Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 86

Angus Deayton

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

Filed by Bretonbanquet on 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Angus Deayton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs)
• Narrow Feint (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd better start by saying this has nothing to do with the Angus Deayton article per se – another editor has changed the subject of this discussion because apparently there needs to be an actual article in the subject heading. This dispute is about the same edit being made to hundreds of different articles. The Angus Deayton article has never been discussed on an individual basis.

Narrow Feint makes large numbers of edits to placename formats on English-related BLP articles, specifically removing "UK" from placenames. For example: [1]. Narrow Feint considers "UK" redundant in British addresses. I object on the grounds that various formats are commonly used across Wikipedia (e.g. London, England, UK or London, England or London, UK) and editors should not be enforcing any format en masse without a guideline or MOS guidance. There is no guideline or MOS guidance and I believe that any factually correct format of showing a British placename is acceptable, and that enforcing one over the others is not constructive.

After a discussion involving a number of editors here, Narrow Feint believes he has a consensus to make mass changes to English placenames in BLP articles, and I disagree. The discussion centred around the merits of the various formats, and not about the value of making mass changes. In any case, only a small majority of editors favoured Narrow Feint's preferred format, while others disagreed with him, and still others favoured other formats. I consider the result of the discussion to be no consensus, and that it is not sufficient grounds to make mass changes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from the above discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board, I filed an ANI report which essentially told us to come here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses), although I am not convinced that this is a plain content dispute. There has been further discussion at User talk:Narrow Feint.

How do you think we can help?

Narrow Feint is a very civil editor and we have not resorted to edit-warring. He has also stopped editing while we sort this out. But I have issues with his single-purpose editing and the nature of it. We differ strongly and we are looking for guidance as to whether his editing patterns are constructive and justified, or not.

Summary of dispute by Narrow Feint

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

From my end the dispute is about two things.

One: what is the consensus preferred description of places in articles (such as Angus Deayton)? Should it be Surrey, England, UK or should it be Surrey, England? That is, should it be England, UK or just England? Angus Deayton is unusual, usually it is "town, county, England, United Kindom" versus "town, county, England".

Two: assuming that the consesnsus is that UK (or U.K., or United Kindom) is redundant, should it be removed? And, what to do if it is added?

The most recent discussion of on the need for United Kingdom is just here. (I initiated that discussion following Bretonbanquet's comments at several places.) It follows on some old discussions which are linked there. My opinion is that United Kingdom is not required. My reading of the discussion is that there is a consensus that United Kingdom is not required in addition to England.

I have made changes to articles to bring them into line to what I think is consensus. I have only changed England, United Kingdom (U.K., UK) to England. I will reiterate that this is because that is what I was looking for. There have been cases where I changed England but left Scotland, United Kingdom or Wales, United Kingdom in place. If I have left articles with a mix of styles, then that was a mistake. Sorry.

Bretonbanquet clearly disagrees with my interpretation of consensus. And, if there is a consensus, I think he disagrees that the 'electorate' was wide enough. And if the is a consensus and it is valid, I think he disagrees that I have authority (probably wrong word) to make any changes.

Narrow Feint (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator notes

@Bretonbanquet: can you please provide links to places where this issue has already been discussed. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of discussion between me and Narrow Feint, only the places I've already linked to, namely Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses and User talk:Narrow Feint. Prior to that I made queries to a couple of admins about whether there were guidelines covering this topic, but they were generalised and Narrow Feint was not named. Narrow Feint wasn't pleased about my original inquiries when he found out, but I specifically didn't name him because I wasn't sure he had done anything wrong. They didn't lead anywhere anyway as I was simply told to engage with Narrow Feint directly, which I did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for providing these links. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Angus Deayton discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200, and I will assist with this dispute. Please give me a little while to review all of the evidence that both of you presented. Depending on where you live, we can kick off discussion in the evening. I just wanted to thank both of you for staying civil and Narrow Feint for halting your editing on edits related to this dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Have either of you read the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS? There is no current consensus on if people from the UK should have U.K. or their birth country listed for their birthplace. It looks like that is what we're going to have to do. I don't want to give an opinion nor side with one of you, but it seems more feasible to use their birth country over U.K,. The UK consists of four separate countries, however UK means "union," and we should use birth countries rather than a union. Something similar to this was the Confederate States of America and the Union. As a whole, it is still considered America (also by other countries at the time) especially if you were born there. On the contrary, citizens from the UK are considered "British citizens" and that can support using UK over the birth country; I still believe using the birth country is more specific. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MrScorch6200, and thanks to Narrow Feint for responding before the case was closed. I have read (and I believe NF has also read) WP:UKNATIONALS, and indeed there is no consensus on what to do – that's why I object to mass changes. It actually says "Do not enforce uniformity" and although it directly refers to nationalities, I believe this is the same concept. I appreciate your opinion on which to use, but other editors have made good cases for other formats, hence the lack of consensus. For example, not everyone across the world knows that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not independent sovereign countries, but parts of one, and the infoboxes should reflect that. You are correct that all these BLPs are British citizens, and many of them now do not have "UK" stated anywhere on their articles, which will be confusing for those readers who are not familiar with the makeup of the UK. It's important not to overstate the status of the constituent countries. "Birth countries" (England etc) are not mentioned anywhere on British passports – officially the birth country is the UK. Another point worth making is that the documentation for Template:Infobox person does say to use "city, administrative region, sovereign state", which is not being followed.

I reiterate that I'm not seeking to enforce the presence of "UK" across articles, but simply to prevent the enforcement of its removal where there is no consensus or guideline or MOS to support it. There's equally nothing to stop someone adding "UK" wherever they go, so it's basically futile anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with most of your statements above, however let's get back to the task at hand. Narrow Feint's edits are not justifiable. Nowhere (officially at least) does it say to either use UK over birth countries or vice versa. Nor does it say to enforce uniformity on articles by using one of the two. Narrow Feint, what's your stance on this? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My stance on this is that I will do whatever the consensus on the matter is. What is your interpretation of the very specific discussion at the UK noticeboard? (n.b. I think you should avoid telling us what your contribution would be.) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the discussion there and there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers. Some also say that "UK" should be used in very few circumstances such as if the BLP had an impact on the UK as a whole and not one of the countries. What do you guys say (post under heading below for organization)? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

UK noticeboard consensus

I don't think that it's a clear consensus, if it is one at all. In that discussion, Narrow Feint did not even explain what he is doing. Apart from those editors who were against removing "UK", at least two editors state a preference for "London, UK" and a few of the arguments in agreement with Narrow Feint were very poor: the idea about the BLP having an impact on just one constituent country rather than the whole UK is ridiculous. It would be impossible to make such a distinction. I actually don't see anyone in that discussion making that point. Also, "England is a country in the UK and everyone knows it" is a particularly vapid argument.

Redundancy seems to be the most common argument for removing "UK", but all the editors in this discussion already know that England and the UK are not synonymous. They all know about the makeup of the UK. What about those readers who don't? How many of those were represented in that discussion? An encyclopedia should not assume prior knowledge. Consider Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic.

But most importantly, there's no discussion there about enforcing this format at the expense of others. It's just about whether the "UK" is necessary. Talking about whether something is necessary or not is not the same as talking about wiping it out. One editor (Kahastok) brings up the point against enforcing uniformity, for example, and that is a crucial point. The discussion was not about making mass changes, so how can it stand as justification to make mass changes? If "UK" is to be removed from all BLPs (contrary to the infobox template instructions), it would need a much stronger and wider consensus than this – it is a controversial subject on which to be enforcing uniformity. Nobody has yet explained to me how enforcing uniformity in this way is constructive. Why not make an attempt to form a guideline or at least include it in a MOS? It would at least then have gained wider support than a rickety consensus on a talk page which large numbers of interested editors will not have seen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that of those editors who considered "UK" to be redundant, not many advocated its removal, and only a small number of them admitted to actively removing it when they see it. So how can the discussion justify mass removal? How many editors requested mass removal? Narrow Feint is the only editor of whom I am aware who makes it his sole purpose on Wikipedia to remove it. I do wonder, with all good faith assumed, why NF does this, only this, and nothing else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I definitely see your point that not all readers know that the UK and England are not synonymous. Also, like you and I said, there is no justification for Narrow Feint to make mass changes without a crystal clear consensus. Some editors consider that disruptive to the project. Also, the discussion (I will call it that instead of consensus) there is about if UK is necessary and not making mass changes opposing it (like you said). I remember an incident about two months back where a newer editor thought the consensus to use the new reader's commenting system on only some articles meant it shouldn't be used on any. He went and disabled the commenting system on hundreds and hundreds of articles. That made a lot of people mad and he refused to listen to anyone that there was a clear consensus to only roll it out on articles that could use it. Anyway, I would like Narrow Feint to state his current view on the discussion before I continue. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you (MrScorch6200) when you write above "there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers." I note the minority position that prefers '"Manchester, UK" rather than "Manchester, England"' though as someone wrote there that might cause trouble for (e.g.) Edinburgh. I expect that that change would make "a lot of people mad". Narrow Feint (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(cut and paste cut but not paste!) The next stage of this dispute resolution must surely be to agree on the consensus at that discussion, no? Bretonbanquet still does not agree, I think. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting to say this. Templates at Wikipedia are an aid to text entry. The guidance at any template to (e.g.) use soverign country it not a statement of anything except what the template documentation writers were thinking at the time. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) With regard to NF's first point there, I think that's why there should be flexibility across BLP articles, so that each article (if necessary) can host a discussion if there's a difference of opinion. Different formats will work better at different articles. I believe that's why there has never been a guideline or notes in the Manual of Style telling editors to favour any format over others. There really is no benefit in having the same format for all articles.

I think any agreement we might make on the consensus (or lack thereof) at that discussion is not relevant to our dispute, due to the fact that the discussion did not examine the nature of your edits. The only consensus that could be extracted from it might be that a (small) majority of editors prefer not to use "UK". There's really no talk there of removing it, particularly on a mass scale.

