instead. Sounds good? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Am gonna stay with my last post, to put DVD covers in the infobox (as there are also DVD release dates), and to put cast images below in the "Characters" section. I think that there should be Region 1 DVD covers, because the show is from the United States, the same way the show from the Europe should have Region 2 DVD covers. And also, like I already said, there should not be cast images at all because every main character of every eight seasons has its own article, with image, so there should not be additional image. I only wanted to improve articles quality by adding DVD covers, and I definitely did that.  InfamousPrince  09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Chzz My views are ALWAYS "in my humble opinion". I'm totally uninvolved; I'm making no judgement whatsoever. I'm just pointing out what I think is, the best way forwards. I suggest you split this. It's not one debate, it's two. A) decide if anyone gives a shit about the apparent 'out of process deletion' - if they do, then that's a user-matter; discuss w/ user; -> med/RfC/U as appropriate. That's separate from the article matter. B) Article covers q, needs discussion on talk page, consensus, then add whatever images you like; "Wrong Version" for a while, fine. irrelevent. All parties on the talk should STFU about 'who deleted what' and should discuss the relative merits of the 2 choices re. images (use external links, no need to necc undelete them for that chat) Split the 'content debate' from the 'user debate'. Is all. We can deal with the "Was it out of process? Who did wrong?" (A) - we have systems for all that We can deal with "Which image is best?" (B) - we have OTHER processes for that We cannot deal with A+B on the same place. That is the actual "problem" right now. Trying to argue which image is best, whilst the waters are muddied by "BUT you SHOULDN'T have DELETED IT!!!111" isn't going to butter parsnips. I'm not judging; I'm just sayin' - it's two issues, not one. And they should be separated. Otherwise, it's unproductive. --- it is not appropriate to discuss "Should FOO have deleted BAA? Isn't that against XXX and YYY policies?" on an article talk (or WT:TV, ok) --- it is not appropriate to discuss "Should we use a Brit DVD cover or a Merkin DVD cover" on a user-action-debate (ie user talk, RfC/U, whatever) - because such discussion belongs on article talk As far as DRN goes, we need to know which dispute you need help resolving. Or, if it's two, fine; we can deal with each... separately. Hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The out of process deletion isn't a separate issue, it's just an example. Steven Zhang was in a hurry to get images deleted and that resulted in confusion, the WT:TV thread and extra work by editors trying to work out what actually happened and getting the images restored. He's now in a hurry to "resolve" an active discussion by opening a case at DRN only four hours after discussion at WT:TV really started. The point is he needs to be in much less of a hurry and let the WT:TV discussion reach its natural conclusion. If it doesn't reach a reasonable conclusion in a reasonable timeframe then he can come here. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Your talk about Mr. Zhang is (A). Your talk about images is (B). If Zhang has erred, we can trout him; no problem there. Which pics should we use? Let's discuss that, in the appropriate place.  Chzz  ►  05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Just a note, we discussed the use of images, and as we could not agree, I looked to the MOS. I noticed that it recommends promotional posters to be used in the infobox as opposed to DVD covers, thus I uploaded 8 posters for each season and they are currently used in the infobox. I think this one can be closed as resolved, but will leave that to someone else to decide. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Am okay with having promotional posters. It is a lot better to have them in the infobox than both DVD covers and cast images. I also agree that this one can be closed as resolved. Cheers.  InfamousPrince  09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of the rosary

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. History of the rosary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Content dispute over an actual recorded significant fact about the history of the rosary. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Djathinkimacowboy (talk · contribs) History2007 (talk · contribs) Rwflammang (talk · contribs) It appears to me the users in dispute are simply rejecting valid, cited material in order to lay claim to ownership of the article. Please be aware that Alpha_Quadrant has interceded to offer help and wonderful advice. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=History of the rosary}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Extensive discussion, examples and citations on talk page which are met with either mockery or straw man distractions. How do you think we can help? Please have an admin examine the edits, the disputed content and the conduct of the editors and render a decision. Wikipedia rules are being abused in this matter as it is now. Djathinkimacowboy 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History of the rosary discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am not even sure it is worth my time to comment on the claims here, given that the 1920s source from Wells used by Djathin is out of date, and contradicts the recently published WP:RS sources already in the article. And he said he has not even read the 1920s source he added, but used a non-RS website that said it had summarized the source. In any case, initially, I did not delete his source, but kept it, touched it up and asked for a page number and a second source to confirm it. When he said he had not even read the source he was adding, the statement had to be deleted given that had not even read his source. And the use of the words "folly" and "height of stupidity" in his very first post on the talk page to refer to others did not help. In any case, a large debate about a 1920s non-WP:RS source the editor had not even read but wanted to insert? Go figure... History2007 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 says: "And the use of the words 'folly' and 'height of stupidity' ..." These refer to edits, ideas and actions at the article. I did not call anyone a "fool" or "stupid". This does not violate personal attacks as History2007 would like you to believe, and I take tremendous exception to History's repeated attempts to blacken my name as an editor. Djathinkimacowboy 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 says above: "And he said he has not even read the 1920s source he added, but used a non-RS website that said it had summarized the source." This is a lie. I posted no such thing, merely noting that I did not at present have any copies of Wells' works on hand. Again the editor claims: "In any case, initially, I did not delete his source, but kept it, touched it up and asked for a page number and a second source to confirm it." while technically true, this was done deliberately to make further editing more difficult. There was obviously no good faith in this action. "When he said he had not even read the source he was adding, the statement had to be deleted given that had not even read his source." Another flat lie. I call to everyone's attention this editor's proclivity to lie in the face of obvious posts that will refute his false statements. Djathinkimacowboy 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) How I just love these deep Wikipedia discussions.... It is a great way to spend one's life... History2007 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) To call attention to another matter: my now-gone copies of Wells' works were older editions. History2007's demand[2] for either a page number or reversion of edit was both unfair and against Wikipedia ruling, which suggests but does not require a page numbered-reference. Djathinkimacowboy 15:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Edit warring diffs for reference: The proof to an intent to start edit warring by History2007 begins here[3] with the 1st removal of my appropriate good-faith edit. It continues here[4] - please note the separate edit but History2007's edit summary. Then here[5] is the 2nd reversion of my reinstated edit. Note the language of the edit is streamlined and more neutral, but was deleted again anyway. It is clear this editor was risking a great deal, in order to trick me into crossing the 3RR rubicon, which I did not. If you consult the edit here[6], you will see the unhealthy, aggressive obsession the two editors have with this section. Djathinkimacowboy 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) A sense of being baited: Please consult here[7] for the contributions of Rwflammang, so you may see what he thinks of the whole issue. Without proving his POV of course. I'd like it noted that this whole thing is clearly a joke to both these editors, Rwflammang and History2007. Djathinkimacowboy 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 just posted this at the talk page: "By the way, Rwflammang, how about the plot we hatched against Julius Caesar a few years ago in Rome... that was some caper.. was it not? But just to clarify things for the last time hopefully, the first two references in the article, both go against Well's statement. And they are both recent WP:RS sources. Not to mention the other refs in the article that also do not support Wells - a 1920s, less than RS source which ha snot even been read for a while and id quoted from memory or a non-RS source... Go figure... History2007 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)" ... and I rest my case. I will not comment further on the spectacularly juvenile actions of these editors. Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) This[8] ought to be considered when evaluating the insulting, condescending nonsense of these two editors. It must be plain by now that they can neither refute the fact and citation I wanted to add, nor can they erect straw men quickly enough to cover their tracks. I must enquire: is anyone else going to comment, and is anyone going to assist with the insulting abuses at the article? For myself, I do not care if they convert the thing to a Satanic ode; my concern now is the way they are attempting to own the article and bully anyone who comes near. This is what sickens me about Wikipedia and its processes. Djathinkimacowboy 22:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Elen of the Roads If Djathinkimacowboy does not desist with the personal attacks on the other two editors, I can see administrator action occurring shortly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Elen, I am attacking no one here and you know it. Or if you don't know it, you're not reading. If you're not reading, are you not simply attacking me here? That is how I see it. Djathinkimacowboy 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I've been following Djathinkimacowboy's edits after a recent incident, and I'm seeing some very disturbing behavior - nearly every time this editor finds himself in conflict with others, I see him immediately take an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending tone, such as this inappropriate warning issued today after an editor revertedon of his edits, this personal attack on an editor who disagreed with him, or this "warning" he issued me after I had made *one* edit on an article he deemed his own. This editor has shown clear problems with WP:OWN recently, and his behaviour has beem, IMHO, in need of a check for some time. This current "report" of his seems like an elaborate plot to silence another set of editors whose only apparent "crime" was to contradict or oppose Djathinkimacowboy's ideas of what an article should say. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC) You are following nothing, or you'd be seeing nothing "disturbing", Mike. My edits have been routine and fairly mellow. Hard work to get along with editors who want to get along - I try to avoid those who won't get along. I this case, you are merely shadowing Elen as you two often do. But you are not doing your homework in this matter, and I ask that you both do so before commenting further. And I object to your dragging up an old case that did not go the way you and your friend wanted it to go. Djathinkimacowboy 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC) A modest, honest word about the above two editors, if I may. They were involved in a past episode and seem immediately hostile to my intentions here. No checking, no research, just immediate retribution for having the gall to bring a case ... or shall I say they advocate "administrator action ocurring shortly". Take it from whom it comes is all I ask. The mention of user Erikeltic should be enough of a clue, because that issue did not go so well for him or for me. It is a simple matter: close this and throw it out, or pursue it. I will not be the chew toy of those two editors again .... Djathinkimacowboy 04:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I only need to point out Djathinkimacowboy's response to make my point. It's never his fault, it's always a conspiracy. Okay then. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion by Chzz It would help if you could state, more clearly, what the dispute is and what specific action you are requesting. From what I gather, you are asking about this. There is a searchable copy of Wells 1922 edition here. Searching it seems to indicate it does not mention "rosary" or "rosaries". Am I missing something? I see nothing wrong with the edit by History2007 here - it seems entirely appropriate, and a good-faith effort towards resolution. Djathinkimacowboy should not have added the fact back [9] without discussion and consensus. I agree with Rwflammang and History2007 that that reference is inadequate for that specific claim. If you could locate more modern and more authoritative reliable source, then it could be reconsidered. At this stage, it looks like there is no consensus for the edit, so I suggest it is left out of the article. I see no evidence that the users are "rejecting valid, cited material in order to lay claim to ownership of the article". I remind all parties that the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article; it is not an appropriate place to warn other editors. Quoting from WP:TPG, Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.  Chzz  ►  10:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Small note: I removed Alpha_Quadrant (talk · contribs) from the "Parties involved" listed in the header of this dispute [10]. I see that Djathinkimacowboy asked him to comment on this matter, and that of course is fine; his comments would be welcome; however, he is not a user involved with the actual dispute.  Chzz  ►  11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by complainant I yield to the findings of CHZZ. What I originally raised here was the unfair removal of a cited significant fact, but as I stated, I do not have the copy of Wells' original 1920, 2-volume work, thus I cannot give a page number. CHZZ, the bartleby link you have is to Wells' toned-down Short History of 1922, which is why I did not use that at all. Djathinkimacowboy 15:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) No worries, we will let bygones be bygones and move on. History2007 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Clerk Comment: It appears that the complaintant has agreed to a resolution. Hearing no objections I'll close down the discussion in a day from this comment. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag of Western Sahara

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? If you look at the edit history of this page, you'll see it's primarily a history of reverting between edits making it a two-item list consisting of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Flag of Morocco and edits redirecting it to the first of those two links. The entire page history looks like one big edit war. I opened an RfC in March, and presented three options for the page: Deletion as patent nonsense, as given the subject is a geographic territory, it has no flag Disambiguation, or a two-item list, containing the two flags used in the region (see example) Redirecting to one of the two links listed (see example) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Night w (talk · contribs) Reisio (talk · contribs) NickCT (talk · contribs) Omar-Toons (talk · contribs) Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) Tachfin (talk · contribs) Xiquet (talk · contribs) Zscout370 (talk · contribs) Koavf (talk · contribs)  I've included pretty much every major editor involved in the page. The most recent editors involved are the first six. The user with by far the largest number of edits is Reisio, who appears to be involved in almost every instance of warring on the page, including the latest. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)  Done. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Flag of Western Sahara}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The RfC was closed without consensus in March. The edit warring stopped, but has started up again today. How do you think we can help? The purpose of this page needs to be determined with a solid consensus so that this activity can stop. Any neutral opinions is most welcome, as is any advice about other forums to seek assistance, although it'd be good if we could come to a decision here. Nightw 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Flag of Western Sahara discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Only one acceptable solution Simply put, only one flag is intended to represent Western Sahara, so that is the flag of Western Sahara. If some other entity(ies) don't think of it as representing the territory, that's fine--it's not Wikipedia's place to declare that it is or isn't the official or approved flag of the territory, it's our place to say that someone created a flag that is supposed to represent it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi everyone, and thanks for posting the dispute here. It looks like this dispute has already been well-debated, and that it has been going on for some time, so let me see if I have the facts straight here. The real-world facts pertinent to this dispute seem to be the following: The flag in question is used by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, but it was also in use in the area before it was adopted by them The geographical area of Western Sahara is disputed territory, currently mostly controlled by Morocco, with the remainder controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic who are exiled in Algeria I think the deletion option is an obvious non-starter, as the term "flag of the Western Sahara" is fairly likely to be searched for, and readers searching for that are probably looking for valid information on which we have articles; so the page should probably have something in it. So we are left with the other two options, redirection and disambiguation/list article. There do seem to be cases for both positions. On the one hand, the redirect option is supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - not many people who are searching for "flag of the Western Sahara" are likely to be looking for the flag of Morocco. On the other hand, the disambiguate/list option is a valid attempt to uphold the neutral point of view policy, as we don't want to give the impression that the flag is an official flag of the territory in question, when it is in fact disputed. In many naming disputes there is no clear best position to take, and discussion can go round in circles for years in some cases. In this case, however, I think we can have our cake and eat it. In my opinion, it is possible to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and still keep a neutral point of view, if we do the following: Redirect Flag of Western Sahara to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Include a hatnote at the top of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic leading to Flag of Morocco. Edit the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article so that its disputed status is clearer. At the moment the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article does not seem to be at all neutral, as should be apparent from phrasing like "When the country gains independence by means of a referendum and is internationally recognized ...". If we can do a proper job of maintaining neutrality in this article, then I hope that redirecting to it will be a lot more palatable to editors who have been in favour of the disambiguation/list option. Please let me know if I have made any errors in my assessment, and I would love to hear what you think of my suggestion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC) There was an RfC, outcome was keep status quo. I've reverted to the RfC's outcome; now if you want to discuss this again, go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, I read the RfC discussion, and according to SlimVirgin, who was asked to close it, there was no clear consensus for a change. That is not the same thing as "keep the status quo", so it's probably not a good idea to keep reverting while this discussion is underway. I am making a suggestion that I hope will be palatable to both users who were in favour of redirecting and users who were in favour of disambiguation, and I'd really like to know what you think of it. As you seem to be in favour of redirecting, I would be particularly interested in hearing what you think of my suggestion of putting a hatnote on the top of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and editing the article to make it more neutral. Looking forward to your input — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Hello Mr. Stradivarius, and my thanks for taking on this mammoth dispute which has largely been ignored by everyone but those Night w listed, who virtually cancel each other out. I was tempted to endorse your proposal, because of hat notes being merely what they are, and because it would be a form of compromise that also mostly stuck to the status quo, which is not incredibly terrible at present. My worry, however, is that a hat note referring to Morocco at the top of flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would be a way for people to bring this dispute to even that specifically named article, and it would just go on and on until Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic itself became a divided article half devoted to Morocco. Few people have stuck with this dispute for as long as I have, you see, and most might not recognize one side's blatant lies for what they are, because they weren't there and why should they sift through years of edit histories to find out the truth. For example Night w recently said that the "disambiguated" version "has been the version since the page's creation", and while I remember clearly that it was not, everyone else not completely accepting his edit as one in good faith would have to dig back to the beginning to see it as the lie it is. These people will say anything, and they will take whatever tiny advances they can get. You see flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic used to be at flag of Western Sahara for years. The move to where it is now and implementation of a redirect itself was a compromise brought about by certain people and their agenda, but that wasn't enough for them, they're still at it even now. What assurance is there that after some action taken as a result of this discussion they will not keep going. Will you be there the next time to remember? I doubt it. I'm sorry but I for one cannot assist in the continuance of this POV spread. No one is going to type in "flag of Western Sahara" looking for information about Morocco. No one, ever. The idea is ludicrous. A compromise at this point is not a compromise, it's just another step in the victory of their agenda. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Reisio, and thank you for your comment. First of all, please comment on the content, not the contributor. Remarks such as "one side's blatant lies" and "these people will say anything" are really not helping this dispute. Please realise that you will need to compromise to resolve this dispute, so you should probably start getting used to the idea now. As for your concerns about the content, I think a hatnote is necessary for a) resolving the dispute, and b) for the small percentage of users who would be looking for the flag of Morocco. As the flag of the country that is currently controlling the region, it is not unbelievable, and indeed if you dig deeper into the Google Images search that you linked to above, you will actually find images of the Moroccan flag. Regarding the name, it may indeed be the case that we should have the article at Flag of Western Sahara rather than Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This depends on what the common name for the flag is, and not so much according to whether the flag is official or not. In fact, I just did a quick google search, and I get 800,000 hits for "Flag of Western Sahara", and only 140,000 hits for "Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", so I think you are probably right. We should move the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article to Flag of Western Sahara, and have a hatnote at the top of the article there. I hope this will still be acceptable to the users who previously opted for the disambiguation/list option - as I see it, the key to the neutrality of this solution is in the editing of the flag's article itself. So, about the editing part, here's what I envision. In addition to the hatnote, I think we should clearly mention the disputed nature of the territory in the lead section of the article. This should definitely be a couple of sentences long, or maybe a paragraph if necessary. Also, we should have a section in the body of the article devoted to the dispute, after the sections describing the flag itself and its history. This section should have a {{main}} link to a relevant article, probably Legal status of Western Sahara. I trust that between yourselves you can craft a section that satisfies everyone, but even if you have problems with this, that is not in itself a reason to abandon this solution. After all, dispute resolution will still be around, so you can always just file another post at this noticeboard. I hope I've addressed all of your concerns, but let me know if there is still an aspect of this solution which is bothering you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I don't actually see moving the content back to flag of Western Sahara as a compromise at all, but a step back towards where we never should have left in the first place, so to that specifically I am not opposed. Nor am I opposed to a hatnote at an article at flag of Western Sahara, but to one at flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with the current redirect in place. I see "a section in the body of the article devoted to the dispute" as inviting further dispute. There are a great many articles on Western Sahara and the various names and things associated with it, and many of them have such a section, and each section of each article must be monitored vigilantly to preserve NPOV despite the bulk of each article not being about the conflict itself. While I do think the article content should be at flag of Western Sahara, I don't think putting it back there will do anything for resolving this dispute (which of course is not by itself a good reason to not do it, merely an observation); IMO it will probably accelerate it. To be clear: I do not oppose your proposal, but doubt it will do much to end this dispute. Thanks again just for your participation. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) For the record, Reisio, we can all see the edit history and see that this is not the case. When the page was effectively moved to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in September 2007 by Zscout370 and "certain people and their agenda", this article was reincarnated as this version, which remained stable until you redirected it (two years later) in July 2009, and continued to do so—in January 2010, September 2010, November 2010, February 2011 and finally yesterday, after being reverted every time. In addition, please read up on assuming good faith of your fellow editors. I have never accused you of harbouring an "agenda", etcetera, and as you have no proof that I do, please afford me the same respect. Nightw 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you, Stradivarius, for your suggestion. I think it is a good suggestion overall, though I would like to hear what some of the other participants think, as many have not been active since yesterday. The most accurate solution in my opinion is deletion, as the idea of an apolitical territory having a flag is absurd, but that will likely hinder navigation. I'd actually like to see Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic moved to Sahrawi flag, as it represents many things to do with that nation (not just the state). For optimal aid to navigation, redirecting the page in question there would be a good idea, as long as a hatnote is maintained for the ambiguous term. Nightw 03:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I'm glad to hear that you like my suggestion. As for the precise article name, we can work that out later by a requested move if it is going to be disputed. The important part to agree on for now is my suggestion of the redirect/hatnote/editing solution. Let's wait and see what the other participants think about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 04:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Sure, the proposal is completely acceptable. I don't even see that much of a difference... As long as it's a redirect, some sorta headnote would even clarify things. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Great, so that's three editors definitely on board, and from Koavf's position it looks like he's on board too. So we still need to hear from NickCT, Omar-Toons, Tachfin, Xiquet, and Zscout370. I think I'll wait another day, and then I'll post a message on their talk pages if they haven't responded. If they then don't get back to us within a reasonable timeframe - say 1 week, so by the 4th December - then I'll go ahead and implement the change. If anyone disagrees, then we can take my suggestion to RfC and see if that makes consensus for it clearer. Does that sound like a good plan? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. You can probably cross Xiquet off that list, as it doesn't look like he's been active for a few months. Nightw 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. Good plan. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Comment from NickCT - I for one do not like the proposed solution. I appreciate Mr. Stradivarius's WP:COMMONNAME argument, and as a fan of commonname I think it has merit. Several counterpoints; 1) The only reason that the common name for flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (FoSADR) is "flag of Western Sahara" is b/c no one has any idea what the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is (i.e. these guys aren't particularly notable), and so it's much easier to call their flag the "flag of Western Sahara". I mention this, b/c I think it speaks to the "common biases and limitations" clause of Wikipedia:Search engine test. As a sidenote, I tried to find other examples where a common name flag isn't the actual recognized flag of a region but came up empty handed. I thought Flag of Tibet would be promising, but apparently the flag of Tibet is still recognized by the Chinese government. 2) WP:N would probably say we should display both flags. Note in other examples of disputed territories (e.g. Flag of Abkhazia, Flag of Northern Ireland) we display both flags. 3) Probably most importantly, there is WP:V. I doubt many will disagree that the FoSADR is simply not a widely and/or officially recognized Flag of Western Sahara. Using the FoSADR article would imply that it is, and as such, would simply be wrong. 4) While I appreciate WP:NPA, I think a quick review of the edit history of Flag of Western Sahara, will show that one editor has continuously, over a period of years, pointed Flag of Western Sahara to FoSADR while ignoring the objections of a whole slew of other editors. Seems like WP:SOAPBOXing to me. I respectfully suggest that if that one editor didn't keep slow motion edit warring, this topic wouldn't be up for WP:DR. Conclusion - I'm not going to strenuously object here. I think Stradivarius has done a good job trying to find WP:N, and I could live with some kind of heavily qualified hat note at the top of the article. That said, I think more ideal solution solution would be a well crafted RfC, that encourages more response than the previous RfC we had for this topic. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. I don't understand why the option of deleting has been so hastily cast aside when it could so easily solve the dilemma. Yes, people are likely to search for "Flag of Western Sahara", but they are equally or more likely to search for "History of Western Sahara", "Culture of Western Sahara" or any of the other things that are sections of Western Sahara. Why not merge and redirect both articles to a section titled simply "Flag"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC) For the same reasons moving the article content back from flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to flag of Western Sahara will not stop this dispute. The issue is that one side believes the flag exists on its own and is commonly named "flag of Western Sahara" regardless of who controls the majority of the territory, and the other side thinks the name "flag of Western Sahara" applies only to the flag of the nation currently controlling more than 50% of the territory regardless of history and convention. I have no objection to redirecting to a section of Western Sahara as long as it is clearly stated that this image — — or "the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" has been known as and continues to be referred to by name as "the flag of Western Sahara", even if it is also stated that it is currently more formally named the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, even if it is also stated that the area occupied by Morocco uses the Moroccan flag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC) If it was in a section of the Western Sahara article, both sides of that could be explained, without having an article title that might seem to take a side in the dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Makes sense to me, I just foresee opposition to acknowledging the name being used for that particular flag, even if it is clearly explained. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) re "Why not merge and redirect both articles to a section titled simply "Flag"?" - I think that a potentially good solution. NickCT (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Flag of Western Sahara shouldn't redirect to Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, no more than Western Sahara should redirect to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. They are two separate distinct things. Re common name, if I search for Flag of Northern Ireland then I'm certainly not looking for the Union Flag (flown there officially) but for the Ulster Banner (used in sport events) and it's good to land on an article that isn't a redirect to neither and learn that it wasn't what I thought it would be. An encyclopedia is about accuracy (including in nomenclature) not about accommodating people in whatever misconception they might have had. Furthermore, there are more flags used to represent Western Sahara, than the one of Morocco and SADR; there is also historically the Spanish Francoist/colonial flag, regionally the Saguia El Hamra and Wad Ed-Dahab flags, probably even Morocco's old flags in parts of the territory and "Khat Shahid", a rival group of the Polisario (The current gov of the SADR), might as well use another flag variation. Flag articles aren't only about the current flag that often changes over time even in undisputed territories, the one of the SADR is the POLISARIO flag and never changed. So the proposed solution is a good faith attempt but it fails to address these points, additionally a hatnote about Morocco in the SADR article is inappropriate as they are entirely unambiguous (they don't even share one syllable), even if adopted I give it at best a month before being removed by good faith IPs/editors or emotionally driven editors who would rightfully say that it is completely unambiguous with Morocco. I suggest two proposals: Keep it as it is and expand to include the historical and regional flag + a hatnote about the SADR flag (I don't see how that would hurt or POV-pushes anybody's side) Redirect to Western Sahara, or a section there about the flags used in it. Tachfin (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I'll support either of those options. But to me, having a section in Western Sahara about a flag seems about as absurd as the redirect itself. It also seems a little undue in such a high-priority article—no other country article that I've seen has a section on flags. A better place for such a section might be Legal status of Western Sahara or Politics of Western Sahara. Please note that this also extends to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, currently a redirect. Nightw 12:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Concur with Night. I prefer Tachfin's option 1, though option 2 seems feasible. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Just as a general note: I think the reason why this redirect or article exists in the first place is because of the stupid standard template {{Flags of Africa}} which is based upon a geographic template and mindlessly produces the same list, regardless of topic. There are many of them, and so people think the redlink must be filled. I remember I once sent something about "Islam on the Faroe Islands" or some such to AfD, which was an article about the one Muslim family there (result was 100% delete). What I'm saying is unless this (and other templates) are changed, there will always be a redlink begging for people to recreate it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Some of my favourites are Military of Navassa Island and Sport in the Vatican City. An {{#ifexist}} clause to Western Sahara on {{Africa topic}} should stop more of these redirects being created, at least for that country. Nightw 03:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The template/redlink issue is a good point Seb az86556. I don't see why we couldn't omit Western Sahara from the template though.... NickCT (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) My preference goes for options 1, but failing that option 2 should be acceptable, I concur that a whole section about a flag isn't appropriate so other redirect variations (politics/status etc) can work. Same goes for coat of Arms there are many used for the territory not just that of the SADR. The fact that WS and SADR are distinct should be understood. When writing Western Sahara reliable sources speak of the territory, not the SADR (which claims it). Not sure why some would insist that the two must be confused here. Especially when we clearly have material that would be relevant to Western Sahara and not the SADR. --Tachfin (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) As I said before, I'll happily support either of those two options. Although would the title still be appropriate in the possessive? Nightw 04:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Mmm...maybe something like Flags of Puerto Rico is more appropriate. --Tachfin (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Thinking about this dispute some more, I think the next logical step would be to take it to another RfC. It seems clear that we won't be able to reach a consensus on these pages, and comments at this noticeboard are not binding in any way; that sort of thing is usually better handled by RfC. I did consider referring this to MedCom, but SlimVirgin's comments in the last RfC have persuaded me that another RfC with clearer wording could do the job just as well. I recommend giving a short history of the dispute, and then listing three or four choices for participants to choose from. Giving too many choices will make it a lot harder to find consensus, so less is definitely more in this case. Would anyone like to volunteer to draft the RfC for us? I suggest doing it at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara/RfC draft, so that anyone can update it, and discussing the draft on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara so that other editors can see the discussion. Once we agree that the statement of the dispute is neutral and the options to choose from are clear, then we can put it up live on the talk page. How does this sound? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I feel as though we're already getting close to a consensus here. We've got three suggestions. Tachfin, Nick and myself would seem to prefer an all-inclusive article, but we've each stated that we're willing to accept FormerIP's suggestion for a redirect to another article (legal status or politics). I'd like to hear what Seb and the others think of those options. Reisio has opposed all suggestions that have been made; he's currently blocked, but I'm hoping for a miracle that he'll support something on his return. Nightw 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Actually (as those who have actually read my contributions to this discussion already know), I have not opposed a single proposal from mediating parties. Not even one.  :) "Funny" how you read it as I opposed them all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I'd love to be able to agree with you, but I notice that the three editors who have been in favour of the redirect/main article solution haven't commented on this specific proposal yet. If they agree to redirect the page to a "flag" section or another article, then that will be our problem solved, but I think it might be unwise to jump the gun. I think I'll try the same trick as last time - I'll wait for a day, and then post messages on their talk pages, and if there's no reply after a week then we can take action. I don't think we can quite claim a consensus in the absence of their commenting, though, so if there's no reply then we should probably retire to the article's talk page and prepare an RfC. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Sounds fine. I wasn't meaning to claim any kind of consensus, just that I think one seems like it could be within reach without a further DR step. Thanks for sticking with this by the way! Nightw 13:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Just a bit of history, at the early stages of Wikipedia, there were attempts to associate "Western Sahara" with the flag of the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" as if they were the same thing, consensus has been against such practice (Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote). This discussion is an example of the remnants of such attempts, though for me the issue has little to do with NPOV but more with encyclopedic precision; no RS ever called the flag of the SADR, flag of Western Sahara as the two are two separate things. If we're willing to allow such a degree of hand waving, then we'd better just redirect anything "Western Sahara" to "SADR" or vice versa. Tachfin (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Tach - That initial RfC at Western Sahara you pointed to is really relevant and helpful. Thanks. It should be noted that this exact discussion, concerning which flag should represent Western Sahara, was had in 2005. That RfC had a reasonable response and seemed to suggest the most desirable result was that no flag should be used, or failing that, that both flags should be used. There was very little support for using either the Moroccan or SADR flag alone. I argue that Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote is our best demonstration of consensus on this issue, and that until someone demonstrates otherwise, we should yield to the opinion held in that RfC. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure which discussion you think we've been having, but it isn't about which flag represents "Western Sahara"; it's about a flag long known by the name "flag of Western Sahara", where it goes, and what other information to be included is appropriate. Perhaps this misunderstanding is at the root of this dispute. What the vote you've referred to was on is clearly stated in the very first line of the page. Furthermore you appear to not understand what consensus is. I'll give you a hint: it isn't what some people six years ago decided about something else. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Hey Reisio, how's this for a hint. Consensus isn't what you want to be. "decided about something else" is clearly a gross mischaracterization. They were deciding which flag should be used in association with Western Sahara. As are we. Sure it was six years ago. Feel free to demonstrate that consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I think Reisio is alluding to the fact that because this is a debate over an article title (or redirect), we have rules that come into effect that weren't relevant to the 2005 discussion - namely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Although at first glance the debate may seem to be the same, because of these rules the issues are slightly different this time round. As we have at least one editor that is not in favour of redirecting to a flag section in Western Sahara or similar, I again recommend having another RfC so that all the issues can be discussed in an organized fashion. I can have a go at drafting such an RfC if you want - let me know if this would be acceptable or not. In any case, it definitely looks as if we won't be solving this issue here, so I will go ahead and close the thread unless there are any objections. The final choice about the next form of dispute resolution you want to pursue is something for the participants to decide, however. As I said before, your basic choices at this stage are RfC or MedCom. Let me know if you have any more questions about these. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC) If that's what we're deciding, this discussion has no point. The article Western Sahara doesn't have a flag on it, and I'm not aware of anyone here that wants to change that (or that wants to change it and thinks they can actually get away with it). Would you like to talk about anything else? Like maybe what this dispute is over? ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC) @Reisio - This dispute is about what flag is most appropriately associated with Western Sahara, and was the 2005 discussion. Your only argument here seems to be commonname. WP:V trumps WP:COMMONNAME. You cannot verify the SADR flag is the flag of Western Sahara, b/c it isn't. If we were to indiscriminately redirect article titles to the articles whose subject those titles were most often applied to, we'd end up redirecting things like Ignoramus to Idiot (or perhaps your user page), instead of what Ignoramus verifiably is (i.e. a 17th century play). NickCT (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) @Strad - I said earlier I was for an RfC, and I still am. It would be nice if you worked on one, but failing that, I will see if I can work up the motivation to do it. Let's give all parties a chance to comment on draft RfCs before launching them. NickCT (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Now, now, let's avoid the personal attacks. There's nothing that gets in the way of resolving disputes quite like focusing on commentators rather than content. Also, don't forget that your contributions will always be preserved for everyone to see, and if this dispute ever ends up going to one of our conduct dispute resolution venues, then there is every chance that the diffs could get dragged up. I'm glad that you're still in favour of the RfC idea, and it looks increasingly like that is how we will be going ahead here. I'll leave this thread open until tomorrow for others to comment, and then I'll close it and have a go at writing a draft version. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Montrose Star

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Montrose Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Hacking and malicious attacking of individuals Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 173.11.165.225 (talk · contribs) Tracy.tek (talk · contribs) ShreveNewsMan (talk · contribs) Lvillagrantx (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Montrose Star}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes, on talk page, I have reversed the edits. How do you think we can help? The above article is being hacked by the owner (or owners representatives) and targeting individuals that used to be involved with that business. Can this page be watched more aggressively or block that IP from making those edits. I have had to do 4 "undo's" so far in one day. Or maybe lock the page? Apparently, several people left this particular publication and started their own newspaper, and they are using Wikipedia to defame them. NewsManJustin (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Montrose Star discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi ShreveNewsMan, and thanks for posting here. I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble with other editors on the page, and I can sympathise. It's never nice when editing doesn't go how you want it to. It's probably worth bearing in mind that the other editors are both new, and so probably don't know their way around Wikipedia yet, and that the best way to go about this might just be to point them in the direction of our policy pages. Before we delve into that dispute, however, I think that there is a bigger problem here - notability. There aren't any reliable third party sources in the article at the moment, and I couldn't find any mentions on Google News or Google Books apart from a couple of references to the newspaper in passing.[11][12] I'm afraid that if no reliable third-party sources about the newspaper exist, then the article does not pass Wikipedia's guideline on notability, and should, unfortunately, be deleted. I recommend reading the notability guideline and the essay on notability of media, and then trying to find sources about the newspaper. Maybe there are sources from back in the 1970s that haven't made their way online yet? Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top Chef (season 8)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Top Chef (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? In the TV show Top Chef 8, in episode "The final supper" the words "Richard, you are the winner" was not said. Therefore one editor User:Drmargi claims that the show is the ultimate source and Richard can not be declarde the winner. In the next episode it was clearly stated that Richard was the winner, and there are primary and secondary sources stating that he did win. I therefore suggest that it should be stated on the page that he did win. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Drmargi (talk · contribs) Stefan (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Top Chef (season 8)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? See talk page, about 75 edits, 8 months. Talk:Top_Chef_(season_8)#No_winner_in_last_supper.3F.3F How do you think we can help? Give second persons opinion on what policies say on topic, primary and secondary sources. --Stefan talk 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Top Chef (season 8) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The problem with Stefan's version of events is that he is trying to create a scenario that allows him to say that something that did not happen in Episode 15 in fact, did, based on his interpretation (key word) of what he saw, the events of Episode 16 and the network's blog. Everything he cites can be documented as part of the proceedings of Episode 16, but none of it accurately describes what we actually saw in Episode 16. What he cannot say, no matter how he tries to spin events and sources, is that Richard was declare the winner in Episode 15 because it didn't happen. There's no possible way, moreover, to provide a reliable source to verify that something happened that simply did not. If editors would step back from the fan aspect of the show and simply look at it from the point of view of recounting of events, it's clear as glass, and there should be no dispute. But most can't, and they're determined to use outside and secondary sources to say the Emperor has the finest clothes in the land, when in fact, he has no clothes. End of story. Drmargi (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I did not hear the judges declare Richard the winner (in that episode), but I saw him win and I heard him being declared the winner in the next episode. But this is my interpretation, yours is different, both is WP:OR and that is why we should not do OR and use sources instead, I have multiple sources, you have your interpretation of the topic, what I want here is someone else to state that the policies state that we should interpret topics or use sources, simple. Read WP:VNT, if we had a emperor and all the most reliable sources stated that he had the finest clothes wikipedia policies state that we should write that he has the fines clothes, sorry I do not like that but that is how wikipedia works, and most of the time it is the best. --Stefan talk 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Clerkish note: I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. Three things: First, is this (let's call it Edit A) what is in question here, or has that been partially settled and only this (Edit B) still in issue? Both are still issues. --Stefan talk 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Second, considering the wall-'o-text at the article talk page, could someone please provide a list here of the sources, with links to them, which are being claimed to be reliable sources for the "Richard wins in 15" assertion? We know the episode itself is being claimed as a source, but are there others as well? References: Wall street journal 'blog' (secondary) Bravotv (Primary) Bravotv (primary). Third, is there a place on the Web where Episode 15 can be freely viewed (and where its existence there is not an open and obvious copyright violation)? Without that, it's going to be really hard for us here at DRN to help with the episode-as-source claim. There used to be a link at bravotv site, but I cannot find it now, the link did only work in the US. There is no argument that the judges did not say "Richard you are the winner", those words are said in all other episodes, but not in this. The issue is that since this was not verbally stated in that episode, should we use other sources and if so are they of 'higher' quality that interpreting the show itself. --Stefan talk 02:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Comments on Edit A and B Edit A is a revert that reverts 2 things, both the wording about the episode and the table. Edit B is a revert back of the table that have been stable on the page for 2 months and since drmargi claimed that she could do BRD reverts, I tried to claim the same. The episode description have been discussed a lot on the talk page and boils down to that Richard was not declared winner with words in that episode, therefore Drmargi claims that he should not be stated as winner. The table talks about the whole show and in the next episode Richard was declared the winner for the previous episode, therefore I tried to come to an agreement that the table could be updated (see the "baby steps" comments on talk page) I got no response and did that change long time ago, now drmargi reverted again, I still do not know what is wrong with updating the table. --Stefan talk 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC) More questions for both editors: @Drmargi: Do you disagree that Richard was unmistakeably identified — note that I do not say "declared" — in Episode 16 as the winner of Episode 15? @Stefan: You say "in the next episode Richard was declared the winner for the previous episode"; how was he so declared? In speech, on a leader board, or how? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Padma said something like "Richard, you WON the last challenge, so you get to pick first" --Stefan talk 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Comment from someone somewhat involved I came upon the page accidentally while looking for the current season, and I noticed the disputed tag. Considering that's an absurd tag to have on the page of a TV show, I decided to read on. This "discussion" has been going on for nearly nine months with most involved parties agreeing that Richard won, but Drmargi persists in reverting anyone who edits the page and insists that the absurd tag remain. Here are some key points: Drmargi seems to be making the issue personal by falsely assuming that anyone who believes the various sources declaring Richard as the winner are simply fans who aren't holding the article to an encyclopedic standard, going so far as to state it is a "fan hivemind" disagreeing with her. Drmargi's argument is that the word "winner" wasn't said during the episode. Well, the show does not use a standard phrase for every episode to announce the winner. It was clear, based on the format of this particular episode, that Richard was the winner of the elimination challenge. For anyone who had difficulty determining this very obvious fact, it was stated multiple times afterwards by various sources close to the show. As noted above, while the words "Richard, you are the winner," or "the winner is Richard," were not stated during this episode: his dish was chosen as the best and he was the first to move on to the finals, the show's website lists him as the winner on the season's scorecard [13] the show's website lists his dish as the winner [14] Chef Rick Moonen recreates "Richard Blaise's winning dish" [15] Gail Simmons (a judge on the show) posted an interview of her by BravoTV.com on her blog, during which she wrote: "He did the best without question." [16] Wall Street Journal blog recapping the episode states, "Richard is given the win." [17] on the following episode, Padma says something along the lines of, "Richard, as the winner of the last challenge, you get to pick first." Furthermore, of the 14 people who have taken part in the wall-o-text, 11 believe Richard was the winner while only 3 believe there was no winner. Winner: Stephan, Le Duf, Norbytherobot, HumilityOnWiki-IWish, 24.25.191.242, 173.54.3.124, 140.247,153.237, DragonofFire, Malpine, myself, and GerardW. No winner: Drmargi, 199.36.244.11, and 121.73.75.243. Lara 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) As I noted above, I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I realize that Drmargi has not answered my last question asked above, but I see from this edit that she tacitly admits that Padma, the show's host, referred to Richard as the winner of Episode 15 in Episode 16. That, in my opinion, is a sufficient, if primary, source for calling Richard the winner of that episode in the article. (The fact that the show based an action on that identification, i.e. by allowing him to go first in Episode 16, confirms that this was not simply a passing statement or chance comment by Padma, but that confirmation is not necessary to make the source reliable.) I also am of the opinion that the listing on the show's official website is also, and independently, a sufficient reliable (if again primary) source to call him the winner. (I express no opinion about the other offered sources or about the question of whether the use of the term winner has been allowed by consensus.) It does not appear that Episode 16 had occurred the last time this issue went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard though the scorecard was up on the show's website at that time. Independent editor Nuujinn has already opined in that discussion that there were already enough reliable sources to identify Richard as the winner of Episode 15. If the controversy continues after this DRN discussion, I would suggest taking the issue back to RSN for an evaluation of the additional sources and, should that fail or prove unsatisfactory to anyone, then to the Mediation Cabal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I didn't answer your question for the simple reason I didn't discern a question directed at me, nor did I have time for more than a couple quick looks in the last few days. But never mind: hivemind wins over accuracy, and once again, Wikipedia makes a laughable error, thus furthering its reputation as, well, I don't know what, but not a reliable source for anything but one's amusement. Drmargi (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Comment from someone trying hard not to be involved, (but obviously not hard enough, or I'd just delete it from my Watch List) I really don't want to be involved in this very contentious issue over...Global Warming, Deregulation, appropriate Tax Rates...oh wait, no, Top Chef! But I can't help myself. Just to throw in my part, I too believe the evidence "identified" Richard as the winner. As a compromise back in August I left the Ep 15 alone and adjusted the Ep 16 entry instead to properly reflect the facts that happened in that episode, including Padma's statement. This was undone on Dec 8th, by user: Jennavecia (Lara), understandably because it didn't really make sense to have this in Ep 16 as it was about Ep 15. Personally I'm happy to see it go, as it makes the entry look weird, but without it the Ep 15 entry just looked/(looks) inaccurate. (I have noticed above that the mediator found in favor of Richard being "identified" as the winner in Ep 15 and the Table - so that would make discussion on Ep 16 a moot point if appropriate changes are made). With that said I will attempt to resist my argumentative instincts and bid adieu. With that said, no I won't...some final questions/observations/ramblings: Is this an elaborate experiment by someone doing post doc experimental psychology work. All the back and forth with no real resolution seems like something cruelly manufactured just to test the endurance of human stubbornness or some other cognitive response. Is this your work Milgram? Zimbardo perhaps? Show yourself! (In truth I must recognize WP offers some excellent commentary on the human psyche - even if unintended). I think we must also recognize WP itself as possibly having this intention. It seems eerily like a part of the "Brave New World" Huxley warned us of. From WP's page on the subject, I found some interesting quotes by Neil Postman (comparing BNW and 1984) that seem very relevant: "Huxley feared those who would give us so much [information] that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism...Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance...Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture..." Aaugh! (Charlie Brown scream for affect). Norbytherobot (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I may have just fallen in love. XD Lara 05:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Outside view from Chzz Richard was the winner. There's strong support for that, and it is common sense. Add a footnote to mention this, if absolutely necessary. Stuff this tiger, and move along; otherwise, this is heading for WP:LAME. If people want to waste time on it further, feel free to badger me about it; I don't mind. If you won't accept my own assessment of consensus, we can discuss that further, and let these good folks get on with improving other stuff.  Chzz  ►  08:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insanity defense

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Insanity defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? One registered editor is insisting on including a phrase whose neutrality is disputed, providing no citations and no rationale for inclusion. The statement in question can be found at [diff]. This is coming to DR to prevent an edit war. Both users have reverted several times (though I don't think there has been any violation of 3RR on either side). The neutrality dispute has been taken to the talk page, but the discussion seems to be getting heated and accomplishing little to nothing. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Doc insanity (talk · contribs) Sleddog116 (talk · contribs) The user who continues to add the questioned statement (User:Doc insanity) has been referred to WP policy and guidelines several times, but he becomes defensive when these guidelines are pointed out, resorting to personal attacks on the other involved user. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Insanity defense}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussion on talk page (Talk:Insanity_defense#Rule_of_law_and_insanity) How do you think we can help? Analyze the situation from an uninvolved perspective and determine the best course of action to make the article most neutral. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Insanity defense discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The basis on which Sleddog believes the statement is not neutral has never been articulated to me satisfactorily, despite specific requests. The inappropriate quotation of Wiki policies should not replace a reasonable discussion in which an attempt is made to resolve disputes. The issue I find most puzzling is the basis on which Sleddog has removed the statement. If it is because it's not neutral, then the statement cannot need support. If it needs support, then it cannot be non-neutral. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Any contentious statement can be challenged and removed. It's not official policy, but consider reading WP:Contentious. Simply saying that a statement is not contentious does not make a statement not contentious. As I mentioned on the talk page, implying a lack of respect for human rights/rule of law is loaded terminology (because "human rights" is such a "hot-button" issue) and would need significant support (i.e. citations to reliable sources) to be included in the article, especially in the lead section. How can you demonstrate (through reliable sources that can be cited) that human rights and insanity defense are related? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC) So you're now not saying that the statement is not neutral, but instead that it is not supported? This is what confuses me. The statement is not loaded, because criminal punishment of the insane (however defined) is clearly synonymous with lack of respect for human rights. I can't see any reasonable person disagreeing with that statement personally. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC) The statement is neither neutral nor supported. You said it's "clearly synonymous" but still haven't explained how. You have yet to establish (you have not cited any sources or even attempted to explain) that human rights and insanity defense are related other than by saying "they are because they are." Just because you "can't see any reasonable person disagreeing" doesn't mean that a reasonable person can't disagree. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC) The statement ("All jurisdictions with respect for human rights and the rule of law have some form of insanity defence (whether or not that name is used)") is not only unsupported, it is opinionated editorialising. What is the basis used to assess "respect for human rights"? If there is a jurisdiction somewhere that hasn't been accused at some point in lacking respect for human rights, I'd be most surprised. This comment clearly has no place in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Sleddog116, because it isn't outright vandalism you should have tagged the statement as "Citation Needed" to challenge Doc insanity about the assertion. Doc insanity, do you really think ripping out sections (and the lead) of the article that are cited is an appropraite thing to do in response to someone removing your content? Now, let's all take a step back, use civil edit summaries, and use the talk page to communicate with each other instead of past each other. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC) I didn't remove the statement only because it was uncited; I removed it because it did not appear to be neutral. If the only problem with the statement had been that it wasn't cited, I would have added a tag (Doc insanity and I have discussed this in the past). This was not purely a citation problem however; as AndyTheGrump said, it was (or at least appeared to be) an editorializing statement. Is there a more appropriate tag I could use in such a case? (No sarcasm intended - I mean that as a legitimate question.) Sleddog116 (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC) My DRN colleague, Hasteur, has this right. Citing is the first line of dealing with neutrality issues. As stated in the verifiability policy: To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question... Until a reliable source has been provided, the neutrality of a statement is not in issue because it could be original research and have simply been made up by the editor who introduced it. Once it has been reliably sourced then that source and the context of the edit from that source can be evaluated for neutrality, but until that happens we just don't have enough information to make that evaluation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC) PS: I've notified the editor who originally introduced the edit in 2005, since he's still active here at WP, just in case he might have some insight on this issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC) AndyTheGrump, you're very dogmatic about this. Would you care to explain why you think the statement is opinionated editorialising? Is it the case that every single statement, no matter how basic, needs to be supported by a reference? Somehow I doubt it. It would be very difficult if not nigh on impossible to find an academic reference that directly supports the statement that the insanity defence is an intrinsic part of any reasonable criminal justice system, because the concept is so basic. I can assert with total confidence that you will not find one jurist/legal academic/etc that will state that those who are insane should be held criminally responsible. I can guarantee it. I could add some supporting material, but none that "prove" (which is not the appropriate term for such a topic, but let's not get into epistemology) my statement. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is the case that every assertion introduced into Wikipedia must be supported by a reference if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. This has been challenged. See the verifiability policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC) "Yes, it is the case that every assertion introduced into Wikipedia must be supported by a reference if it is challenged or likely to be challenged." Yes, that's my point - when I inserted the statement I didn't conceive that anyone would challenge it. So there is no exception even for the self-evident? I find this very bizarre. Can anyone reading this seriously say that they think that the insane should face criminal punishment? Would the statement that the insane should be exempt from criminal punishment have to be "proved"? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC) What are you claiming is 'self-evident' though? That "All jurisdictions with respect for human rights and the rule of law have some form of insanity defence"? There is nothing 'self-evident' about that, as it implies that (a) some jurisdictions respect human rights etc, and some don't, and (b) that there is a clear way to distinguish the two, and doing so will allow one to make an assertion regarding their attitude to a defence of insanity. As for a statement that 'X should happen' it isn't something capable of proof - it is opinion, and even if the opinion is universally held, that doesn't make it true. This is beside the point however. Unless you can find a source that backs up the statement, it doesn't belong in the article. Frankly though, I'd be surprised if any such source existed, as it is a sweeping statement of little actual meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Extending the olive branch here - can we all agree, at least, that the present version of the article (with references and whole sections blanked) should be fixed? We can continue to discuss the contentious statement, but is there any reason to leave the article with "ripped out" sections, as Hasteur put it? Sleddog116 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, I'm only commenting on the section referred to in the diff, as that is what the dispute is supposedly about. I can see no reason whatsoever why the remaining deleted material cannot be restored however, as it seems to have been removed with no explanatory edit summary. I suggest that you discuss this on the article talk page though, and we stay on-topic here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) The policy is stated as it is so as to avoid this very argument. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum, but that unlike traditional encyclopedias we do not have a board of professional editors to decide when subjects or assertions should and should not be included. The verifiability policy and no original research policy take the place of those editors and serve as filters of what can and cannot be here. (The neutral point of view policy also serves as a filter, but only becomes an issue once the other two policies, which to some considerable extent are two sides of the same coin, are satisfied.) The very fact that we're having this discussion at this length indicates that there is room for disagreement over this statement. That being the case, the filters kick in and, first, require a source and, second, require it to be reliable (and that's a term that has a very specialized meaning here, not just its dictionary definition, see WP:SOURCES). That's the way Wikipedia avoids becoming either one huge continuous edit war or a repository for whatever anyone wants to add. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) TransporterMan, if the policy is "if anyone voices a disagreement, then the statement, no matter how self-evident, must have a supporting reference", then that is surreal. I'm still getting contradictory messages here. If the statement has little actual meaning (a contention which is not really backed up), then it is not contentious, merely irrelevant. It is a reasonable surmise from the universally accepted notion (no one here has questioned it) that the insane (however defined) should not be liable for criminal punishment that therefore jurisdictions that don't have some form of insanity defence don't respect human rights and the rule of law. I could find several statements on that one article alone that make similar reasonable surmises. So this rule seems to be very patchily applied. I'm still struggling to understand the policy therefore. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Will it satisfy the "committee" if I explain the basis for my statement from jurisprudential sources? As explained before, the statement is considered by legal academics as so self-evident that I doubt I will find a suitable citation directly supporting it, just as a maths textbook would not provide any argument for arithmetic and multiplication. If that is acceptable, it will however involve taking a few paragraphs to support one uncontentious statement. Not the way to produce an easily readable article IMO, but what do I know? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Note:I am withdrawing from neutrality on this filing and entering as a disputant. Doc insanity has removed significant portions of this article under the reasoning that they are not cited. As the removals have significantly disrupted the article, Sleddog16 excercised the Revert under WP:BRD with a edit summary requesting an explanation. Doc insanity then re-reverted with no explanation. I attempted to explain to Doc insanity that they were out of line in BRD, waited for a reasonable time for him to self revert, and then proceeded to restore the previous consensus. Overnight (in my timezone) Doc insanity removed the content again. I have warned Doc insanity that further disruptive editing will result in my taking him to the Edit Warring board for disruptively editing the page in question. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Hasteur, could you and the others tell me what the policy is? One minute I am being told all statements must be cited, the next you are warning me for applying that policy (as illogical as it is). As you know full well, an explanation for the removal has been given - do you deny this? Could you make up your mind please? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Your "temper tantrum" edits in removing content not related to the original line that was brought here is out of process. Some of that content was cited. Your attempting to bring more content into contention only demonstrates a lack of understanding in the application of policy. The editors here and at the talk page asked you to provide a source for the statement you wanted to include. Could they have done better by tagging it with "citation needed"? Yes. Do you honestly believe that starting the page with "In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the defense is rare;" is really appropriate for the page? (The answer is NO). Let's settle your first assertion and then look at the rest of the content. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC) And it also depends considerably on your intent. Are you legitimately challenging the material because you think it needs to be sourced, or are you editing disruptively merely to prove a point? Sleddog116 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Well, one thing to consider it that lawyering details is not really a good way to go. Removing sections of an article during a dispute is also not really a good way to go--if you think they need refs and there's an active disput, bring up the issue here or tag them as needed citations, then wait for discussion. References do need to be provided for challenged statements, so getting together some references would be advisable. Also, in regard to It is a reasonable surmise from the universally accepted notion (no one here has questioned it) that the insane (however defined) should not be liable for criminal punishment that therefore jurisdictions that don't have some form of insanity defence don't respect human rights and the rule of law, it seems to me that the statement is circular--you're positing a universally accepted notion which on its face seems not universally accepted, since were it so, all legal jurisdictions would have an insanity defence (since legal jurisdiction determine the law, and define what rights people have). At least, that's my take on it, and since people's takes vary, we ask for references from reliable sources, as TransporterMan has pointed out. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Hasteur [corrected with apologies to Sleddog] - "temper tantrum"? Is that really appropriate language? Do I have to quote Wiki policy to you? Sleddog, you are not neutral in this matter, and therefore I believe you should recuse yourself. You have previously altered one of my entries without having even read the citation properly, so I find your judgment somewhat suspect. You have previously deleted my material when the consensus was that all that was necessary was a citation needed tag. Is this a pattern, or is this confined to my entries? I'm not the one who said that. Please read the post again before making accusations. I said "proving a point", but the other statements were made by Hasteur. No, I'm not neutral, which is why I've brought this matter to DRN in the first place - I don't plan to "recuse myself" and give you a blank check to alter the article however you like - you are no more neutral than I am in this matter (again, that's why we're on DRN in the first place). Also, as I remember (and as the actual discussion shows), the consensus was to tag the material, which I did. Our previous dispute was closed, and fairly successfully; the material in question was restored and appropriately tagged. There's no need to bring that up again. You said I altered one of your previous entries "without reading the citation," but the fact of the matter is that I didn't read the citation because you hadn't provided a citation. Point of order: this is not the place to re-hash previous disagreements. We need to stay focused on the matter at hand. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I am applying the policy as articulated to me. Any lack of understanding can be corrected here, although the policy seemed perfectly clear, if patchily applied. Why would you consider my editing to be "proving a point"? And, none of the material removed was cited. So please don't make false accusations. I also wonder why the numerous inaccuracies in the current article haven't been addressed. Is it correct as Hastuer suggests that any content present for a "non-trivial time" must remain, whether correct or not? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Nuujinn - that's really my point, that permitting evidence about mental capacity for the accused is intrinsic to respect for human rights and the rule of law. Thus any proof would have to be about why this is the case, my statement isn't actually an argument. You say that it's not universally accepted that the insane (however defined) should not be liable for criminal punishment. Although the procedures for determining who is legally insane or the definitions used are all debatable, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you will not find one legal academic (even those who "abolished" the insanity defense e.g. replaced it with 'lack of mens rea') who will argue that those are sufficiently mentally ill should suffer criminal punishment, because they lack the necessary state of mind. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Sleddog, apologies - you're absolutely right, the denseness of the text made me think you had made those comments. As for going over past history, I have explained why I think it's relevant. You persist in stating my material is not neutral, when it's been established that you can't make that assessment. My statement might not have the support you believe it should have, but it's not just my POV. Although this term seems to misapplied with respect to articles about disciplines like law. Unless your articles are going to be strictly black letter law, which hasn't been explicitly mentioned (and would require extensive revision of current articles by someone with a knowledge of law). Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you; we obviously have our differences in opinion, but can we at least agree that both of us are acting in good faith? To my knowledge (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), ever since it was pointed out by TransporterMan that judging neutrality was not possible without sources, I have not commented on the neutrality of the statement. Doc, my comment saying that "you are no more neutral than I am" was not in regards to the statement in question, but in regard to the fact that you and I both disagree over the content that should be included in the article - since we are both parties to the disagreement, neither of us can be considered neutral. Does that make my comment a little more clear? Sleddog116 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Also, Doc, I think I might be able to explain the policy to you a little bit better (you've said it doesn't make sense to you). The policy says that "all material ... must be attributable to reliable sources." It doesn't mean that all material must be attributed, just attributable - meaning that you can verify it with sources if it is called into question. If it's not called into question, there's no need to attribute it because it is accepted ipso facto. Once it is questioned, however, (regardless of how self-evident it may seem), it must be verified through outside sources. Does it make a little more sense now? Sleddog116 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC) No, fair enough Sleddog - you're acting in good faith and I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Apologies. My reaction is partly down to genuine bafflement, as I didn't see the statement as being remotely contentious when I added it. I think the difficulty comes from applying the Wiki approach to socio-legal analysis rather than black letter law. Not having looked at Wiki articles on other areas with similar issues, I have no idea how they are tackled there. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I guess what I've been trying to get at here (because in all honesty, I've done the same thing before), is that just because you didn't see the statement as being contentious doesn't mean that it couldn't be (as is obviously the case here). It doesn't mean that every sentence has to be cited - only the content that has been challenged (which the statement in question has). The Wiki approach is that any content that is challenged is based not on truth but on verifiability (as you and I have discussed in the past) - but that doesn't mean that every little thing requires a citation. The necessity of citation isn't determined by how self-evident a statement is or seems to be; it's determined by how likely the material is to be challenged (or, in this case, has been challenged). Does that help? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC) As the heart of the issue seems to now be on citation rather than a personality conflict, would it now be reasonable to close the discussion here and return the discussion to the article's talk page, or is the issue of citation something that still merits further discussion here on DRN? Doc, since your revision is the one in question, I'll leave it to you. Do you think that we can discuss this civilly on the article's talk page, or do we still want the third parties weighing in? (Anyone else who wants to weigh in, feel free.) Sleddog116 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Yep, I'm fine with closing the discussion, Sleddog Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Before closing the discussion, I would like to add one more comment. I would like to make a summary of this discussion to post on the Insanity defense talk page so we can continue the discussion easily. This is the summary I propose - if anyone would like to add or correct anything, please discuss it here: Sleddog116 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Summary of Dispute Resolution Statements cannot be evaluated for neutrality unless citations and sources are provided. Any contentious material must be cited, regardless of whether the introducing editor thinks it should be contentious or not. Even information that is cited can be challenged for neutrality, where it will then enter discussion. Contentious revisions should be tagged, challenged, and discussed rather than summarily removed or reverted. The statement in question ([[18]]) needs to be cited, after which its neutrality can be appropriately discussed. Does anyone have anything to add or correct on the above summary? If not, I'll include this summary on the article's talk page for easy reference. Regards. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you TransporterMan for your measured and useful input as always, likewise Nuujinn Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Telangana movement

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Telangana movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a section that one user wants to be added and the other opposes it. There have been attempts to get mutual consensus and a 3rd party opinion was also sought. But nothing seems to have changed. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vamsisv (talk · contribs) Ramcrk (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Telangana Movement}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Mutual discussion on talk page. 3rd party opinion How do you think we can help? Both users have their POVs but not aware how the information should be captured on the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Telangana Movement discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. For reviewers, this is the section in question. I haven't read it, but perhaps a primary reason for opposition is that it might seem excessive: perhaps it can be adequately summarised? Nightw 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the link to the section, Night w. Vamsisv, I think the issue here is that this section is focused only on the negative portrayals of this movement, whereas Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This means that we should include both positive and negative reactions to the movement. You might want to have a look at this video that shows the basics of how this works, and I highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Criticism, which will give you more specific pointers. A good start would be to rename the section to "Reception", and to find positive points of view that you can include. Once the section is written from a neutral point of view, its inclusion in the article is much less likely to be disputed. I hope this makes sense - feel free to ask me questions below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your response. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is written from a Neutral point of view and nowhere have I tried to stop any focus on any positive aspects. In the section, we are talking about the Rise of Maoist Influence in the movement - This *is* a negative aspect - what positive things can be written about this? I've been open to renaming the section and I have changed it from "Fears regarding the movement" to "Concerns regarding the movement". If there are positive reactions to the movement, I repeat that I'm not against them being included in the article. But it is unfair to stop me from describing the other side of the movement just because there aren't any positive reactions. Vamsisv (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) How about my suggestion above? Rename the section as simply "Reception", and make it about the published reception of all parts of the movement, not just "Maoist tendencies". In that case, I would be extremely surprised if there were no sources that were positive about the movement. If you go this route, then due to reasons of balance, the remarks on "Maoist tendencies" will likely need to be shortened. In any case, the whole article puts too much emphasis on recent events, and coverage of recent events should probably either be shortened or split into daughter articles. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm definitely open to renaming the section. But the other user is completely against having this content as a separate section. He feels it is not relevant and has his own POVs regarding that. Vamsisv (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I've posted on their talk page asking for them to comment here. Let's see what they think of the compromise solution. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Maoist may be trying to fish in troubled waters of Telangana movement. But Maoists are not affecting Telangana movement in any way. We can include Telangana movement in Maoist movement page but Maoists references in Telangana movement does not make sense as Maoists are not influencing Telangana movement in anyway. In order to reduce the size of the Telangana movement article we moved lot of relevent info to other articles(The article used be a size of 142k in September; now its 52k). Its entirely inappropriate to include irrelevant info like Maoists in the article; let alone creating a section for it. Regarding too much emphasis on recent events; we summaized the movement until September 2011. We plan to summarize the events between September-Nov 2011 then move these details to another new page which can be called Telangana All people strike 2011. Ramcrk (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) There is a definite need to mention about the rise of maoist influence due to the Telangana movement and in some cases direct involvement or encouragement. It is a clear cause & effect situation. There are very clear sources & reference to support this. Vamsisv (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC) How do we proceed here? Vamsisv (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC) People from all kinds of ideologies supporting Telangana movement; from extreme right wing parties to extreme left parties like (Maoists). Leadership of Telangan movement are moderates. Even then for the benefit of the reader I have included the some media statementmets regarding Maoists in the article at the insistance of Vamsisv. But creating seperate section for this irrelevant topic is inappropriate and misleads the reader of the article. Even Police chief of the state declared that there is no active involvement of Maoists in Telangana movement. Ramcrk (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Again, for your reading convenience I'm repeating my stand, but you are continuing to ignore what I'm saying. This section is not only to indicate Maoists involvement in the movement (which is very diff from any other side's involvement) but also the RISE of maoist influence DUE to the movement. It does indeed deserve a separate section. Your argument is like saying - There are several other movements for separate states, so why should we create another page for T movement. Think about it. Vamsisv (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Rise and fall of Maoist movement should be discussed in Maoist movement page. Not in Telangana movement page. Only issues which is important to Telangana movement should be discussed in Telangana movement article. By including this section readers will get the impression that Maoism is big issue in Telangana. It is not. You can argue that rise of Maoism/Terrorism due to poverty. Should we include Maoism/Terrorism in the poverty article? Ramcrk (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) This discussion will not go anywhere. I'm hoping someone can give a better perspective here and resolve this longstanding issue. Admins, request your help here. Vamsisv (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Request Admins/Reviewers to go through all the links/references in the section. There is a clear case for this section since there are multiple things related between Maoist Movement & T Movemement. One is the support of Maoists for the movement, Second is how T movement is helping to fuel the Maoist movement, Third is how many protagonists in the T movement are promoting Maoist agenda. Latest resource in this regard is this link. Vamsisv (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Killing Lincoln