You're right about the instructions at the template, but it's also the only guidance there is on the topic. Those instructions would though have been formulated over a long period of time via a consensus, not just one editor writing them. It's an extremely heavily used template. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I have received a notification that the discussion at the UK Wikipedians Notice Board now has new posts (I think due to this discussion here at DRN), and another editor has expressed a desire for "UK" not to be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing that to our attention; I'm going to let the debate there run for a few more hours (as the last post was 10 or so minutes ago) before we continue, unless either of you want to. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That discussiuon seems to have stalled again. Perhaps we should carry on? Narrow Feint (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what happens next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• What do you propose to do? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's mainly up to Narrow Feint and how he sees the situation at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the situation much as before. I think I agree with MrScorch6200 on the consensus at the UK talk pages, But Bretonbanquet does not. Bretonbanquet writes that the documentation of Template:Infobox person is "also the only guidance there is on the topic", but as I said before, it's just an aid to text entry. There is however guidance at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements where it says "The lead ... should normally cover the following: Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (...), and constituent country." Constituent country is England, Scotland, etc. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, MrScorch6200 has pointed out that any consensus at the UK Wikipedians' talk page does not constitute a consensus for your edits and that your edits are not justified. He has actually said that twice. The discussion there does not correspond with what you are doing. Do you accept that? With regard to your other point, that guidance refers to the article lead, not the infobox. You are generally editing the infobox, if I am not mistaken. Furthermore, that guidance refers to articles about settlements and you generally edit articles about people (BLPs). So nothing of it applies to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me say it upfront - Any consensus (if clear) at the UK Noticeboard does not have much relation to what this DRN request was filed for. Nowhere on the Noticeboard has a discussion about Narrow Feint's mass editing not UK vs England, UK etc. Please remember that this was filed to address the mass editing and not interpret a consensus. Both of you are quote mining from me so I summed my view up here. Now, let's work on a solution. 23:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the whole point of this DRN – we were sent here because it was deemed a content dispute. Narrow Feint believes that discussion is a consensus which allows him to mass edit. If we have established that it isn't, then he doesn't have justification for the mass editing. What kinds of solution can there be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My proposal. In most circumstances the phrase "UK", "U.K." or "United Kingdom" is not needed in addition to the constituent country; it can be removed on sight and should not be added. Narrow Feint (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. It cannot be "removed on sight" because there is no guideline, MOS guidance or consensus to do that. I do agree that it should not be added en masse in the same way that it should not be removed en masse. Mass edits to any effect which has no supporting guideline or consensus are unconstructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I have to stop posting and cannot respod before tomorrow about three. (Thursday 15:00) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about you cease removing UK from infoboxes/leads and leave them as they are? If it has been there then technically there is a consensus to keep them, else other editors would have removed it. This is one of those things that can't have uniformity; it's impossible. These types of edits are considered unconstructive and are completely unjustified. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume that it has been added (it has always been added, never there from the start) because there is a consensus but I am removing it against consensus? Other editors are removing it, and in this case it is me. And what to do if it is added? At the risk of repeating myself, why is it OK to add it but not OK to remove it, especially when the consensus format is to not have it? Narrow Feint (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass editing or repetitive changes to a series of articles without clear consensus from a group of people at a project page or a WP:RFC is generally not appropriate, especially when other editors have registered their objection. In the past I have seen it lead to problems for the editor that is making the mass changes. At some point the issue transitions from being a content dispute to being a behavioral issue and I think we are at that point now. Better to put a hold on the changes and get a clear consensus by a group of editors and make sure that the changes are beneficial to the project and not unintentionally disruptive. NF I think you are acting in good faith but I recommend that you stop making these changes and find other productive work on WP until a clear consensus is formed that specifically endorses your desire to make this change across all of WP. I'd also like to suggest that this discussion be closed since it appears there is another discussion on this same issue on the UK project page which is in violation of our guidelines. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First, there is a clear consensus at a project page. I was advised to seek a consensus there at WP:BLPN. I opened the discussion ("... Do I need to reconfirm here that UK is not needed, or can I get back to improving things? ..."). Having confirmed that the consensus was the same as it had been for years I went back to improving things. Bretonbanquet was about the fourth editor to comment (the exact number doesn't matter). He had the chance to say then "this is not the place", but did not. Nobody has said there "this is not the place". OK, one more time (I have asked this before). Where is the place to seek consensus about the preferred way to describe places in the UK?

Second, where is this other discussion (that Keithbob describes) taking place? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was just about to ask that. @Keithbob: what discussion are you talking about? NF: There is also not clear consensus on that page. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh third. Close it if you like, but not much has been resolved. I will be away for four days from about 23:00. Please don't assume anything from that. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought there was mention in the discussion above that there were ongoing comments on this issue at the UK project talk page. If I'm mistaken then I apologize. As for what is the right venue to get support for mass changes. I think you need to have an RfC at a venue with good traffic and participation. If you feel you have gotten that already please provide the links here so I can look at them and comment. Many thanks to all for your patience and participation in this massive collaborative event we call WP :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, my apologies I was not aware of this discussion that NF has cited in his comment above. It appears to be quite comprehensive. The remaining question is: Was there a clear consensus to make the change en masse? I admit that I don't have time to read the entire discussion as I'm in the midst of a busy week. So I'll leave it to the two parties here and the moderater, MrScorch, to sort that out. I will leave this discussion with one suggestion though. That is to list the Dec 2013 discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board at WP:ANRFC and ask that it receive a formal closing with an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. I think that will provide something solid on which to base further action. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We had linked to that discussion here a few times. I realise you haven't read it, but in it there is no discussion about mass changes. Nobody made any comment about mass changes because Narrow Feint did not disclose that that is what he is doing. We've sort of been through that above. Even if a consensus could be extracted from it, it still wouldn't justify what NF is doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200: It's been two days with no new comments. Is more discussion needed here? Or would you like to summarize and close? My apologies if I seem pushy, but we have a lot of open cases this month and I want to move things along in a timely way if I can. If more discussion is needed then please, by all means proceed, but if not, then a timely close would be helpful. Thank you for all your help at DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be OK if we go to WP:ANRFC and ask for the discussion at WP:UK to be closed and summarised. Narrow Feint (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done that. I have based the request on others already there. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked a specific question there related to the consensus that may be found in that discussion. There's no value in someone saying "Yes, there's a consensus" without clarifying what that consensus allows editors to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before anyone gets round to that closure. In the meantime I read WP:DISRUPT and I don't see anything there that's relevant. I don't want the discussion as yet (give me time to read) but where do I look to find the policy/guideline/consensus that helps to understand if edits are disruptive? Narrow Feint (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all there, I think. WP:DISRUPT is a rock-solid guideline, and admins basically decide whether someone has violated it or not. I don't think it's so much the exact edits someone makes, but general behaviour that can be seen as disruptive. But nobody's saying (as far as I can see) that you have violated that guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'disruptive' apears twice in this section. I don't want to be accused of quote mining so I won't extract it, but it is in the post by MrScorch6200 at 03:02, 11 January 2014 and the post by Keithbob at 16:25, 16 January 2014. Just checking. Narrow Feint (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either used the word to directly describe your actions, rather that the potential is there for your editing to be seen that way, particularly if the consensus closure is in accordance with this DRN case. Let's wait and see – as you say, it might yet be a day or two, or longer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, let's wait and see what happens at ANRFC. I'm also going to confirm that I didn't want to call out Narrow Feint's edits as disruptive, just that they can be viewed that way (especially by an admin and because there is no current consensus). There's definitely a backlog at ANRFC, so let's R&R for a few days. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior administrative discussion about the status of the case

Friday closing notice (old) I or someone else will/should close this dispute as either stale or as a major party declined to participate in 24hrs if there is no participation. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Could we leave it open at least until Friday? Narrow Feint has limited connectivity (his words) from Monday to Thursday, so maybe he is unable to post at the moment. If this is closed, we do not have any other route to solve the problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC) OK, I will wait until Friday night but if there is no participation I will close. Thanks for letting me know. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) OK, no problem. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) You're welcome. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC) I've put a note on User:Narrow Feint's talk page to let him/her know that we'd like ,him [them] to join the conversation soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC) OK, I'm online again. I will make a start today. Narrow Feint (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for participating :-) User:MrScorch6200 I'm stepping out of this now, so please continue with this case, if you have time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

South Asia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Feysalafghan on 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Feysalafghan (talk · contribs) Nikhilmn2002 (talk · contribs) Elockid (talk · contribs) Materialscientist (talk · contribs) Krisxlowry (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On this article many people don't agree with the definition of South asia. South Asia is the only region with so many definitions, Afghanistan and Iran is the main problem which we find here. Afghanistan and Iran are both by the UN included in South Asia but many don't like this because both countries are 'Iranic race' countries who share both the Same culture, languages ( both countries speak iranian languages like Pashto, Persian, kurdi etc), religion, race, cuisine and history as everyone knows. so people include these to South Asia but Iranian and Afghans don't like it because they haven't much in common with the South Asian continent. so people deleted Afghanistan and Iran from South Asia but others (mostly indians who are nationalist and use political views on wikipedia) added Afghanistan again by saying that Afghanistan is part of SAARC a south asian cooperation so it is a South asian country but afghanistan is also part of many Central asian cooperations and economic organisations like the CAREC so that was no the right argument to add Afghanistan back again. Many encyclopedia's like Iranica and brittanica and many others don't count Afghanistan and Iran to South Asia but Afghanistan most time to Central asia because they share the same culture also and ethnic groups and Iran to west asia as you know so that is not a big a deal for me if it is like this. the World of factbook of the Cia counts Afghanistan since 2010 to South asia but the U.S. census and government does not they count Afghanistan to Central asia because Afghans are ethnically close to them and Iran to Middle east dispite Iran does not have lot of common with Arab but ok. and the UK census and government also adds Afghanistan to Central Asia and West Asia and Iran to West Asia. Pakistan being a neighbor of Afghanistan is not a reason to add afg to south asia guys!!! conclusion: we don't want Afghanistan and Iran being part of South Asia because they don't belong to it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I talked lot of times with the Editors to come to an agreement and Nikhilmn2002 gave me advice to make a consensus. I gave these solutions to them: - Use the culturally definition of South asia ( not contains Afg or ira) -Use the Geographically definition of South Asia -Use the world wide Atlas definition of South asia or use the UN definition and include both Afghanistan and Iran to the Article not just one of them. - Do not use SAARC as an argument/reason to add Afghanistan to South asia How do you think we can help? helping with Choosing a good definition which not led to many other discussions. If we use the international UN definition it would be ok but Afghanistan and Iran should be in the Article not one of them. Saying to the people that SAARC the south asian cooperation is not a reason to add Afghanistan (Afg joined SAARC since 2007 and CAREC in 2005) because Afghanistan is also part of Central asian cooperation. saying to the people that south asian nationalism may not be used on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Nikhilmn2002 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Elockid Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Materialscientist Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Krisxlowry Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. South Asia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limonana

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 94.249.109.110 on 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Limonana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Berean Hunter blocked me by claiming "Disruptive editing: POV warrior Arab-Israeli conflict" on the Limonana page. This is entirely hypocritical as Berean Hunter removed the tags I added (Jordanian cuisine; Lebanese cuisine, Palestinian cuisine, Syrian cuisine and Turkish cuisine) while removing the reference that discusses the significance of the drink in Syrian culture. The only tag this user left alone was "Israeli cuisine", deliberately excluding any relevant Arab or Turkish cuisine information. Furthermore, he reposted the false information that limonana was invented by an Israeli advertising company, when in fact, it has been enjoyed throughout the region long before this time. Not only has Berean Hunter included false information, but the user has also stifled any mention of a narrative that he does not agree with. This raises questions about Berean Hunter's neutrality as an administrator. Berean Hunter has accused me of disruptive editing, when in reality I am contributing to Wikipedia by acknowledging a blatant case of cultural appropriation and exploitation. It appears Berean Hunter is the one who's editing as disruptive as he or she removed my tags and source without explanation. Lastly, Berean Hunter failed to engage me in any way, shape or form prior to blocking me. This creates an abusive environment that completely contradicts Wikipedia's founding principles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted on my user page and contacted the Wikipedia information team, who directed me to dispute resolution. How do you think we can help? I am writing to request that the tags and reference I added be restored Limonana article as they are clearly relevant to the cultural origins and history of the drink. Moreover, I would like Berean Hunter to be reminded of the standards of an administrator and react proportionately, rather than abuse the blocking privilege to blot out historical content he or she is not fond of. Summary of dispute by Berean Hunter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Limonana page discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cryptocurrency

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kevoras on 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Cryptocurrency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kevoras (talk · contribs) Citation Needed (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Dispute is with 'what Cryptocurrency should be mentioned in the page', while everyone trading Crypto will use "market capitalization" as benchmark of which crypto is important, currently editor on the page keeps quoting WP:GNG and removes all new crypto that have HUGE market caps, but not meeting his selective standard of what is notatable. As a result a person viewing the page gets a glance of Old obsolete cryptos (like Ripple) which is basically misinformation. I understand Cryptocurrency is VERY NEW, as such, articles are few and sometimes takes MONTHS to catch up, I therefore wish to use Market Capital of Mineable Crypto as benchmark instead. (as this is where people's money is worth, much like the equity market. News FOLLOW the market cap, not preceed it.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss, but Citation Needed calls it a waste of time. saying, "I can disagree all I want" and "why will I waste time with you"". Current Status is refusing to talk. I raised an ANI and was recommended to put the issue here for a fair assessment in Wikipedia style. How do you think we can help? I feel as new as Cryptocurrencies are, relying on media article mentions can only be PART of the validation of whether a Crypto is noteable or not. Market Capitalization SHOULD be a strong consideration, and perphaps all top 20 Market Capitalized mineable Crypto should earn a spot in the page. The page is afterall "Cryptocurrency" and there's no reason to exclude some over the others. Maybe show them ALL with a market capitlization column sorting? that will make it fair at least. Summary of dispute by Citation Needed Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cryptocurrency discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Old Fashioned

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 174.70.109.108 on 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Old Fashioned (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved null (talk · contribs) SQGibbons (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User/contributor Sqgibbons has been making overly critical reverts to anything I edit. Albeit, maybe I formatted incorrectly, or didn't sign something. No matter what I post in the future this user will revert it. Rather than get into some kind of war over this, i'd rather explain the situation and hopefully come to a peaceful resolution. I would recommend a ban from this user participating in any cocktail related forums, because they have stated they have a "keen interest in cocktails" but without publications, work history, or knowledge to verify the reverts. I wish to contribute, I am currently banned, because this users efforts to belittle me and discredit my lifes work, were quite frankly, annoying and stressful. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted several time to explain that once you hold a grudge against somebody you will always be looking for the bad in them, rather than assume good faith per- wiki guidelines. This message was not received well. How do you think we can help? I am open to listening to any opinion or view on cocktails and cocktail history, I love to talk drinks. Perhaps if this message came from someone else, the user might understand that they are infact being overly critical and honestly, i'm a little scared that someone is so interested in discrediting me. The same user has reverted every single one of my post over the years when far more discrepancies exist. I have yet to contribute anything because the user will not let me by finding fault. Summary of dispute by null Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SQGibbons Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Old Fashioned discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SPACKlick on 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Orthodox Presbyterian Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SPACKlick (talk · contribs) 78.31.47.43 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Content has been added that I feel is WP:OR, the other editor does not feel it is WP:OR. I became hot under the collar and broke 3RR before the other user was willing to discuss on the talk page. Now that we are both discussing, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Removing disputed content and searching for sources myself, adding citation needed, to whom and failed verification tags to raise awareness amongst other editors. How do you think we can help? Arbitrate on the talk page. One of use clearly misunderstands something about this content and its sources. Someone with more experience will likely be able to spot where we're going wrong so we can stop arguing at cross purposes and move towards something productive. Summary of dispute by 78.31.47.43 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Orthodox Presbyterian Church discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bitcoin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HLachman on 03:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HLachman (talk · contribs) Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Fleetham (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is discussed on the Bitcoin talk page, section "Intrinsic value debate". There is ongoing disagreement about what text to put in the Bitcoin article in relation to "intrinsic value". There have been repeated disagreements over what text promotes RELEVANCE, NPOV, etc. There also seems to be a breakdown of the consensus-building process. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started with the Talk page (22:47, 25 Jan.) to get feedback before editing. I got feedback and made edits. Someone made further edits that seemed to be against RELEVANCE and NPOV. It appeared to me that one editor was trying to find ways to discredit a cited source (Jack Hough article, WSJ) through tangential arguments over terminology, rather than citing a source with an opposing view. I created Talk section "Intrinsic value debate" to resolve, but still see edits with no prior talk. How do you think we can help? Perhaps you can offer some opinion to the participants on what constitutes RELEVANCE and NPOV in this case, perhaps for specific edits that have been done/undone on this topic of "intrinsic value". Perhaps you can also provide advice to the participants on consensus-building. My preferred content is the first paragraph under Bitcoin#Economics (15:21, 29 January 2014). Paragraph was moved to a new section whose purpose seems to be to continue the tangential attempt to discredit the WSJ author. Summary of dispute by Ladislav Mecir Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I see it so, that there is an attempt to build a consensus on the Talk page. I am waiting how it ends up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladislav Mecir (talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Fleetham Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bitcoin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Note: I am not opening the discussion at this time, but it is unclear as to whether User:Ladislav Meci would like to participate. He blanked his talk page along with the DRN notification, so I re-added it in case he didn't see it (or he may just blank instead of archiving). @Ladislav Meci: Are you participating in this case? If not, I will have to close it as you are the other major party. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (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.

Randolph Mantooth

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cricket02 on 03:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Randolph Mantooth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cricket02 (talk · contribs) NDakotaCelt (talk · contribs) Parabluemedic (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over year of birth. Discussion and consensus on talk page with verifiable reliable source for year of birth 1945. However, another user, Parabluemedic, insists on changing the year of birth to 1950, without ever citing a source at all, or even discussing reasoning in the relative discussion on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page with requests for comments/objections. How do you think we can help? Request User Parabluemedic to discuss the issue and provide a source instead of only leaving edit summaries like "DOB as cited by the actor himself". Summary of dispute by NDakotaCelt I was looking at the page and noticed it had updated with the wrong date. I corrected the date on 17 Jan 2014 in addition to adding recent information on the Pioneers of Paramedics. I presented my reasons for the 1945 date in the Talk section as requested. I presented additional sources and reasoning for the date. An earlier editor, Cricket asked for clarification and I provided that. I provided solid sources from the California birth index and marriage index housed on the FamilySearch (LDS) site. Those records are directly filmed and/or indexed from vital records in California. I supported the information with high school yearbooks, Santa Barbara Community College listing, AADA alumni list,AADA requirements, Route51 website bio sketch, and several articles relating to him signing a contract with Universal in a magazine layout published in 1970. I also pointed out the issues with a database called US Public Records because you cannot directly go back and review their sources. Several genealogical sites even caution users about using US Public Records due to its accuracy issues. It is a known by some fans that Randy does play with his age. A lot of individuals do, its human nature. Cricket and I had several discussions and we asked questions of each others findings, thoughtfully. The invitation for others to add to the discussion was open to them, including Parabluemedic. I have changed it back to support the information that supported the consensus. Summary of dispute by Parabluemedic Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Randolph Mantooth discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I'm a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator), I'm not opening this for discussion or "taking" it at this time, but I want to offer some observations. First, it appears to me that Parabluemedic has begun to engage discussion on his and others talk pages. It seems to me that much of the problem here might be avoided if the other editors in this dispute — and this is not a veiled criticism, merely a recommendation — would take the time to carefully and completely explain to him why his privately-offered sources are not sufficient and also the fact that Wikipedia policy requires that every fact here have an inline reference to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, and the additional fact that that's particularly true for living persons. If he continues to engage, it might be best if this request were to be withdrawn and for discussion to continue at the article talk page. Second, I'd also like to observe, perhaps apropos of nothing, that analyzing and weighing multiple sources, even if they are all reliable sources, and coming up with a single age for a person may run afoul of the no original research policy or the synthesis part of that policy. If reliable sources disagree with one another, the Wikipedia standard is to include all reliable positions. Third, it must be noted that public records may not be used as sources about living persons, including use for the purpose of established age or date of birth. The BLPPRIMARY policy says: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. (Emphasis added and rearranged.) "Do not use" is pretty absolute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your time, your advice on policy is appreciated. We will continue discussion on article talk page. Please withdraw. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2014 (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.

Antichess

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mann_jess. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Antichess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mann_jess (talk · contribs) Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute relating to a recent copyedit, including some content that was removed. Should we include links to flash games as ELs, and should we include example chess games, noted move by move, in the article body? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Not at DRN. Discussion has taken place in edit summaries and briefly on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Since it is an obscure article, there are only two participants in the dispute. I'm having difficulty participating with the other editor, and would like some outside involvement to make collaborating and reaching consensus easier. Because of the nature of the dispute, I believe DRN is more appropriate than 3O. Summary of dispute by Mann_jess Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I recently made this change, copyediting and reworking the article's existing content. My edit generated this discussion, concerning one sentence I had changed, which was my first interaction with ihardlythinkso. I tried working with him to bring the wording closer to our sources, but had considerable difficulty doing so. I eventually left the conversation when I felt it wasn't helping. Ihardlythinkso made a series of edits the next day, including this one, which restored 4 external links I had removed, with an edit summary "unexplained removal". I removed them again and explained my reason (we don't normally provide links to flash games in ELs), and asked for discussion if he disagreed. He reverted again with a rationale of BRD, and I opened a new section on talk to discuss it, here. My second comment is a rather frustrated one in response to his third revert, where he again just cited BRD, and accusing me of "bullying". That conversation hasn't gone anywhere that is helpful, and since it started, ihardlythinkso has undone more of my original edit. I'm having a hard time communicating to him in a way that is helpful, and I think we need the opinions of outside editors to make any headway. It appears to me that ihardlythinkso disputes my entire edit, but the three issues he has so far brought up are: Should these four flash games be linked as ELs. I don't believe so on account of WP:ELNO #8, which says we should not link to exclusively Java and flash content. I also don't believe it is encyclopedic content, and I believe it is contrary to the stated reason for ELs, which is to provide additional research and information about the topic. Should we include entire games, notated algebraically move by move, like this. I don't believe so. I don't believe it is helpful to our article, or easily usable by a casual reader. I also think it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE (WP:NOT). What should we do about wording choices, such as discussed here. Since it appears that the original sentence is unsourced, I don't believe further discussion on this issue will be helpful. I don't believe my edit changed the original meaning, except to make it shorter, easier to understand, and more likely to be sourceable. ("Most chess servers that offered it" is harder to source than "Many chess servers"). Any help calming things down and getting back to a collaborative atmosphere would be terrific. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Ihardlythinkso Everything is on Talk:Antichess, I'm not sure there is any utility in my repeating what's there, to this board. (If there is, let me know, I'll copy what's there, to here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Except there is no discussion at Talk:Antichess about the forced win sequences of chess grandmaster David Bronstein referred to by Mann jess as "games" and GAMEGUIDE. His comments show that he does not understand what those sequences are, and their contribution to the article. (In chess variant Antichess, it follows from the rules, that several first moves by White cause immediate loss. The article alludes to the existence of the winning sequences by Black, but did not spell them out until User:Double sharp prepared and added the Bronstein sequences. The sequences gave more completeness to the section, similar to puzzle solutions, rather than leave the reader guessing or the task of working out the solutions him/herself. Those solution sequences came from a reliable source. Mann jess's deletion of them was unexplained content removal -- his editsum said simply "ce". I brought up objection with some deletions he made in his original edit on article Talk, however discussion never got around to them due to dispute over his changing meaning of existing content with his own WP:OR which he has mischaracterized above as "working with the text".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I really resent the false characterizations presented by User:Mann jess in his conduct summaries, which seem to want to paint me bad, him good. His statement regarding me a hard time communicating to him in a way that is helpful sidesteps his own aggressiveness to make unexplained changes, edit-warring before discussion, WP:IDHT behavior after methodic attempts to communicate plainly with him, and unnecessary instant insulting personal commentary from him claiming uncollaborativeness from the objecting party when receiving objecting arguments from another user. I did not sign up as WP volunteer to face this kind of hypocritical hostility and aggressiveness. I think he reacted defensively to the first Talk thread where I objected to his substituting WP:OR content for existing content, there was nothing personal from me and I'm not responsible for that. It seems his defensiveness rendered him unable to discuss objectively, and if he doesn't get his way the other editor isn't being "collaborative". That's a crock. Antichess discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

England

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 90.221.113.19 on 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rob984 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Royal Standard of England, otherwise known as the 'Three Lions' has been used extensively in English culture for centuries since it's adoption by Richard I on his ascension to the throne. This in turn comes from the Royal Emblems depicting lions from the Norman Dynasty. The Royal Banner does not represent any particular land or area, it does however represent the sovereignty of the Royal Family. To say that it has no informal use today is a very poor reflection of English culture, the most famous example of the three lions being utilised is on the crest of the English National Football Team, where the 'three lions' is used. A more official use of this is in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants of the current Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, and on other royal/governmental insignia and logo's. The user 'Rob984' has made several inappropriate edits to the England page, including removing the Royal Banner, removing the national anthem and removing several other important cultural images/entries. In similar style to the UK's 'unwritten' constitution, just because it is not official does not mean these things do not exist as important parts of England's heritage and history. In removing the Royal Standard in particular, which has existed as the symbol for England for well over 800 years, the user Rob984 stated he 'strongly suspect it has no official, or even informal use today' - again a very poor reflection on English culture. The Royal Standard can be seen in two quadrants of the current Royal Standard representing England, on the National Football Team emblem and on other governmental insignia. In addition he has removed 'Dieu et mon droit' as the national motto, a well known phrase again originating with Richard I. This user has pursued a very aggressive editing policy that has upset many, which can be observed on his talk page amongst others. In this instance he has deliberately undermined English history and heritage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to reach the user several times. To my dismay he has ignored all messages, looking at previous discussions with other editors I can understand that I am not the only one. How do you think we can help? Rob984 has had several complaints made against him already, his intolerance to all opinions but his own and his lack of courtesy and aggressiveness had earned him a reputation long before I discovered him. I would like to recommend Rob984 be banned, and that all edits he has been allowed to publish on Wikipedia, particularly on the England page, be reversed to its original format and content - so that it may correctly portray England, its heritage and its long, prestigious history. Summary of dispute by Rob984 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. England discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bitcoin (2)