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Killing Lincoln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? After talking it over on the wikiproject book page with other editors, I removed the "error list" from the article Killing Lincoln, as a detailed list of what are considered errors in a book amounts to original research. The author of the list reinstated the list and posted a warning to me for removing it. I don't want an edit war, but I do believe, and have heard from other editors, that Wikipedia is NOT the place for this sort of list. I'd offered that he can add a link to a list of corrections to the book on an external page if it's reliable, but have had no luck getting him do that. Help would be appreciated. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Mathewignash (talk · contribs) 5Q5 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Killing Lincoln}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Talk on the talk page and on the wikibooks project page. How do you think we can help? Clairify is this is orignal research or appropiate material to wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Killing Lincoln discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. From 5Q5: The precedent for revealing the errors in a best-selling book has been well-established with the article Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code?. In Talk:Killing_Lincoln I give examples of other Wiki articles where the controversies in books are noted and discussed. 5Q5 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC) The contraversary is adequitely noted and discussed as it should be in the "Contraversary' section of the article. The question is whether the editor making an item-by-item list is appropriate or original research. If you read the deletion nomination for the Da Vinci Code article, one thing brought up is that this IS NOT part of the main article on the book, because it would give the article undue weight. The Killing Lincoln error list takes up a major portion of the article. Also, we should note that the De Vinci article is not a simple list (It's not "List of Da Vinci Code errors"), but an actual article citing what people said in reliable sources. It's not a page by page quote and correction on, for example, a word misspelled on page 3, as we see in the list on Killing Lincoln.Mathewignash (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I presume this edit encapsulates the dispute. I believe that while the controversies section is appropriate that this detailed list, while not appearing to be original research, does give the controversy issue undue weight since the controversy is adequately described in the controversy section. The list ought to be, therefore, omitted in my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC) 5Q5, there's nothing wrong with revealing errors in a book, but as TransporterMan said, there's already a "Controversy" section for that in this particular case - and even that is only appropriate if the errors revealed are the subject of some documented controversy (which none of the provided sources seem to suggest). You've used The Da Vinci Code as a comparison, but there are several problems with that. First, The Da Vinci Code is fiction, while Killing Lincoln is nonfiction. Second, the "errors" presented in the Da Vinci Code article are not minor errors (i.e. book quote followed by correction, such as the exact acreage of Mudd's estate), but significant historical inaccuracies (which, if the history had been presented accurately, would have significantly changed the fictional story) documented by published experts and explained in depth. Also, the literary criticism of The Da Vinci Code is presented in regards to the author's style and technique, but it doesn't point out specifics - merely the opinions of critics. If you can find literary criticism of Killing Lincoln by recognized critics, that might be more appropriate, but as the list is presented, it doesn't really conform to the Manual of Style. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I also want to point out that the editor 5Q5 has proposed adding a line in the article saying that the book has not been recalled by the publisher, citing the web site of the publishing company where no recall notice exists, as his source. That really seems to be reporting wishful thinking on the part of the editor, not actual information. There are many books with an error in them that have not been recalled, and I don't think Wikipedia wants to list them all. If anyone wants to give opinion on that now, so it doesn't become the next resolution, I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)  Done. I have removed the list due to undue weight. The book was published less than 90 days ago and this is still a developing story with additional critical discussion of the errors that may or may not appear in future news magazines and journals that have longer publishing schedules. This dispute is resolved as far as I am concerned. 5Q5 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HIV

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. HIV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) File:HIV Virion-en.png Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The image titled "Diagram of HIV" in this article does not seem to have a reliable source. I submitted it for deletion but it was kept. Nobody who opposed the deletion gave a reason which refutes my reason for requesting the deletion and yet the image was kept. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Be..anyone (talk · contribs) Optigan13 (talk · contribs) Xijky (talk · contribs) Pieter_Kuiper (talk · contribs) Beta_M (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=HIV}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have discussed this matter on the Talk page. I have requested that the file be deleted and entered into some discussion there. I have asked for advice at the Commons Village Pump. How do you think we can help? I would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources. The image is currently sourced to dead links, is a dead link a reliable source? The source link points to an archive instead of to the originator of the image (the NIH). This appears to be against the rules for reliable sources. WP:NOR states that "all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source." One of the criteria for identifying reliable sources states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"WP:IRS. A web-archive does not appear to meet these criteria. There *are* similar images available from the originator of the image (the NIH) and if the image was to be sourced to the originator then that *might* meet the requirements for reliable sources. I have suggested this on the Talk page but to no avail. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC) HIV discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I'd like to make a comment that the image was uploaded to commons, and deletion request was initiated there, there was a clear Keep consensus, but we must keep in mind that the goal of commons is "educational" and not "encyclopaedic" content. Beta M 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs) FYI: Privacy oddity with single sign-on Resolved with {{db-nouser}}, thanks. –82.113.99.212 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC) DavoDavoDavo, can you please clarify your request some? I think you may be defining terms differently than Wikipedia normally does. First, the source of the image is not the web-archive, but the person/organization that created the image, which in this case seems to be the US National Institute of Health. The idea that the image should be "sourced to the originator" instead of to the archive, frankly, is not the way we do things - Wikipedia has long accepted that the Internet Archive faithfully reproduces the original content of the websites. So, is your complaint that the NIH is not a reliable source for health-related diagrams? Or is it something else? I fear I must be misunderstanding you, but if that is your claim, please be more specific about why you think that to be the case. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC) ISSUE 1) It is common knowledge in research that when a person references a source that has multipul editions or versions (eg. a website that periodically updates its content; compair textbook referencing whereby only the most recent edition is referenced) that only the most recent edition or version should be referenced. Citing an older archived edition when a more recent, current edition/version is available is generally considered to be inadequate referencing. ISSUE 2) The reason reputable website publishers update their websites is so that they publish the most up to date correct information available. If the original links to the NIH are now dead that is a clear indication that the NIH has updated the information on their website and anyone who uses their information is responsible for making sure that they are referencing the NIH's *current* publication in order for their citation of the NIH's information to be both authoritative and reliable. It is not enough to simply argue that the image appears to be the same as a current image on the NIH's website. The NIH does not publish medical images only. The images that appear on the NIH website are connected to the information contained in the text of the articles and documents published there. This is important. What if the NIH has changed it's position regarding how they interpret the information in the diagram? What if they no longer believe that this is a diagram of HIV? Then the Wikipedia article would be making false assertions about the NIH. This is just an *example* of what *can* happen if the rules for reliable sources WP:IRS are not followed. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:IRS. The Wayback Machine is an archive service not a publisher and certainly not a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. The NIH, on the other hand, *is* a publisher with a repuation for fact-checking and they have a current edition of their website which supersedes their older editions such as the one archived on Wayback Machine. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. As for issue 1, that is not a standard recognized by Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it is a standard in some fields, that doesn't mean it's a standard here. I'm addressing issue 2 in a sub-section below. As for the Wayback Machine, that argument is flatly opposed to consensus here on Wikipedia, as I stated above - for an example, we actually have an instruction page on citing to the Wayback Machine at Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Wait a minute. I just took a look at the users listed as being involved and they are the commenters at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIV Virion-en.png. The English Wikipedia does not have authority over Commons and Commons is not subject to the policies of the English Wikipedia. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC) At the risk of entering tl;dr territory, is your request that the image be deleted? Because that's a matter for Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If not, is your request that the image not be used in the article? If the latter's the case, I'd recommend that you add User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter as involved users and notify them, since you have discussed that issue with them at length at Talk:HIV. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry. Yes I should have added User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter but since they are now clearly aware of the discussion I will consider them added.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC) No problem, MsBatfish alerted us. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Wow, I just did a lot of reading just in order to try to make an educated comment on this matter. My conclusions are: 1) This isn't the right forum if you are requesting deletion of the image entirely. However I don't see adequate rationale for deleting the image anyway. 2) The Way-back machine is not a source, it is a snapshot of the source. It is an archiving service that preserves web pages published by others and its use does not somehow invalidate the source of the image. Using archived materials is a frequently done and accepted practice on Wikipedia. 3) I don't think the caption of the image needs to be changed from "Diagram" to "Theoretical Diagram". See diagram for more information about what diagrams are. It is not purporting to be a photograph or an exact true-to-life depiction. MsBatfish (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 1) I'm not here to request deletion of the image, I already did that in the appropriate forum. Your insight into whether or not the image has "adequate rationale" for deletion needs to be expressed as comments pertaining to the reason for deletion request - unreliable sources. 2) "The Way-back machine is not a source..." - You said it. And yet images posted within Wikipedia articles are required to have a reliable source. The NIH might meet that standard but Wayback Machine does not according to the rules of WP:IRS. If there is an image currently published by NIH on their website then why isn't that image's reference being used for the image on in the HIV Wikipedia article? 3) The image caption is not the issue being discussed here.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC) This is the third forum DavoDavoDavo has petitioned with this issue. He states he "would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources". But he's obtained that judgment twice already, once on the article's talk page, and once more when he nominated the image for deletion on Commons. To waste more peoples' time on this issue because he doesn't like the two previous results seems to border on bad faith. I trust he will simply accept the third judgment as final. To avoid more people having to do a lot of reading: the diagram of the structure of HIV included in the HIV article is not in the least bit controversial. Such diagrams (never labeled as "theoretical") have appeared in the medical and scientific literature from shortly after the time the HIV virus was discovered in 1984. (Such a diagram appears, for example, in The Medical Management of AIDS by Merle A. Sande & Paul Volberding; earlier examples can probably be found.) Since that time, photomicrographs (a link to which was provided to DavoDavoDavo on the HIV talk page) have demonstrated that the structure of the virus as depicted in the diagram is correct. Similar diagrams are ubiquitous and routinely appear in medical textbooks. And such diagrams have appeared in the popular press as well as in the scientific press. For example, Gallo's diagram appeared in his January 1987 article in the popular magazine Scientific American. The fact that we provide a link to NIH is a matter of convenience; whether the link is dead or live, the diagram's source is not a matter of controversy, except, apparently, to those who want to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS. (Those interested will find an assortment of similar images by searching for the key words "HIV" and "structure" in Google images). The only significant difference between our illustration and theirs: ours is drawn by a WIkipedian who has released it under the GFDL. - Nunh-huh 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC) You claim that I have already "obtained... judgment twice already... " in this matter but you can't show me where my concern has been answered. Several people have responded but their responses have not addressed my expressed concern - source reliability. Are you prone to telling lies? You are trying to misconstrue my intentions. Isn't that 'bad faith'? You remind us that the diagram is not "controversial", but to what end? I'm not concerned about whether or not the image is controversial nor have I expressed any such thing. You claim that you have provided links to photomicrographs on the HIV talk page but all you actually provided was links to copyright free images for cell phone wallpaper. Is this what you call honesty? You claim that you provide a link to the NIH website as a matter of convenience but there is no link at all to the NIH, only to Wayback Machine. Honesty? You imply that I'm trying to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS but my intentions here have been clearly stated and they concern the reliability of the source of the image. Honesty? Could you please restrict your comments to the current discussion - so as to not waste other people's time? DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Given that you have yet to persuade a single Wikipedian that you have valid concerns, all that remains for the current discussion is for you to say "thank you" and move on. So as to not waste other people's time. - Nunh-huh 06:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Unless you've been planting trees lately I doubt that anyone would have any reason to "thank you" for anything. You desperately need to get The Truth into your life.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know about that, though. He went to Commons for deletion, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. He went to the talk page for removal of an extant image from the page, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. (Not sure which order those were in, but I don't suppose it matters either way.) Coming here was also an appropriate choice, as far as I can tell, based on the instructions at the top of the page. Not the way I would have gone about getting a third opinion (or fourth or ... whatever), but still an appropriate option. Needless to say, unless I've greatly misunderstood his rationale, he's going to be unsuccessful here as well, but I don't think he was forum shopping. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Side point: Wikipedia:Third opinion is for disputes between only two users. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC) To be sure. I probably shouldn't have linked there, since I meant the term in its colloquial sense, not in its Wikipedia sense. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Well, an appropriate choice for the "remove" chain of requests, inappropriate for the "delete" one. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Not shopping. Exhausting. We will have to see if he chooses a fourth go-round. (The order, if it matters, was HIV talk page, Commons deletion request, followed by dispute resolution.) - Nunh-huh 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Actually this is the fourth forum. The order was Talk:HIV in these two sections, then Commons deletion request, then Commons village pump, then here. So now 11 editors have spent their time responding to someone who has stated he's here to push he represents a group that advocates a discredited fringe ideology. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Your animosity towards me is showing through the way you try to misdirect people in this discussion. I have *never* said that I am pushing a fringe ideology. The comments that I made on the HIV talk page were meant to express that you are not the only volunteer giving of their time for the benefit of others. I would ask that you keep your presuppositions and your prejudices to yourself and stick to the topic at hand - an issue that *you* have not been able to address so far.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I was careless in my wording above, for which I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I didn't count COM:VP because the result of that discussion was "wrong forum," not a substantive answer. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Wayback machine is an accurate snapshot of the NIH image in the same way that microfiche or any other physical archives of a source are accurate. Myself and others have presented multiple sources supporting that the NIH/wayback image as valid and similar to multiple images from reliable sources. DavoDavoDavo's point has been refuted, they just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC) If DavoDavoDavo feels so strongly that he needs a live link, he's free to use the current image locations on the NIH site and draw a free image based on them (photo, small diagram, large diagram). Until he decides to do that, citing the image on which our illustration was actually based remains correct. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Further discussion My perspective as a previously uninvolved editor (administrator): Now that DavoDavoDavo's replied to the various questions and comments, I think we have a clearer picture of the situation. Part of the picture is that there were/are a few simple misunderstandings of fact on DavoDavoDavo's part, with regards to the Wayback Machine and editorial guidelines; both I and other editors have addressed those above. The main, continuing, issue seems to be that DavoDavoDavo wants the image removed because of style concerns, not because of verifiability or accuracy concerns. DavoDavoDavo hasn't challenged the credibility of the NIH (in fact, he endorses it) or of the particular image; his strongest argument on that front is that removal or change of a page from/on the NIH's website might reflect a change in the NIH's stance. Such a position is unpersuasive - you challenge a reliable source with another reliable source, not with speculation. No such reliable sources have been provided thus far. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Okay, so it is not the responsibility of the writer of the article to maintain the currency of the article's sources. Got it. Out of date archived webpages are acceptable sources. Got it. I don't agree with the idea, in fact it is potentially quite dangerous, but if that's the way things are done at Wikipedia then who am I to argue. If I understand you correctly, it is the responsibility of contributing readers to propose an update to article content or sources if there is new substantiated information which brings the content or sources into question?DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biblical cosmology