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Ladislav Mecir on 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bitcoin scheme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Bosmon (talk · contribs) Aoidh (talk · contribs) Silbtsc (talk · contribs) Dispute overview [User: Ladislav Mecir]] marked the "Some accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme." using the template, while User: Bosmon removed the template pointing at the existence of reliable sources. I acknowledge that there are sources for the information, however, I consider the act of performing a Ponzi scheme a serious crime. As such, it should be better referenced than just pointing at articles not specifying any accuser. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discuss the issue on the Talk page and use the template in the main article. How do you think we can help? Give me (and potentially other editors) an advice whether I (we) should consider the sentence to be in accordance with Wikipedia policies in this specific case. Thanks in advance. Summary of dispute by Bosmon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Aoidh Well, there's been no discussion on the talk page about this "some" wording so this seems a bit rushed. The consensus version (which was agreed upon as the result of a very lengthy discussion) did not use a vague "some" but noted "critics" and then went on to give an example so that it wasn't a vague thing. - Aoidh (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Silbtsc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bitcoin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:The English Patient (film)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JzG on 11:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:The English Patient (film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ring Cinema (talk · contribs) WordWrightUSA (talk · contribs) LimeyCinema1960 (talk · contribs) A1Houseboy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Extended fight spilling over to OTRS (ticket:2014012710001401 ). Please would someone drag the warring parties apart, archive some of the junk form the talk page and see iof anything productive can be made from this nonsense. Have you tried to resolve this previously? n/a How do you think we can help? It's likely that WordWrightUSA is a tendentious editor and possibly sockpuppeteer, but it needs more detailed investigation. Summary of dispute by Ring Cinema This is about three words. The original sentence: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been." LimeyCinema1960 has offered the opinion that the last three words are superfluous. In fact, they are necessary to inform the reader that the burn victim and the Hungarian are the same person. Without them, they might refer to different people. I consulted with professional writers on this question and they agree with my assessment. This is a textbook example of the use of the past perfect continuous ("This form is sometimes used for actions in the past that were interrupted by some event.") Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Revision to my original summary: Three words is not the question at hand. Expression is. An example of a possible change to the "draft" was suggested to which the response was that it was recognized that the three words were necessary. Never was there any indication that the new phrasing was acceptable although it basically covered all points in question with a proposal that flowed much better than ending with a statement of fact that if included in the flow earlier does not require the reader to have to reference back to the other parts of the sentence. Also, Wiki includes language in the appropriate article that there are a multitude of ways by which to express and that even when conventional correct rules are followed that it does not necessarily bring forth a sentence that suits the best form of expression and connotation. I should have copied it but there was an example of when following the conventional correct rules Winston Churchhill brought forth a sentence that does not flow well. I reiterate my earlier statement that, is Wiki obligated to a "draft" expression? I believe not. A substitute was offered during the discussion and disregarded and in fact there have been additional suggestions that, again, offer the same intend as that under question but in a much better flow. Is it necessary for a article draft sentence be imposed on those that think otherwise and that is in line with the Wiki ideal of community contribution? Recalcitrant comes to mind.WordWrightUSA (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Interesting question at hand. Three words at the end of a sentence: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been." Are they necessary? Let me ask, is Wikipedia obligated to this sentence? No, if this is a community of contributors. The idea of different wording sequence has been suggested to give encouragement for mental agility but it seems the idea that we are stuck with this sentence permiated the discussion. That there is no other way that the ideas in question cannot be expressed except with "he had been." May I suggest: ""The film's invocation of fate, romance and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing, now burned, Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spells their end." JUSTIFICATION: He eventually dies through euthanasia and she, her body vaporized while he flying her body for internment. Her body no longer exists and his life no longer exists. What more can there be to and end? No professional writers are needed to determine suitability. Again, is Wikipedia obligated to the previous expression? I would venture that the response will be no because there are too many discriptives either preceding or following the subject, or some such reason. Again, is Wikipedia obligated to the sentence and the three words in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LimeyCinema1960 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. If by indications of changes to both the proposed "draft" in question, and the subsequent offering mentioned in the talk page after the dispute was lodged, the point of this action would appear to be obsolete: the disputee has made changes to the proposed text which seems to have had previous acceptance to others. If it is the wish of the disputee to continue then let my previous statement stand.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of discussion exchange: Being an anthropologist, I am concerned about how people in publications express themselves so that what is implied is as neutral as is possible without offense. In the article's plot the word FINDS was use to describe Almasys' role with seeing the Cave of Swimmerts, the location of which he was told by the area natives in their own particular way, that the land near it was like the back of a woman. Almasy tells this to us. RING says that FINDS does not imply discover. That it is being used in the manner as if someone gives directions to a restaurant and you go there. I(LimeyCinema1960) suggest LOCATE, since Almasy in order for others to verify his work would have to give indicate where they could be found such as with longitude and latitude. instead of relying on what description he was given which to the natives was perfectly suitable but for people not from that area it would not. RING responded: "Absolutely not. Mapping is a Western cultural imposition on places they are ignorant of [RING did not specify the meaning for "of."]. Exploring is a euphemism for genocide since Columbus, as I'm sure you're aware. All we can accurately say is that Almasy sees the cave. I'm sure you understand how repugnant it is for you to pretend that only a Westerner can map or explore an ancient site." I was FLOORED. As a trained anthropologist, those are some strong and prejudicial statements. I did not know how to respond to such accusations. SharpQuillPen, responded: "Exploring is not a euphemism for genocide since Christopher Columbus because not all anthropologists, archaeologist, ethnologists and all the other appropriate cultural and animal scientists have developed the same reactions with natives. Some have developed and maintained very clear and strong relations that have helped build knowledge with these people for many years. If you wish to use the word repugnant then be it for the description of your own actions that bring disrepute. I would never use "sure" in place of "certain" because one has a colloquialism that best not be used in writing. And I would never, if your statement were true, use "pretend" to convey the idea of imply which is a form of pretending but not like fairy tales and such. What a disappointment and embarrassment on your part. What is your next move? Plead confusion, ignorance or transfiguration? I (LimeyCinema1960) said:. Mapping and exploring has never been a solely reserved prerogative western cultural trait otherwise there would be countless studies made of ancient maps and ancient compilations made over time memorial since it would all be in some European language, but it is not. Instead, there are countless non-European language maps and compilations of information. Do you disagree with that in some manner? I would not want to portray words on your behalf as has been done for me. Now by the time of Almasy the use of longitude and latitude was in wide use all over the world. Maybe not by every single person but certainly by those that sought to more definitively distinguish one location over another. Amelia Earhart seemed to have found longitude and latitude helpful although we do not know of her absolute location following disappearance. For some reason I do not get from you the idea of respecting consensus. Forgive me for saying it but for me it is a true and accurate statement. Does that sound familiar? I seriously do not accept that non-Europeans would consider it an affront to their culture to use longitude and latitude as a means of measuring and mapping in order to better predict location. SharpQuillPen, said: "See and explores" is a good choice to identify just what role Almasy had in the Cave issue. It was the natives that told him about it although they did use their relevant descriptive term of the back of a woman rather than "10 degrees North by Noirthwest". But the biggest reason why I consider the word FIND intends discovery and RING's Presumptive remarks about western culture and Columbus' genocidal exploration............When your professor was taught by some who was taught by Franz Boaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boaz 'Physical anthropology' Boas's work in physical anthropology brought together........ These findings were radical at the time and continue to be debated. In 2002,........ They argued that their results contradicted Boas's original findings and........ New York had confirmed his findings—including the study by Walter Dornfeldt...... Encouraged by this drive to self-criticism, as well as the Boasian commitment to learn from one's informants and to let the findings of one all from a Wiki article! Summary of dispute by A1Houseboy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute is opened on three words and one expression. Did any one block the meaning of those three words from being used to clarify the understanding that the "burned man" and the "dashing archaeologist" were the same. The answer is no by the potential solutions to be found stated in the Discussion section. Talk:The English Patient (film) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but wish to make some comments and requests for clarification. WordWrightUSA left what appeared to be a response to the DRN listing notice on his talk page. I've left a note there saying that he must respond here if he wishes to participate in this discussion. @LimeyCinema1960: Does "Need more be said?" mean you do not wish to participate further here? (If so, that's okay: participation in mediated content dispute resolution is always voluntary.) If you do wish to continue to participate, however, your opening statement, above, goes more to conduct than it does to content and we do not discuss or resolve conduct matters at this noticeboard. Please revise it to focus only on content matters, preferably on one or two specific edits or desired edits rather than on general issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) After reading the proposed dispute I do have to add that literature has many ways of being expressed and that instead of holding fast to one proposal why not look within oneself for others? This was not done. Never did it seem that to these professional writers was the question posed is there any other way of saying it? But we are left with "my assessment." The discussions on the talk page seemed to be presented in such personalized manners that just disregarded the objective that when something was first presented, then critiqued that the critique held no value and that there was no other way of saying something. And that no only was the critique valueless but that "professional writers" supported the unchangeable expression. That is not community involved contributions. That is a ping pong match and all you get is someone who is a winner and the other, loser.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Those comments should have appeared with the others instead of here. Sorry. These computer screens can open up in the most bizarre places.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC) @LimeyCinema1960: I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean by, "If my participation rests on "Need more be said?" then read it as if they never appeared!" Do you mean that we should regard this as if you never appeared here? Or do you mean that we should regard the words "Need more be said?" as having never appeared here? Also, as I noted above, if you do wish to continue to participate, however, your opening statement, above, goes more to conduct than it does to content and we do not discuss or resolve conduct matters at this noticeboard. Please revise your opening statement to focus only on content matters, preferably on one or two specific edits or desired edits rather than on general issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema, above): "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." How about that? If we can agree on that much as a framework, we can then talk about any desired additional changes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Basically a version of the prosed sentence had already been in use during the dispute process and the dispute has even made changes to it so all that really needs to be done is making the proposed two sentence solution. I hope it works out. There are many other things that with a transcript of the film language points out statements that are not supported by the script.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Ring Cinema characterizes the identification of the improvement as a "silly mistake."WordWrightUSA (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC) The only difference seems to be: "Italy. A" It gives me the visual of that portion of Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel ceiling: "The Creation of Adam." Just that we bit separation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry to say that Ring continues to go edit crazy on the page and that when the history of "contributions" were reviewed that they seem to be solely to the plot and no other parts of the article or any original research to a recent article. That some portions of the plot taken on face value were left to their own devices and remained onl, through her own insistence of someone providing absolute film evidence as so, a copy of the film dialogue transcript was found and several points that if Ring had research capabilities as asserted by her assertion of composition they certainly did not show in the plot development process. I see that Ring being the disputee who lodge this action seems to act as if it does not exist with no response. Talk about stonewalling! Ring has lodged several 3 revert threats at people but evidently has ceased to follow through as it was found out that Ring's own actions will also be part of the review. I said that if Ring did not play mother at tea so much that there would not be so many reverts and changes attributed to her thus causing others that found the expression acceptable having to change so much. I suspect that Ring has not had the best of time controlling the group since we now have the film dialogue transcript. It is so convenient to locate those portions of the film that concern a particular issue thus leaving out speculation. Although it was Ring's assertion of speculation that caused the disovcery of the transcriopt because Ring based an initial assertion on a storyline script. Through due dilligence, it would have been found that the copy did not reflect large portions of the film dialogue therefore was not definitive. Also, looking at the end would have shown that the movie finished with katherine in the Cave, an obvious overlook. So, it can, with a less than desireable suggestion so far, be suspected that Ring is evading comment because notices are sent to those involved in this resolution actitivy. I just attempted to remove a cliche from the plot that I believe was proposed by Ring and it seems to contually be reverted yet i serious think that if someone else had proposed it that Ring's mastery of composition would have drawn notice of the change because of being a cliche. Sounds liker someone who will use what is convenient to put forth their views without regard to consistency.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Discussion response per Dispute mediation: Proposed suggestions: LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burned man in the closing days of World War II Italy who, as a dashing Hungarian archaeologist, sacrificed to save his love and instead spells their end." WordWrightUSA (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC): "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a, once dashing, now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spells their end." "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices spell their end to save the woman he loves." A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC): "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a once dashing now burned Hungarian archaeologist in the closing days of war in Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell their end." Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC), seem to recognized that if there were construction problems then they should be fixedcommented that it needed to be explicit: "Comment I think it needs to be explicit that the burn victim and the "Hungarian archaeologist" are one and the same. If editors are dissatisified [sic] with Ring's version then maybe they should attempt integrating the information in another way, because if you haven't seen the film the current version is potentially confusing." Why not fixed that which has been proposed. And, what better to make it explicit than with its own sentence, unless without some expression such as those suggested could. Ring Cinema (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) sought: "professional writers. They laughed at your mistake. I guess when it comes to Wikipedia, you are the problem. Good luck with that." WordWrightUSA (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) advised: "not all "professional writers" get the same rewards." That would appear correct as not all people who characterize their activities with writing as their form of income receive the same monetary rewards and acculades. Even, Winston Churchill found it financially beneficial to do so. For it's hilarity, the following has helped rejuvenate many a tour crowd at Churchill-related sites and his view on conventional rules (usually recited without the vulgarity): “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/; also included in the Oxford Companion to the English Language (no edition cited). So, writing is a skill that obviously best works when it conveys the idea in a simple manner instead of creating the need for additional expressions or clarification in the same statement. Sentences can be conveyed when they modify that which comes at the beginning but the clarification at the end. But, it seems that the numerous suggestions were insufficient to convince although they all contained the idea of those three words in a different location. WordWrightUSA points this out: "The obvious can be so in plain sight. (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Instead, Ring Cinema concentrates on the words rather than the idea surviving: "Limey made an obvious mistake and he hasn't figured out how to correct himself. That's his problem. Why don't you try to help the poor fellow? He really needs it." Ring Cinema--(talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "I notice you're not interested in the substance here. Your personal attacks are out of order." --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "It's funny that you can't see your mistake since you got it right in your alternate draft. Take another look at my edit there and you might figure it out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Then of course with this dispute there was a preliminary recommendation that seemed acceptable but for a few changes: TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC): "As I see it, the problem with the sentence in question is complicated by the fact that it is a run on sentence. Could we start by agreeing that it should be broken into two sentences (I'm using the version of the sentence which is currently in the article, rather than that set out by Ring Cinema": "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy, unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. A once dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." And at last sight it was: "The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in World War II Italy. Once, a dashing archaeologist, his sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end." That seems simple enough to show that there is consensus since only one party has continually reverted it into one sentence. So if it was the intention of the party to have this mediated then it appears that has been achieved and should with good faith be accepted as part of the Wikipedia spirit of community contributors. 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 Serbia

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Fry1989 on 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Flag of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fry1989 (talk · contribs) Buttons (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute regards File:Flag of the Serbian River Flotilla.svg. Over the years at least 5 users have attempted to have this file on the article, and Buttons has continually removed it claiming there are no "reliable sources". The flag is however actually sourced. There is insurmountable photographic evidence, as well as secondary sources from trusted flag websites (such as FOTW which is used on hundreds of flag articles including this one) that this flag is real, in official use, and what it is being used for. Based on Button's responses, their definition of "reliable" is nothing short of the Serbian Military's website having a section about the flag. That is a standard that is not held for similar ensigns where the relevant military websites do not specifically mention the flag, but we consider other secondary sources reliable enough to include the image. Button's responses also make it clear they have no interest in discussion and desire only their very specific definition of a "reliable source". Sources include FOTW, as well as dozens of photos from the website of the Serbian Military and undeniable close-ups provided by Zoupan. Button's claim that this is not official merely because the Military website does not specify about the flag is unacceptable and flawed, considering this evidence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion has been attempted using what sources are available but the only response by Buttons is a clear disinterest in anything other short of what they consider the ultimate "reliable source", and a sense of snark for those of us who have a more broad interpretation of what is required. How do you think we can help? By clarifying if the sources for the image are considered reliable enough for it to be on the article. Summary of dispute by Buttons Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Flag of Serbia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phineas Gage

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) EEng (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Before I arrived at the article, it was a complete and utter mess. [2] Notes that were longer then the actual body. More than 40 false references that do not exist. A vast array of useless wiki markup, notably 400+ SHY templates without 1 actual usage. It included editorializing and a personal appeal to readers in the text and external links. EEng has reverted sourced additions and is rejecting other sources. Among those included were the Corsini Encyclopedia and a publication by Fleischmann and several textbooks including works at Berkeley. Macmillan's source has been described by Daniel Tranel, New England Journal of Medicine, as "[a] thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … [and] motives." and ( by another author) as "The author’s attack on a social constructionist view of history that allegedly disregards facts seem misplaced and irrelevant." EEng has continued this non neutral POV and has repeatedly attacked other researchers and scholars, dismissing other publications despite containing sources and details that are absent. Conversely, the article fails to properly detail Gage's date of death, with a reputable doctor getting it incorrect by a year against two documents from an undertaker's record which both omitted his accurate age and spelled his name incorrectly. Omissions about the exhumation and behavior of Gage is another matter. All in all, numerous editors have tried to fix the baroque wording and prose, but with the COI and abrasive interactions of EEng the article is an extension of him and Professor Macmillan's work. EEng has used the Wikipedia article to advance their POV and has used it as a soapbox and to further their research. As a result, the article has deep flaws in NPOV, OR and SELFCITE - made by the COI. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Established a COI at COIN - Three editors in agreement before discussion became a wall of text. EEng is a self-disclosed author of sources and works for Macmillan on the subject of Phineas Gage; the principal source represented in the article. This is a violation of the basic principal of COI. As such, EEng should not be editing the article directly. Also, lengthy talk page discussions have continued over just about everything in the article. How do you think we can help? Assist in resolving the content dispute over sourcing and POV issues. Specifically, on the widely noted theories of Gage's behavior, death and injury as noted by many sources that fit EEng's COI and POV. Summary of dispute by EEng I'm not sure what we're here to resolve. Until his recent attempts to add COI, OR, and "Self-published sources" banners to the article, CG hasn't edited the article since January 10, so I guess what he wants resolved is his desire to add those banners. I've already explained [3] why none of these banners is appropriate. CG says he "cannot understand" my explanation so perhaps the volunteer can help with that. I'm certainly eager to resolve these problems and glad for assistance from anyone. After we've resolved the matter of the banners perhaps CG could post a few of the "40 false sources" he refers to so we could try to resolve those. EEng (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Phineas Gage discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. One of the things that this noticeboard was created to do was to refer disputes to more appropriate venues if they exist. It appears to me that resolution of this dispute is going to require sorting through dozens of issues one at a time. DRN is not really suited for that kind of meticulous, time-consuming mediation. There's a two-week lifespan on listings here and, while that can be extended, the noticeboard format here also means that this one dispute will consume vast reaches of this page which will be disruptive to other disputes which are filed here. For that reason, I am — provisionally, see below — going to close this listing with the recommendation that it be refiled at the Mediation Committee (MedCom) which is, both in approach and in format, much more suited for this case. I say provisionally because I want to allow until 14:00 UTC on 5 Feb 2014 for one of two things to happen instead, either: (1) One of the parties here voluntarily files at MedCom, in which this case will be closed for that reason (even if #2 happens) or (2) a DRN volunteer steps in and takes this case rather than allow it to be moved to MedCom and, if they do, moves this to a DRN subpage entitled "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Phineas Gage" rather than leaving it listed here in the primary list, with the understanding that it (or a summary of it) will be moved back to this main page when the case is completed. (If you do that, the subpage will not be subject to the 2-week clock.). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) TransporterMan, thank you very much for all of that. In what perhaps may be (3), I'll note that both editors above have asked me to advise them about this dispute, and I'm going to see what I can do. If that works, then fine. If not, I'll either send them to MedCom, or see whether some sort of RfC would help. There will soon be some discussion on the article talk page, and on my user talk page, about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (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.