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The article currently discusses, at considerable length, the nature of Heaven, Hell, and angels. To my mind this is not what cosmology is about - cosmology means the shape and origins of the cosmos (the universe). In the context of the article, it has to be a discussion of the way the biblical authors viewed the origin, form and nature of the universe. My attempts to do this have been stymied by şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:, who reverts everything I do. In fairness I can't say I don't understand - my view of the scope of the article and his are worlds apart, as he wants to retain an in-depth discussion of heaven, hell, and angels, and I'd rather like to discuss things such as the first chapter of Genesis. I can't see any hope of us resolving this through discussion. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Carlaude (talk · contribs) PiCo (talk · contribs) EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) I'm not "involoved"; I merely posted a comment to perhaps help mediate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Biblical cosmology}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussion on article Talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_cosmology#Edit_war:_what_is_cosmology.3F_For_.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8: How do you think we can help? We need an editor who is (a) trusted by both main parties (myself and CarlAude), and (b) reasonably knowledgeable about biblical cosmology (I might be prepared to lower the bar on the last one). The mediator can help us decide whether an article on biblical cosmology should concern itself mostly with what various theologians have to say about heaven and hell, or what the ancient authors of Genesis etc thought the cosmos looked like. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Biblical cosmology discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. PiCo has not (until this DRN post) really said what he wanted on the Biblical cosmology or why. So of course it seems jumping the gun to me to come here already. We already have a full article on Genesis creation narrative, so if we had to choose between another article on "what ancient authors of Genesis... thought the cosmos looked like", and keeping the article about all of Biblical cosmology, then of course Biblical cosmology needs to stay about its cosmology. If PiCo thinks it has too many of the ideas of today's theologians rather than the Bible, then we can and should discuss and improve that more. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 06:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I've read Carl's comment and he makes a valid point, namely that he doesn't know what I'm proposing for the article. I'll outline my problems and proposals on the article talk page, in detail, but as a summary: the existing article doesn't begin to come to grips with the subject, dealing with a number of irrelevant matters instead. Carl raises the possibility that the article Genesis creation narrative should be enough to deal with biblical cosmology. It isn't: it's one chapter out of 50 in one book out of dozens, and it presents only one part of the bible's views on the cosmos. There's far more to be said. Plus, of course, that article itself has to deal with far more than cosmology, as Genesis 1 is about a lot other than the shape of the universe. "If PiCo thinks it has to many of the ideas of today's theologians..." If it has any ideas at all from today's theologians, that's too many. The article is about cosmology, not theology, and ancient authors, not modern ones. Cosmology is not theology, and Carl's inability to understand that point is the source of our conflist. PiCo (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC) PiCo, not worrying about angels yet, but aren't heaven and hell (or Sheol) both parts of the biblical universe? If the article is about presenting a picture of the biblical cosmos, to me it only makes sense that heaven and hell would be discussed (as they relate to cosmology, of course; we already have articles on heaven and hell). Carlaude, looking at the article itself, it seems that all of the information about angels is presented much more from the perspective of a mythologist (wikt:myth) than that of a cosmologist - that is, it explains the mythological rank, file, and hierarchy of the angels, but very little about how they relate to the ancients' view of the overall universe. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Sleddog116, sorry, I didn't notice your comment. Yes, the article has to mention the place of the heavens (always a plural in the bible) and of hell/sheol in the overall biblical cosmology. But it has to be done from a cosmological perspective, not a theological one. (Meaning where they were located in the overall biblical cosmos, what they were for, and how they changed over time). PiCo (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Mediator comment Hi there, I'm here to help mediate this case. I'm uninvolved in this dispute and have a reasonable grasp of philosophy and theology - hopefully we can bring this to a resolution. The key issue seems to be the scope of the term "cosmology", which is the study of the universe as a whole; Carlaude has rightly noted that this includes Heaven, Hell and whatever else people believe exists. Thus, any part of the universe mentioned in the Bible should be discussed in this article. I suggest we go about this in a structured way. Firstly, we need to come to agreement over exactly what cosmology encompasses. Once we've done that, we can then look at what "Biblical cosmology" consists of. For now, let's stay focussed on cosmology: we seem to all agree that the earth, heavens and underworld should be include. What do we think regarding angels, celestial bodies and stellar firmament? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for volunteering Zippy. Where should this discussion take place? I think the article Talk page? PiCo (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with having the discussion here. It means that other impartial mediators can see what is happening and provide input. If you want, pop a DRN template on the talk page of the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC) 1. Defining "cosmology" Following ItsZippy's suggestion above that we begin by defining cosmology, I've opened this new subsection, and, on the article talk-page at Biblical cosmology, invited interested editors to put their thoughts here. I'll begin by copying definitions given in two recent scholarly works. (Feel free to add more definitions, or simply discuss these two): PiCo (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Definition: "A comprehensive view of all reality, attending both to the nature of the whole and also to the place of all parts within the whole". (Douglas A. Knight, entry on "Cosmology" in the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Knight goes on: "The origin. order, meaning and destiny of all that exists are key issues in a cosmological system..."). Definition: "The understanding of the whole universe as an organised, structured entity." (E. C. Lucas, entry on "Cosmology", Alexander and Baker's Dictionary of the Old Testament, page 130). I've moved your heading down a level so it's under discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Comment: A bit of unsourced WP:OR here, but as someone with a degree in anthropology, I think I can see where the problem is here. Is the article about perceptions of 'the Cosmos' as modern Western scientific discourse describes it (consisting of stars, planets etc, conforming to our 'physics'), or is it about 'the Cosmos' as seen by those involved in the writing of the Bible? It seems apparent that hey had no conception of 'stars' in our terms (or of 'physics' as we now define it, for that matter), but they had an understanding of 'the Cosmos', and such things as Angels were just as real to them as sub-atomic particle are to us. On this basis, if an article about 'Biblical cosmology' is to be about anything, it has to be about what it was that those involved in producing it considered 'the Cosmos' to consist of - otherwise, it isn't about them, it is about us asserting our superior knowledge... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I agree, which is what I hope we can move onto next. I think we need to accept cosmology as the study of all of reality - that should hold true regardless of who is discussing it (be that us or those who wrote the Bible). We can then determine what falls under Biblical cosmology and what does not. All of PiCo's definitions can be generally summed up as the existence, workings & origins of everything in the universe. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Proposal. I've put this at the top of the lead in the article as a definition of the subject: "Biblical cosmology is the bible's understanding of the universe as an organised, structured entity.[1] Its key issues include the origin, order, meaning and destiny of all that exists, as well as the question of what "reality" embraces.[2]" I've also put it on the article Talk page and anyone who wants can get involved there as well. So it's only a proposed resolution really, but at least its movement towards meeting the problems we've talked about. 2. So what is "biblical cosmology?" If "cosmology" is the shape of the universe, the next step is to write a short paragraph defining what the bible sees as that shape, how the bible sees it being created. Comment: I see a number of points that should be made: There is no single biblical cosmology: the bible had many authors over many centuries and concepts of the cosmos changed. (See for example Adele Berlin in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, article Cosmology and Creation, page 188). The general picture that emerges is of a three-level world made up of heavens, earth and underworld, floating in an infinite Cosmic Ocean, and protected from it by a solid dome, the "firmament". (See, for example, the diagram provided by Knight in the Mercer Bible Dictionary, page 175). The bible's account of how the cosmos was created has a great deal in common with other ancient Near Eastern creation-myths, but it has two important differences: its cosmos is created by a single God who exists alone (monotheism), and this God has no beginning-story (no theogony). (See Nahum Sarna, page 50 - he was a specialist in the study of Genesis). PiCo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (off-topic comment: can you please sign your posts) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (reply to off-topic comment: can you please sign your posts - sorry!) PiCo (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC) This issue is about what should be included, so we need to determine what Biblical cosmology encompasses, rather than what it says. Therefore, we must determine whether each part of the current article (stellar firmament, celestial bodies, Heaven and Olam Haba, Hell and Gehenna, and angels) fall under Biblical cosmology. I am slightly concerned that we have not heard form Carlaude; I'll drop him a message, inviting him to join the discussion again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't exclude them, but I'd treat them differently - the treatment of heaven, for example, has to deal with its location and function as described in the OT and NT , not medieval and modern theological ideas. Given the season, I think we can leave this until after New Year. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Are you saying that you want this closed? If Carlaude doesn't reply soon, then I'll do that, provided I have an assurance that my closure of this will not prevent a resolution later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I think we can close it. I've left a message on CarlAude's talk page suggesting we suspend editing on the article till after New Year. If there's still a problem then I can re-open the question. PiCo (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you, I will close this thread now. If/when the discussion comes up again, I suggest that you try to discuss it at the talk page first and request a third opinion. Feel free to bring it back here if necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Otis Redding

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Otis Redding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Recently I reviewed the article for good article status and failed it on the grounds that the prose is poor. When completing the review I saw that the article had been been self assessed as B class by the GAN nominator, User:GreatOrangePumpkin,diff1 although there was no evidence that a B-class review had ever been carried out. I re-assessed the article as C class.diff2. This was reverted by User:GreatOrangePumpkin.diff3 User:Binksternet endorsed the re-assessment at C-class.diff4 User:GreatOrangePumpkin reverted User:Binksternetdiff5 and has since aggressively stated that anyone can make a B-class assessment and demanded that I give examples of where the prose was poor, although that had already been done in the GA review. I have reverted back to C-class, but User:GreatOrangePumpkin refuses to accept this and has "promoted" the article to B-class again. I believe that if this sort of behaviour goes unchallenged the whole quality rating system of Wikipedia is undermined. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Otis Redding}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Attempted discussion on the article talk page but without any success. How do you think we can help? Hopefully User:GreatOrangePumpkin can be convinced that they should accept the advice of two experienced editors that as it stands the article Otis Redding does not meet B-class standards and that edit warring is not a way to proceed on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Otis Redding discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. How do you thin we can help? Hopefully User:Jezhotwells can be convienced that anyone can assess an article, except if one of those Wikiproject it belongs to has an assessment department. And hopefully he just drop the stick and stop making point edits, because I commented rudely when he failed the GAN, but at least I apologized. Have you tried...? No, you did not. This is a hopless case--♫GoP♫TCN 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I was an actor in this little drama—I saw the whole thing play out. I saw Jezhotwells assess the article as C-class, with the edit summary "assess as C , no B class review has been performed." I saw GreatOrangePumpkin revert him 90 minutes later, including the removal of JHW's talk page entry (not good!). I took some time to re-assess the article, determining that it was indeed at C-class, then I reverted GOP and added my endorsement of the C-class rating. GOP then posted a note on the talk page saying that anyone can assess an article, and a minute later restored the B-class rating that he had established. He posted his assessment with check marks to say each aspect was done. He then went to the user talk pages of me and JHW to say we were rude. On the article talk page I said it was not well-written. GOP said I needed more reason than that. JHW said it was not well-written. GOP said examples must be supplied. Basically, two veteran editors who speak English natively say the article is not well-written enough for B-class, and a non-native English editor who was very much involved with writing the article says that it is well-written enough. In this case I would advise the involved editor to drop the stick. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, I assessed it to Stub, because "no Start class review has been performed."; now are you satisfied? Thanks, because I don't want to discuss this nonsense anymore. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. After that, you might want to revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think it is a C-class article, so I re-assessed to Stub. What's the problem now?--♫GoP♫TCN 16:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Could I suggest that we send the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests‎. They can probably settle any outstanding text issues well. As the B quality criterion for text is The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant", then for me, the C seems a very harsh decision indeed and B very much more reasonable. I hope that a third party copyedit will settle the matter and allow us to go on with our lives. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I've now sent it there. Now, I suggest everyone backs of and lets time sort it out. Leave the article as C for now and anticipate that it will be B to the contentment of all in a week or so's time, and, we hope, GA shortly after. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC) You can't imagine how much it was copyedited. So it does not make sense to wait one year until someone will copyedit a few things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 December 2011 The copy edit guild does not take that long. With the best will in the world, it doesn't really matter that much whether it is listed as a C or a B. Concerns have been raised. A third party copyedit is always a good idea. We can all get on with other stuff and let this process run its course. What's not to like? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent weight