Puerto Rico

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ahnoneemoos on 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs) Mercy11 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are concerned over wether we should call Puerto Rico an "incorporated" territory according to several opinions and resolutions emitted by lower federal courts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have a had a friendly and amicable discussion but we have been unable to reach consensus. How do you think we can help? Listen to both sides of the argument and determine the best course of action. Summary of dispute by TheVirginiaHistorian Like-minded editors seek to improve an article based on reliable sources in the face of opposition without scholarly sources. Anon.IP.231 suggested discussion based on the District Court ruling observes Congress “incorporated” Puerto Rico, Ahnoneemoos brought up statutes, TVH noted legal scholarship, p.1175 using “incorporated” and common usage in a Homeland department publication for the general reader. No sources say, "in the modern era, Puerto Rico is unincorporated by citizenship and its constitution." Sources do say Puerto Rico is "incorporated" in the modern era, and that it is included in the U.S., listed along with 50 states and DC. That is not interpretation of primary documents in original research; that is not a conclusion by synthesis, "incorporation" is used in reliable source direct quotations both by a sitting federal district judge and by legal scholars. Editors object to the application of the wp:reliable source guidelines in this case and expressing a controversy among sources. Having lost at DRN "Defining the U.S.A." - archive 65 for lack of sources, TFD and Older≠Wiser show up here a year later -- without participating on the article Talk page -- without sources. Mercy11 provides a 1903 primary source Downes which says PR is unincorporated for the Revenue Clause. But there is no scholarly support for excluding PR as "incorporated", as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art. The Infobox should remain unchanged as "Commonwealth/unincorporated organized" as sourced. Nevertheless, --- the narrative at Puerto Rico introduction should report that Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the modern era, as sourced, and it is still "unincorporated" for the Revenue Clause as it was one-hundred years ago…as sourced. Sources for PR "unincorporated" aspects should not be WP:OR editor interpretations of websites The goal is improving WP by addition of wp:reliable source material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mercy11 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here's what sources "in the modern era" [4] say about the political status of Puerto Rico: The official site of the US Government: "Puerto Rico is a self-governing, unincorporated territory of the United States" [5]. The CIA World Fact Book (under "Government"): "an unincorporated, organized territory of the US" [6] SCOTUS: Puerto Rico is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States." (Downes v. Bidwell; Balzac v. Porto Rico) The political status of a people is not established by the opinions of writers and authors of academic journals. It is established by the declarations of sovereign political authorities. (e.g., Alaska was declared an incorporated territory of the US by the SCOTUS in Rasmussen v. United States.) As such, the opinions from Cornell and BC, etc., are irrelevant. The notion that "Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the United States as a territory, but it is held as unincorporated by the Supreme Court for purposes of a discriminatory tax regime" [7] is, likewise, WP:OR. It is not uncommon for US Congress to establish different tax regimes to its territories. This was the case with Alaska ([8]) and has in fact been the case with Puerto Rico since it became a Commonwealth in 1948 ([9]). But to stretch that to conclude that Puerto Rico is incorporated for everything except taxation falls under WP:SYN. Lastly, the decision by federal Judge Gelpi is irrelevant: The SCOTUS has established that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico "is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, §3 of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."([10]) As such, any opinion from Judge Gelpi relative to judicial constitutional matters is not representative of even the US federal judicial system at all. Of course, the Gelpi opinion bears some significance, but it is not of enough weight to warrant inclusion in the Puerto Rico article and, because of its specific legal and constitutional nature, is more appropriate as an explanatory note in the Political status of Puerto Rico article. This, was done and is found THERE. As such, no additional changes to either article are needed. {Side note: I note that this matter was originally raised HERE by anonymous IP 64.237.234.231 (what editor TheVirginiaHistorian has been calling "IP 231"). And HERE is the (dubious?) editing history of that IP address. Interestingly, just as the anonymous IP discontinued his participation in this matter, TheVirginiaHistorian appeared to take over. In particular, the anon IP did not reappear concurrently (intertwined) with TheVirginiaHistorian. I would like to know if the two are both the same editor.} Mercy11 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Puerto Rico discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I do agree to write something similar to, "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." but categorically oppose to a statement that establishes that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory. This is based on the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Insular Cases and the Jones Act enacted by the 64th Congress in 1917 which declared that, "Puerto Rico is an “organized but unincorporated territory”" (source: [11]). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Comment - The United States established a military government in 1898 which acted as both head of the army of occupation and administrator of civil affairs. Almost immediately, the United States began the "Americanization" process of Puerto Rico. The U.S. occupation brought about a total change in Puerto Rico's economy and polity and did not apply democratic principles in their colony. Puerto Rico was and still is classified as an "unincorporated territory" which means that the protections of the United States Constitution — including the right of citizenship — does not automatically apply, because the island belongs to the U.S., but is not part of the U.S. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Comment Mercy11, Ahnoneemoos and Tony the Marine have explained well why Puerto Rico remains unincorporated. While sovereignty over Puerto Rico was transferred to the U.S. from the Spanish Empire, the U.S. Congress has never incorporated the territory into the U.S. As a result, Puerto Rico differs from incorporated territories. The constitution does not apply, although Congress may and has extended most of the protections of the constitution, the U.S. Congress has the power to grant independence without a constitutional amendment, and it is possible to be a citizen of Puerto Rico without being a U.S. citizen. Internationally, its status as a territory separate from but subject to the U.S. allows it to enjoy a limited international personality. TFD (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Reply No scholarly sources call Puerto Rico “unincorporated” in all things in the modern era, not from Mercy, Tony or TFD. Mercy11 would have us make our own interpretations of Downes v. Bidwell and Balzac v. Porto Rico. But no scholar supports extending their limited findings to citizenship or PR Constitution in the modern era. A century ago, Downs said, Porto Rico is “not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution”; in Balzac, SCOTUS upheld Puerto Rico’s jury trial in cases of felony, but not in misdemeanor name-calling. While it is a territory, and until statehood, Puerto Rico will have only the constitutional provisions Congress assigns it, --- just as the noncontinguous “incorporated” territories of Alaska and Hawaii before it, --- as Mercy, Tony and TFD observe. It also happens that Congress has over time, politically “incorporated” Puerto Rico as a sitting federal district judge and two legal scholars have published in reliable sources. PR will not have all the privileges of a state until statehood. I have already conceded that the Infobox adequately expresses Puerto Rico’s status as a Commonwealth and as an unincorporated organized territory, that need not be changed in my opinion. But the introduction narrative should reflect both the general “incorporation” attested to by scholarly sources, such as "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." from Ahnoneemoos --- and while admitting fundamental Constitutional provisions are guaranteed by federal courts, note the particulars of its “unincorporated” character relative to the revenue clause and jury trial as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) In Balzac, the Court determined that the 6th amendment of the U.S. constitution guaranteeing trial by jury does not apply, because Puerto Rico is not incorporated. However, in felony trials the right to a jury was established by statute. It may be this is a trivial matter. After all, there is no right to a jury trial in other common law countries except for indictable offences. But it is just one of the many differences between incorporated and unincorporated territories. TFD (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC) No jury trial for misdemeanor name-calling may be a differences between a state and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. But no territory, -- incorporated or unincorporated for a limited purpose --, has ever had all privileges of a state until statehood. PR is like the cases of "incorporated" Alaska Terr. and Hawaii Terr. with a territorial representative in Congress. Failing to have all state privileges does not make a territory "unincorporated". And as we have seen, several judges and scholars have concluded that over time, Congress has "incorporated" PR in its political character without jurisprudence. As we read in the much cited Downes case, "the power to establish territorial governments has been too long exercised by Congress and acquiesced in by this court to be deemed an unsettled question." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) The full constitution has always applied to all incorporated territories. While an incorporated territorial government (or the DC district) has never had the same privileges as a state, the people residing there have all the rights protected by the constitution as people living in states, including the right to jury trials. TFD (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Source v. no source: Hawaii v. Mankichi, “Congress did not intend to impose upon the islands every clause of the Constitution ...[in the case of a murder trial without a unanimous jury]… "it may have been for a century -- the courts in Hawaii, although acting under and by the authority of the United States, might have tried persons there for capital or infamous crimes in a mode confessedly contrary to the Constitution of the United States." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Hawaii became a territory of the U.S. in 1898 and was incorporated by Congress 14 June 1900. The Supreme Court determined that before Hawaii was incorporated, the U.S. constitution (specifically the 5th and 6th amendments) did not apply. Since Mankichi was convicted before Hawaii was an incorporated territory, he could not claim that because he had not been indicted by a grand jury his conviction was void. As a general rule, you should cite secondary sources, which are helpful in avoiding the type of mistake you just made. TFD (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Lack of all constitutional provisions does not exclude a territory from becoming "incorporated" by Congress. That "incorporated" element of PR status should be added to the article introduction, without dismissing a reference to its "unincorporation" for the revenue clause, and jury trial for misdemeanors, as sourced. Territories are subject to Congress's plenary power under the Territory Clause until statehood; territories are not states. The secondary sources under discussion are a) Lawson and Sloane, b) Gelpi, and c) the Homeland department summary of U.S. law for the general reader. It is not clear why there seems some resistance on your part, when there is no support from a reliable scholarly source anywhere in your discussion. And were there to be, the qualifier supplied by Ahnoneemoos, "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." PR is "incorporated", covers that eventuality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) VirginiaHistorian, you said "And as we have seen, several judges...have concluded that over time 'Congress' has "incorporated" PR ". Can you list the several judgeS you are referring to? From reading your statements above I saw you mentioned only one judge (Gelpi). Mercy11 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Remarkable that TheVirginiaHistorian continues his campaign for presenting synthesis and original research as fact. Please refer the voluminous earlier discussions at Talk:United States and Talk:Territories of the United States. There is no reliable source with the authority to declare PR incorporated that say PR is incorporated. U.S. government sources plainly and without qualification state it is unincorporated. The most that can be said is that some scholars and judges question this official status. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you, that is almost the point made by Ahnoneemoos, "several judges and scholars have concluded that PR is 'incorporated'." --- as sourced --- And that PR is still 'unincorporated' for the revenue clause as sourced should not be left out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) The opinions of several scholars and judges are only that, opinions. The only official status of PR is at present unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Once Congress incorporates a territory into the United States, the Constitution (which is the supreme law governing the U.S.) extends there. Hence once Hawaii was incorporated, the 5th and 6th amendments applied, as they do today. But when Hawaii was an unincorporated territory, it did not apply. TFD (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC) There's no reason why the distinctions made above cannot be included in the narrative. A simple clause would do it. ie.: While government sources list Puerto Rico as an "unincorporated" territory, it has also been referred to as an "incorporated" territory by some Federal judges and scholars, distinguishing along lines of revenue and taxation. -- More context might even be in order. If we have federal judges and reliable sources referring to P.R. as "incorporated" it should be noted also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC) The context is that the scholars and judges are posing a challenge to the status quo and it should be clear that their interpretations are made in interest of pushing matters towards resolution. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC) The context is that the status quo in the article is not based on reliable sources of scholarly publications, but it should be to include PR as "incorporated", in a qualified manner, as sourced. Both sides of the controversy should be articulated, and sources for PR "unincorporated" aspects should not be merely WP:OR editor interpretations of websites. Improve the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Correct, the status according to many U.S. government sources is unambiguously "unincorporated". The qualifications only apply to the handful of sources attempting claim the status is otherwise. older ≠ wiser 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC) So you still have no scholarly, reliable sources to explain your "unambiguous" interpretation of a term of art as countered in a scholarly publication which uses the word "incorporated" for PR. And for "unincorporated" there is only the online abbreviated summaries that do not use the word "unambiguous". And one primary source which explains "unincorporated" as limited to the Revenue Clause, and one primary source explains "unincorporated" for Jury Trial in misdemeanors. Territories incorporated by Congress before have had all fundamental provisions of the Constitution apply to them as does PR, --- as Congress continues to extend and SCOTUS applies "fundamental" case by case ---, and once extended by Congress or by SCOTUS they cannot be retracted in the incorporated places, --- but not all provisions are extended to territories until statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [Insert] U.S. government sources unambiguously describe PR as unincorporated. Only some scholarly sources attempt to split hairs and qualify the statement -- AS PART OF ARGUMENT TO CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO. These scholarly sources are in fact putting forward an argument which does not yet have widespread acceptance (and certainly is without force of law). The simple fact is that PR is currently unincorporated. The problem is that status is for most practical purposes without any meaning at present. But until Congress acts to change the status, it remains what it is. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Downes v. Bidwell was not decided with the conclusion that "'unincorporated' [is] limited to the Revenue Clause" as TheVirginiaHistorian states, nor was it decided with an opinion showing "PR to be unincorporated for Revenue Clause purposes alone" as he also states here. The use of the words limited and alone are his own additions and constitute WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) held, We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case. To suppose this ruling applied to anything other than the revenue clauses of the Constitution regarding the Foraker act is not even wp:or, it is absolutely unsupported by the text. The ruling is limited to the import tariff, and not to citizenship or due process, or any other fundamental constitutional provision enjoyed by an incorporated territory. Nothing in it restricts Congress in its power to incorporate Puerto Rico in the modern era by whatever means it chooses. There is no modern scholarship which says that, no source to be quoted from as is Lawson and Sloane during this discussion. The only opposition comes from personal interpretations unsupported by reliable scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The issue in the 1901 Downes v. Bidwell was "Does the Constituion follow the flag?". It just so happened that the Revenue Clause was what triggered the question because it involved a US merchant. Had it not been 1901 and a US merchant, but 1904 and a US national, the issue would had still been "Does the Constitution follow the flag?" but would have been triggered by the 14th Ammendment, that is, in the context of citizenship, not Revenue, as it occurred in the 1904 Gonzales v. Williams landmark case. However, Gonzales v. Williams does not mean we can then go out and cheer that "Puerto Rico is unincorporated but limited to the citizenship clause" nor to declare that "PR is unincorporated for citizenship purposes alone". The fallacy of the claim becomes evident as this clarifying analogy breaks apart because it makes no real-life sense. Also (and assuming TheVirginiaHistorian really meant "in recent years", rather than the erroneous "in modern era"), the argument that "No sources say, 'in the modern era, Puerto Rico is unincorporated' " is out of touch with reasonableness. Sources do not say ad nauseum that Puerto Rico is unincorporated for the same reason that sources do not say ad nauseum that the sky is blue, or that the world is round, or that sea water is salty, etc etc etc. We just don't repeat endlessly every January 1st of every year what was established in 1901 as the law of the land by The Law of the Land. Mercy11 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) The answer to the question, Does the Constitution follow the flag? is, No. But the Constitution does follow citizenship, and provisions extended by Congress and SCOTUS can never be retracted. There is now a scholarly controversy as to whether or how Puerto Rico may be "incorporated". Alaska was 85 years becoming a state. Puerto Rico now is a Commonwealth with its own Constitution self-written and approved in referendum. There is a controversy regarding its status, but Puerto Rico has only recently applied for statehood in the first place. It has now mutual citizenship (only recently - since the 1950s), self-government in a three-branch local government, and territorial representation in Congress. I think that statehood is already too long in the making for PR, but that's politics --- here I would only reflect the controversy over Puerto Rican status in the article. That's it. that proposal is taken as though I were erasing any reference to "unincorporated" or that I was somehow threatening the domestic sugar cartel enabled by the Insular cases, --- or something as dire ---, and the sky is falling. No, Puerto Rico should remain "unincorporated" on WP --- the IP guy who kicked off the discussion was over-the-top talking about changing the infobox--, but there remains a controversy among scholars in reliable publications as to how PR is now "incorporated". The sky is not falling, --- but there is a scholarly controversy about Puerto Rican status, and it should be reported in the article as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Comment - All of this seems awfully speculative, I do not think that we should do a volatile change simply based on the interpretation of a single, low-tier judge. The arguments being presented by TVH are -likewise- interpretative and as such can't be incorporated in a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, by definition "incorporated" means that the territory is inevitably heading towards (and being "prepared" for) statehood. If that was the case, Congress would not continue to waste its resources by spinning the status issue around at the Natural Resources Committee. The White House would not invest in a status task force and the redundancy of projects like H.R. 2000 would be established from the get go. I don't see anything that clearly establishes that "in practice" PR has been incorporated, and AFAIK, there is no official document stating otherwise. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The existence of a controversy regarding Puerto Rico's status is not speculative nor my interpretation. I source the existence of a scholarly controversy at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy for "incorporation" at Boston College Law Review, p.1175 --- which is not currently reflected in the article. Adding the "incorporated" piece of the controversy to "unincorporated" is not a volatile change, but completing the account of both sides of the controversy. While Alaska waited 85 years for statehood, Puerto Rico applied for statehood only last year. PR should be a state with eight electoral college votes, larger than 20 smaller states. But we await Congress for statehood, just as we waited for incorporation by one scholarly interpretation of PR status. There are no constitutional time limits on Congress for making a state. The controversy as to PR status exists now, today --- WP should not await PR statehood to register the controversy in its article pages, as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) DRN coordinators note DRN Coordinators note: Several additional editors have joined in here on this page, but it is not clear to me whether any of them are participating as DRN volunteers. If that was your intent, please so state below (and it would also be good if you would add your name to the volunteer list so that you will be identified as a volunteer by our maintenance bot). If no one does so, or no other regular volunteer takes this case by 16:00 UST on 04 Feb 2014, then this listing will be closed as one of those which no volunteer cares to take, so that the discussion can move back to the article talk page where it belongs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC) @ TransporterMan. TFD and Older≠Wiser show up here a year after losing a DRN for lack of sources to "include" PR in the United States. They again object to the application of the wp:reliable source guidelines in this case and now they object to expressing a controversy among sources. Having lost at DRN "Defining the U.S.A." - archive 65 for lack of sources they choose a different strategy, finding here, four editors opposed to including the controversy to three editors for including the controversy. Now it seems writing a wall of text before the volunteer takes the DRN can procedurally compromise the process Ahnoneemoos began, which was a) to add in the article introduction, "several judges and scholars have concluded that PR is incorporated", sourced to Lawson and Sloane's article in Boston College Law Review and Gelpi's researched opinion, b) while noting official U.S. online sources represent PR as unincorporated. --- And I suggested a note at Talk, to the effect c) that at a source supplied by Mercy11, Downes shows PR to be unincorporated for Revenue Clause purposes alone. The goal is to improve WP by adding sourced information to the PR article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (a) @Ahnoneemoos did not begin the DRN so he could add text stating that "several judges and scholars have concluded that PR is incorporated"; he started the DRN because the discussion at the Puerto Rico Talk Page was "going nowhere" [12]; (b) Historians define the "modern era" as starting in the 16th century; as such, sources (both online or not) stating that Puerto Rico is unincorporated (including Downes v. Bidwell and Balzac v. Porto Rico) stated so in "the modern era", making TheVirginiaHistorian's claim incorrect; (c) VirginiaHistorian should not be using my Mercy11 username and the words "unincorporated for Revenue Clause purposes alone" in the same sentence unless it is to point out that I have stated that his Revenue Clause notion is WP:OR; I have never stated that "'Downes' shows PR to be unincorporated for Revenue Clause purposes alone" - he did. TheVirginiaHistorian should refrain from putting words in my mouth. Mercy11 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) In Ahnoneemoos own words, "I do agree to write something similar to, "several judges and scholars have concluded that..." but categorically oppose to a statement that establishes that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory." Then he cites 1917 law now superseded in the modern, post World War II era, a bench mark which most political scientists use for discussion purposes in country articles. In this case, the Puerto Rican Constitution in force, approved in Puerto Rican referendum, dates from 1952. My phrase from the summary statement is, ""incorporation" is used in reliable source direct quotations both by a sitting federal district judge and by legal scholars. Editors object to the application of the wp:reliable source guidelines in this case and [they object to] expressing a controversy among sources." I choose to work collaboratively with Ahnoneemoos, so I used his draft language. Primary sources are not for Mercy11's sole proprietary use. It seems that he is slipping from collegial into antagonistic, yet still holding forth without support from reliable sources in scholarly publications. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) There is a controversy over "incorporated" in the scholarly community found in reliable sources, it is not of my own making. See Christina Duffy Burnett and Burke Marshall, Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, "The dispute over the precise content of this [Congressional power of incorporation] is at the heart of today's status debate." The goal is to improve WP by adding sourced information to the PR article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The existence of a controversy does not vest us with the authority to violate WP:OR. If it did, we would have already declared that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald, that Columbus didn't discovere America, and that we have already repealed an attack by extraterrestrial aliens. Reminder: WP:SOAP. Mercy11 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Why, yes, absolutely. Which is why I source the existence of a scholarly controversy at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy at Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article. Sourcing is not WP:OR. The bias of the online encyclopedia is to include information from reliable sources to improve the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (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.