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Apparent weight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Article was proposed for merger; consensus among small number of editors who discussed was merge. After no activity on discussion after six days, I merged the article. It was reverted against discussion. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) Count Iblis (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on talk page How do you think we can help? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Apparent Weight discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Well, I just don't see the necessary consensus to move the article. There was insufficient input in the merger discussion. And you can't then just count heads and declare that 3 for merger and one against is a consensus for merger after 6 days. Why not at least ask the previous editors of that page or aks other editors altoghether. In the first section of the talk page you can read why the article was created, most of the objections raised to motivate deletion/merger were actually answered right there back in 2005 when the article was created. Some of these editors still contribute to Wikipedia, they may want to know about an article that they created back then being proposed for redirection now in 2011 because 3 editors don't like the very concept of "apparent weight". Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Question: Being that the discussion Count Iblis references is from 2005~2007 and taking into considerartion Consensus can change is it not reasonable to let the merge request move forward? If editors can't be bothered to help support the article after they've voted it Keep at a Articles for Discussion then should we leave a unreferenced article in place? Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Comment: 'Insufficient input' is a weak argument when determining consensus. Failure to vote (or in this case, failure to !vote) simply helps the prevailing side. All concerned editors (if there is a reasonable expectation that they are familiar with the issue) who have not commented are, in effect, simply saying "Either way is fine by me". We have to reasonably expect that anyone who has edited or intends to edit the article has the page watchlisted and is familiar with the goings-on of its Discussion page. Reading only your comments on this page, I feel fairly confident that 3 editors in favor and one lone dissenter does, in fact, meet the requirements of WP:CON for such a move. -Achowat (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Nonsense, 6 days is nothing. I have had just 30 minutes or so in the last 6 days. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I've asked WikiProject Physics for input, but I couldn't help to give my rather negative perspective on this whole episode there. The article being unreferenced isn't a problem for this type of article, and it isn't actually totally unreferenced; thing is that you don't need to cite the specific examples that are given (in practice you often can't cite such examples, you don't want to copy the same examples as given in a textbook). So,this is just an argument invoked to get the article deleted/moved, because they don't like it. I really can't make anything else of this. After all we do have many physics and math articles here for which exactly the saqme objections could be raised. And no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be invoked to counter my argument here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Ha, I just see that the consenus has evaporated, one new editor came along and agreed with me. Clearly, it was wrong to suggest here that 3 editors can constitute a consensus, at least in this particular case given also their previous stance taken on this issue. That leads to instability, as just one new editor can then completely change things. The whole point of consensus is that it brings with it a degree of stability. Count Iblis (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The article has been rewritten from scratch with sourced material; I considered the matter resolved and propose closure. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khalil Ibrahim

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Khalil Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I have come to read the history of west of Sudan and request any historical evidence of the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa before new Sudan was formed. The issue is the article states that the main land of zaghawa is in Sudan and this does not conform to the fact that geographically the ancinet kingdom of zaghawa lied in the border of the kingdom of the Foour and the maps I have seen fall in Chad. The president of Chad himself is from Zaghawa and his tribe is tremendously influential there. The Foour tribe for example are non disputable as indigenous Sudanese people. However this is not the case with Zaghawa who face the question of their being indigenous (beyond the last 50-100 years) and that they are well known for being cross border citizens. How does the author of this article claims that the zaghawa are basically located in Sudan? what reference does he base this statement on? Could you refer to books that described the history and geography of lake Chad region for this would be an obvious fact! Whether the old history or the present situation to my knowledge nothing conforms with this statement! And it is not a denial of their citizenship but it makes a major difference between being migrants and cross border citizens (with majority in Chad area) and being indigenous; whether to the understanding of the common reader to the background of things or to the reliability of this article as a source. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 197.252.76.8 (talk · contribs) 197.252.76.8 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Khalil Ibrahim}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? 197.252.76.8 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Khalil Ibrahim discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It is not clear that there is any dispute here. The Khalil Ibrahim article does not talk about the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa. The article on the Zaghawa people relates what medieval geographers wrote about the place where they live and which kingdoms they dominated, without mentioning a separate "kingdom of Zaghawa". There is an article Awlad Mana with a section The Zaghawa of Central Africa that does state "Long ago, [the Zaghawa] had their own kingdom ... . The remnants of this ancient kingdom can still be seen today." There is no discussion of a more specific location than "Central Africa", and no source is cited for this statement, but verbatim the same statement is found elsewhere on the Web here, which gives "Text source: Bethany World Prayer Center", and from which the Wikipedia text may have been copied. Perhaps the question is best taken to the Humanities section of the Wikipedia Reference desk.  --Lambiam 07:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Underhill Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Estelle Skidmore Doremus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) William Wilson Underhill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Francis Jay Underhill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) David Harris Underhill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) John Torboss Underhill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Several articles relating to the Underhill Society of America and related family members have been nominated for deletion. In initially preparing the articles I did not anticipate it would illicit such a strong reaction from others. As such, I may not have demonstrated the necessary rigorousness for writing the articles initially, including adding sufficient secondary sources, etc. After having a number of my articles recommended for deletion, however, I worked to strengthen my existing articles and to be more rigorous on new articles. Since making improvements, there has been either no repsonse to the AFD's or new AFD's placed on new articles that I have written such as the United States Fire Insurance Company of New York. With the assistance of Blanchardb, the AFD for John Torboss Underhill has been lifted. I believe that the Underhill Society of America meets the notability guidelines with the edits that I have made, and most if not all of the pages for family members have notability too. For those who do not, I would be willing to incorporate their material in the Underhill Society of America page. Before doing so, I would like to know whether the Underhill Society of America page will be deleted or not. Getting recognition for the importance of these figures and generating interest in the USofA and the Underhill family is hard enough as is. To make it difficult or impossible to draw attention to the organization and family within Wikipedia makes it very frustrating for people who care about this subject matter. What makes this situation that much worse is that the editor in question is clearly not aware of the importance of the significant role that Captain John Underhill played in Colonial America, settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Amsterdam, and Long Island, nor how his ancestors across many generations continued that distinguished service in every major war, as well as in business, industry, and politics. Had he know this he might have been a little more cautious before nominating so many articles for deletion. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Toddst1 (talk · contribs) Placepromo (talk · contribs) Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) Blanchardb (talk · contribs) The aggressive use of the Article For Deletion tag almost made me want to walk away from Wikipedia altogether. Then I recognized this editor has used heavy-handed tactics with other users too. What it came down for me as an expert in this subject matter, is if I did not take a stand, then no one else would. I am committed to this subject matter and also committed to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm hoping clearer heads can prevail and a satisfying resolution may be found. If a resolution can be found, I can see myself helping other users in similar situations moving forward. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have reached out to the editor who made the AFD requests. He is insistent that the family organization and members of the family are not notable. I made improvements to each article and tried to engage the editor in a discussion though have received no response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#Dealing_with_Underhill_postings I reached out to a number of other users who contributed to the articles or offered to help and also have gotten little response. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate help getting connected with people who have similar subject-area interests, and who can help me with refining these existing articles, so that I may more effectively contribute moving forward. I will also reach out for editor assistance, separate from this request. Placepromo (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Not sure of the dispute or why this was brought to my attention. I've left messages that at first went ignored at User talk:Placepromo, and have done nothing but offer suggestions to help him, answering in a timely and respectful fashion. I did !vote for deletion on a couple of these, and stand by my reasoning in those discussions. But rather than just let my !vote stand, I tried to help, offered assistance, suggested he request userification of the article if it was deleted so it could still be kept and worked on and perhaps submitted again once notability is clear. While I don't personally see it, I remained open to the idea that it may be notable but incredibly hard to source, and offered my time to see if we could source them in his sandbox (difficult to spend too much time at Christmas sourcing), but my ideas were politely rejected. I'm not the one who submitted these for AFD, but I'm mentioned in this dispute, so not sure what the complaint against my actions are. As far as I can tell, I participated in a couple of AFDs (in good faith), and offered to assist the user in trying to develop his ideas as articles out of main space, again, in good faith. I'm not sure what else I could have done to help. I personally have no complaint against Placepromo, he has been cordial in every communication I have had with him. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Correction: I did nominate David Harris Underhill for deletion as the only source was an obituary, and no other independent sources could be found. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Whoever wrote these articles seems never to have heard of pronouns, using the full name of the subject at every possible opportunity. Yworo (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Should consider also nominating Underhill Burying Ground. My ancestors have old burying grounds too, but they don't get articles. Yworo (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Closing notes: This is inappropriate for DRN. The instructions for this noticeboard say, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." Moreover, if Placepromo feels that the AfD nominator is proposing articles for deletion in a manner which violates Wikipedia policy, the issue should be raised at WP:WQA or WP:ANI since it would be a conduct dispute, not a content dispute; the content dispute is the issue being handled at AfD and that's where the discussion should take place, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taliban

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a dispute about whether the term "military support" (of Pakistan to the Taliban from 1995-2001) should be included in the relevant lead sentence. Anyone please take a look at below sources and tell us your opinion whether you think 1) Pakistan is being accused of "military support" in these sources, and if so 2) it is due or undue to mention that in the lead sentence ("From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided [military] support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it.") Sources Encyclopedia "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia United Nations "The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."[19] "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."[20] "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals." [21] "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."[22] Human Rights Watch "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."[23] "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."[24] Academia ”Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …” (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.) ” Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance”[25] "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."[26] "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."[27] "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."[28] Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.) "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."[29] "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."[30] "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."[31] International Governments "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."[32] Head of European Parliament: “ …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society.”[33] ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”[34] "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan." [35] "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."[36] French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"[37] Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) TopGun (talk · contribs) TParis (talk · contribs) JCAla (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue was discussed on the Taliban talk page. There is neither a consensus to use the term "military support" nor a consensus to not use it. How do you think we can help? You can help by considering above sources and then provide your position in response to the two questions posed above. JCAla (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Taliban discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: Mediators/clerks here at DRN should take note of the special conduct limitations regarding this dispute (set out here by sysop Magog the Ogre), which extend to discussion of this dispute by the disputants here at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Support the use of them having given military assistance, this is widely reported upon and there are sources from the academic press which discuss the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Support, the support has explicitly been characterized as "military support" in and by the reliable sources and it constitutes a majority position. Therefor it is verifiable and due to present the nature of the majority position correctly. There is no case for dropping a single term explicitly used by the reliable sources to characterize the nature of the support. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Comment - if this is another attempt to jam through JCAla's point of view by getting more people to opine and say "support, the other side is wrong" - then it is poorly intentioned. This issue is quite resolvable if the parties simply discuss the issue without all the side tangents. While I recommend anybody interested post their opinion here and even come to Talk:Taliban, I remind all parties that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and adding more editors of one's own POV will help nothing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly what I was about to say, votes? I think User:Darkness Shines's "vote" was copied from the talk page and should be listed as a quotation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC) No, this is not "another attempt to jam through" anyone's point of view. This is simply an attempt to get other people to join the discussion on the very core question. People might be discouraged to join the discussion on Talk:Taliban because of the pure length and missing oversight. Positions are quite deadlocked on this very issue and there has already been a very long discussion. This being a content dispute resolution board, it seems the right place. I think I was able to pose the question in a fairly neutral way. A discussion and possible consensus can go either way. Thanks for assuming the good faith you asked us to assume. (Removed the "votes" formulation so it can't be misunderstood.) Any input on the topic from your, Magog, side or any other interested side on the disputed content is greatly appreciated (whether it is in support of the use of the term or in opposition). It is now up to wikipedia editors whether they want to see that term or not. JCAla (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Note: This has an extensive discussion on Talk:Taliban and it would be tiring to start it all over again here while it can be WP:TLDR for editors here to read that. A related consensus is also present at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC) I disagree. The consensus mentioned above by TopGun is not meaningful for this discussion. The discussion was about another time period (2001-today), the specific term "alliance" and the infobox. The current discussion is about 1995-2001 and the addition of one verified term to an already existing agreed-upon lead sentence. 1995-2001 is a period on which there are a lot of studies and the obvious (see sources) majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support" to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC) It is very much relevant; editors are free to review the issues stated in the opening and closer's comments. The specific term 'alliance' in infobox and time period were 2 of its aspects. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.