Alexander the Great

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Local hero on 00:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Alexander the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Local hero (talk · contribs) Stevepeterson (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are a few individuals, users Stevepeterson, AkiiraGhioni, and a few anonymous supporters (I'm not sure if some or all of these users are the same person) who insist on the wording that currently appears in the first two sentences of the article, while I and, I believe, one other user thought it to be unnecessary and to not flow as well as the stable wording in place when the article was promoted to GA status until Stevepeterson changed it recently. He added the current wording a month before I reverted him, then he re-instituted his wording a week later. We then discussed it on the talkpage and, after I hadn't received a response for a few days, I reverted back to the stable version. He came back around today and reverted me and claimed that my comment warranted no response. I've remained civil at all times; Stevepeterson, meanwhile, has called me a nationalist and my edits vandalism on the article talk and on my talkpage. He claims that his wording is based on some kind of consensus that he won't tell me about. This is a minor issue that doesn't have much impact on the article, so I'd like to end it rather than let it drag on. Thanks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage discussion has been the only method thus far and it doesn't seem to be working, so I've come here. How do you think we can help? Providing a third opinion; I've hoped someone (neutral) would jump in the discussion, but no one has. Summary of dispute by Stevepeterson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Alexander the Great discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ian Fleming

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 184.47.185.184 on 14:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SchroCat (talk · contribs) Cassianto (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We need another, impartial, unbiased editor over the Ian Fleming Wiki page since Schrocat and Cassiowhatever his name are constantly blocking FACTUAL INPUTS from nearly EVERYONE who tries to add new information to the page. We are frankly sick of it. Schrocat is a flat-out liar. He has the paged phrased implying Lycett is Ian Fleming's approved biographer will quoting his insults like claiming the latter was not qualified for intelligence work--when in the previous section Fleming was a student at the Forbes Dennis MI6 spy school where he learned languages--like German--which is patently obvious to everyone--except Schrocat--is a vital intelligence skill when about to go to war against the Nazis. This is but one example of the current editors' bad faith misconduct over the Ian Fleming Wiki page. They act like the Fleming page is THEIR private web page; this isn't Wikipedia of the people. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Fire Schrocat and his accomplice Cassiowhatever and get 2 new editors over the page. They can't be any worse. This was removed due to this statement being extremely outrageous and impossible. Editors are not assigned pages nor are they hired. Also, this is a Personal Attack. How do you think we can help? Fire Schrocat and his accomplice Cassiowhatever This was removed due to this statement being extremely outrageous and impossible. Editors are not assigned pages nor are they hired. Summary of dispute by SchroCat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cassianto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ian Fleming Wiki Page discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Question: Is the filing I.P. editor the same person as Jeremy Duns? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) @MrScorch the guy that condemns sockpuppets? That would be ironic... Murry1975 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) No. Jeremy is knowledgable and understands POV. If this is the IP I think it is, it's a POV peddling conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand the concept of neutrality, reliable sourcing, civility or consensus. May not be the same person, but the MO looks the same. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks! --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Ironic that they should seek resolution and then go onto adopt bad faith by deliberately getting my user name wrong. As a mediator, I would have expected you to address this first CassiantoTalk 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) We do not deal with conduct here. Out of the Huggle user in me, I left a warning on the I.P. talk page earlier for Personal Attacks on the issue. Also, (generally) on this noticeboard, only moderators use bullets to show them self as the current volunteer in the case. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Ok, well I have no case to answer, so I won't. CassiantoTalk 17:22, 8 February 2014 (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.

Carl Ballantine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 64.121.102.98 on 11:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Carl Ballantine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Binksternet appears to have no regard for whether something is factual and has undone these edits by Tim Gruber and myself and even seems to go out of his way to undo other edits we have done regardless of the subject or article. The fact is Carl Ballantine was in the 1964 movie McHale's Navy (something Tim Gruber left out). It is a fact that his character in the movie and in the TV series was Lester Gruber (which he was most famous for). The fact is he was in the particular episode of the TV series The Monkees as indicated. These are facts that can be found on any detailed website about Carl Ballantine or the movie or TV series. I didn't cite them because their source is pretty the same as mine, videos of the movie and TV series themselves. I don't know if these facts were ever written in any published book, magazine or newspaper by some scholar or author. But watch the shows and the movie and there is no dispute. Why not say so? His birth record shows his parents which would be acceptable in any court and by any professional genealogist (like me). In fact such a record would be taken as the best proof of his parentage. But Binksternet decided that was unacceptable because it wasn't published in some book, magazine or newspaper by a scholar or author. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tim Gruber tried talking to Binksternet but he seems to have decided that anything that doesn't meet with his interpretation of Wikipedia's standards will be completely undone no matter how factual or small it may be. In other words there doesn't seem to be any talking to this person. It's his way or no way. How do you think we can help? Simple, allow the edits by Tim Gruber and myself to stand. The series and shows cited are the best proof possible of the facts claimed and as Tim Gruber told Binksternet would carry much more weight in any court of law (far more than any newspaper articles which are notorious for being wrong). Wikipedia should be about facts and not what is only written by some sort of an elitist writers guild as Binksternet seems to suggest. Summary of dispute by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl Ballantine&action=history discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nokia Lumia 1520

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 83.40.247.218 on 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nokia Lumia 1520 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved FDMS4 (talk · contribs) Götz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors want an issue hidden and continue to remove the issue after three references provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page and providing up to three references. How do you think we can help? By confirming whether or not the references provided are reliable or not. Summary of dispute by FDMS4 Please note that not everything that has reliable sources is relevant enough for mentioning in an encyclopedia, as I stated several times in edit comments and on the talkpage. Wikipedia is not a product support site. The IP adress is clearly editwarring in the article, as he/she put the paragraph into the article several times altough there was obviously no consensus on the talkpage. |FDMS 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Götz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nokia Lumia 1520 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pine Bush, New York

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 76.15.104.89 on 12:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Pine Bush, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 76.15.104.89 (talk · contribs) John from Idegon (talk · contribs) Bgwhite (talk · contribs) Dispute overview As the page now stands, it contains bias information about antisemitism in the Pine Bush Schools. The New York Times did not act ethically in reporting the story. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated in Federal Court where a Civil Suit is pending. A very wealthy developer needs to justify the need for private religious schools for an illegal development project. He and the religious group he is affiliated with control significant voting blocks and have great influence over local, state and some federal officials. The claims of antisemitism have been brought by only 3 families out of many Jewish families in the district. All 1 named parent for the aggrieved children has ties to the developer, two others apparently do, also, and this should have been investigated by the Times. The Times used unreliable sources for some of their interviews by a biased local stringer. They ignored the fact that bullying is rampant throughout Orange County, NY schools, and more likely than not the issue of the Federal Civil Suit has more to do with that, then it does with antisemitism. The Times picked up on an old case, because it was directed to it by the developer or his agents and a coordinated attack which included Andy Cuomo and top state officials in a series of investigations that jeopardize the fairness of the adjudication of the Federal Civil Suit. On more than one occasion Cuomo has flagrantly made comments, as did the Times and now Wikipedia via the addition of the citations regarding antisemitism, that rush to judgment without having the case tried in court first or the ongoing investigations completed. The issue itself is more than a few years old, and up to the point that the developer needed to get approvals for an all girls private Yeshiva, it was a none issue that had been ignored by all police agencies and agencies of the state and federal governments. I have done extensive research on the matter; please see talk record for details. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Originally I mistakenly added my editorial comments to the reference. John rightfully took it down. I then added a reference to a series of articles I wrote on the subject as an investigator and local community activist. That was taken down. Without rebuttal the antisemitism reference creates a biased view of a community of basically very good people. I endeavored to inform John about the issues, to no avail. As an investigator and community advocate I did recommend legal action. How do you think we can help? There are extenuating circumstances here; I joined to address this issue and my experiences with Wikipedia are less than minimal. I find the structure confusing, and have made mistakes. I have a responsibility to the people I serve, so I believe that my recommendation of legal action if the antisemitism reference remains uncontested is justified. My correspondence on the talk venue documents my view and qualifications. I need to ask for fairness in representing the community on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by John from Idegon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My side of this can be summed up quickly and easily. WP:IDHT! Please see my personal talk page for the history of his "attempts" at resolving this, including the WP:NLT violation. It is hard to impossible to work on a dispute when the other editor wants to write essays and claims that they are the source. This really belongs at WP:AN/I, IMHO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bgwhite Same user left the same message at John from Idegon's page at my talk page. They keep using http://www.wallkillwideawake.org/true_false.html as a reference. From User:Binsu Jiro, it is a site they operate. Bgwhite (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Question: @Bgwhite: By "they" do you mean the editor himself or a group he is part of? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC) MrScorch6200, from the message on Binsu Jiro's user page, "I publish the Public Advocacy Informational web site, Wallkill Wide Awake". From the message left on my talk page, "I operate a Public Advocacy informational web site and have an online news entity in the design phase." Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Also, (generally) only DRN volunteers use bullets at DRN to show themselves as volunteers. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Pine Bush, New York discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Question: Is the I.P. editor that filed this case the same person as Binsu Jiro? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Answer: Yes the I.P. editor is the same as Binsu Jiro; I forgot to log on before entering the DRN entry. My apology! --Regards, Binsu Jiro (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC) @Binsu Jiro: There is no bias information in the current paragraph. The paragraph, which is only two sentences, takes care to follow our Neutral Point of View policy, along with two reliable sources to the NY Times and the Times of Israel. Note that the sentences do not say whether the lawsuit is "ethically right" or not, strengthening that it is neutral. The sentences use words like alleged and only saying that a lawsuit arose because of the alleged bullying. There is nothing wrong with the section. MrScorch6200, I believe The NEW YORK TIMES article itself to be bias, in so far as it was strategically times, as I explained; irresponsible sourced by a local stringer with a specific agenda to impose, and the article was coordinated with a number of events that need explanation. You have my complete comments on this issue, and my concern is about more that the NYT and the IT articles. It is about a concerted effort to manufacture a need for private Yeshivas without which the developer will not be able to populate his illegal development. My issue is the clear connection of one of the litigants to the developer, and clearly suspicious connections to the remaining litigants. The presence of these articles lends credibility to the intent of the developer, and realistically any astute follower of the politics of Political Correctness, will understand that the allegations themselves have been used to condemn a whole community with the help of the NYT, Cuomo and the developer. I accuse the NYT and the two reporters of unethical practices in the publication of the article, and the IT with trying to solidify the slander. Israel needs a solution to the social unrest caused by their radical sects of Hassidim, and creating illegal exclusionary, monolithic communities to accommodate immigration out of Israel is a partial solution. While I do not work for a publication like the NYT, I have investigated the facts and written an account that places all of the possibilities on the table for a reader to make up his/her own mind. I do not feel it is outrageous to allow others to decide for themselves. Finally, I must ask what makes your other editors more credible, having not done a shred of research or having not investigated the issue. I have done the research and investigated the issues; I have been working as an investigator over the past three years for a civil rights law firm. I have worked as a photo-journalist, an Army intel analyst and am committed to constructively advocating for others who do not have the capacity to defend themselves. --Regards, Binsu Jiro (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC) @Binsu Jiro: On Wikipedia, we have to show view points of an issue through reliable sources (NPOV), which is done in this case by using the NY Times source and not stating the lawsuit as a fact or opinion (hence, there is no undue weight to a side). We have no control over the content of the actual source, just the content over the Wikipedia article. Also know that Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia, which is what you are claiming that you have done. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Note: Unless another volunteer disagrees, I am tempted to keep this case open even though there is very little talk page discussion. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (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.

Bitcoin (3)

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Ladislav Mecir on 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Silbtsc (talk · contribs) Aoidh (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme." sentence has been discussed once again with the result that it contains weasel terminology "Critics..." and is unsupported by the sources one Aiodh proposed. New sources proposed by Aiodh have been taken into account with the same result (they do not support the sentence), by 2/3 editors. 100% agreement was not achieved, as the talk page demonstrates. This dispute is an extension of the dispute already closed as Bitcoin(2), the new, extended discussion on the talk page did not help to achieve the 100% consensus on the sentence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As mentioned, it has been discussed several times already, the disagreement between editors still persisting, the previous attempt to resolve the dispute has been closed as premature. How do you think we can help? Not sure this time, advice may help. Summary of dispute by Silbtsc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Aoidh Periodically a few single-purpose accounts will come to the Bitcoin article and attempt to whitewash any negative information, particularly the sentence related to the ponzi scheme bit, believing that the article saying that people have accused Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme is the same as Wikipedia agreeing with this, and try everything they can to remove the sentence. This is far from the first time this has been discussed and the previous, very lengthy discussion resulted in a consensus for the current wording. The sources both in the article and on the talk page fully support what's written in the article, yet LM seems to believe that because the sources themselves are reporting the information as opposed to agreeing with the information themselves that this somehow invalidates the entire source which is never how sources have been viewed on Wikipedia; this is nothing more than moving the goalposts to try to remove the information. The fact that Bitcoin has been criticized as being a ponzi scheme is covered in very reliable sources such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the European Central Bank, and countless others, this isn't some fringe, barely reported thing but a well established fact, so I'm not sure how it can be argued that it's unsourced, that's quite inaccurate. As to the lack of 100% consensus, that not what a consensus is. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, and both policy and the previous consensus support retaining the information. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Bitcoin (3) discussion Having read over the full discussion at the talk page and looked at the history of the edits it seems to me that the issue is about how declarative the statement is. With the phrasing critics have accused bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme. Rather than the use of unspecified critics, who can be found in some of the sources. The discussion over at the talk page seems productive at the moment and I'll add some more there but I think the compromise is to be found in changing those two bolded portions of the text. SPACKlick (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2014 (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.

Talk:England

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HWallis1993 on 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:England (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HWallis1993 (talk · contribs) Rob984 (talk · contribs) Daicaregos (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user Rob984 has removed the Royal Banner of England from the infobox on the England article on the grounds that it is no longer in use. In seriously misguided opinion he has stated such things in his reasoning as 'the English nation is relatively new' and that 'England has little to represent its self'. I find this users way of thinking to be completely at odds with my own. I happen to believe that the Royal Banner (removed by Rob984 himself on the grounds of his own opinion without consulting others) which is now present in two qaudrants of the current Royal Standard, is extensively used to represent England at both important ceremonial events, most sporting events and is an enduring icon amongst the English people. Rob984 has shown in his specifically 'British' nationalism that he thinks that England, a country of over 1087 years of history (773 years as the Kingdom of England) is lacking in symbols. This is false and is not a accurate view of England, which flourished in terms of heraldry before its inclusion into the Union. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried suggesting alternatives, however this user is adamant that England should not be allowed to enjoy it's heritage.I don't wish to sound petty but every country on wikipedia is allowed to enjoy it's heraldry present in its infobox. Just because it is not contemporary is not, in my opinion reason to have it removed. The flag of England altogether might be removed on this basis - but it remains because it is an important symbol of England, just as the Royal Banner or 'three lions' is. How do you think we can help? The Royal Banner of England was featured in the infobox on the England page for several years, with most editors being happy with it's presence - as I was. It is an iconic feature of England both at sporting and ceremonial level and is used to represent England on the current Royal Standard, a fact lost on Rob, who I might add after all these years of its inclusion into the England article removed it without consulting other editors and on the basis of his own opinion. I would like it restored. Summary of dispute by Rob984 I agree entirely with Daicaregos. I would like to clarify however I clearly stated when I was giving a personal opinion which had no value in regards to the discussion, and HWallis1993 has heedlessly claimed these were my only reasons, completely ignoring my actually reasons which are identical to those stated by Daicaregos below. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Daicaregos No idea why I've been dragged into this. My only involvement was to challenge two erroneous statements made by the complainant: that England “continues to remain a constituent country of the UK represented in modern day terms by its own separate legal system of England and Wales.” (which obviously isn't 'separate' in the context of the England article); and that the England article “is missing its famous motto 'Dieu et mon droit'” (it is the British monarch's motto and is used in many circumstances that have nothing to do with England e.g. passports). AFAICT, User:HWallis1993 wants to re-instate the Royal Standard of England, one of the personal arms/banners of the British monarch, to represent England on that page. No references have been provided that verify the Royal Standard of England represents England, rather than the British monarch. User:HWallis1993 also appears to wants to re-instate the motto 'Dieu et mon droit'. Similarly, no references have been provided that verify 'Dieu et mon droit' represents England, rather than the British monarch. Without WP:RS references neither should be included on the article. Daicaregos (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Talk:England discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. The edit being challenged by the HWallis1993 is here and was done by Rob984 on 2 September 2013. The question of who has the burden of creating consensus for an edit is set by this section of the Consensus policy. Contrary to the implication of HWallis1993, the banner has not been consistently included in the infobox in recent months: it was removed in August 2012 in this edit and remained out until it was restored on 25 August 2013 in this edit. There was therefore a consensus-by-silence up until that restoration, but that restoration was challenged: It then went in and out over several days by several different editors until finally removed by Rob984 in the 2 September 2013 edit first mentioned above. I can find no history of that edit having again been challenged by any editor until HWallis1993 challenged it in this edit on January 30, 2014, some five months later. The fact that the final removal "stuck" for five months after having been challenged strengthens the consensus for omission, though it still remains a consensus-by-silence, the weakest form of consensus. On a purely procedural basis, therefore, the burden to establish consensus for re-adding the banner is on HWallis1933, the editor who wishes to reintroduce it, and the banner should not be restored until that consensus is established. I see no evidence of such burden being satisfied, so under the consensus policy the banner should not be re-added to to the infobox at this point in time. Having said all that, and understanding Rob's and Daicaregos's points about the banner/arms really belonging to the sovereign, not to the country and, thus, England not really having a contemporary set of arms or banner, and having spent a couple of hours going over all of this, I have to end up by saying that I don't think that there is an absolutely right or absolutely wrong answer here for Wikipedia purposes, given the fact that there are no strict policies or guidelines as to the content of infoboxes and the fact that it's pretty clear that the Royal Arms of England, of which the banner is a version, is still today an ongoing and current symbol of England. But when you get down to brass tacks, it's really a symbol of the Kingdom of England, once a possession of the sovereign but which no longer exists in independent form, not of the country of England. If I had to weigh in on a consensus decision, therefore, I'd have to side with keeping it out of the infobox but if my side of that consensus decision did not prevail, I sure wouldn't loose sleep over it, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (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.

Haaretz

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Precision123 on 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Haaretz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Precision123 (talk · contribs) Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs) Dlv999 (talk · contribs) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors do not seem to agree on these questions: Is this research note a primary or secondary source? Should conclusions/inferences from the source come from the actual article or the abstract? Should the relevant cited sentence from the source be quoted or paraphrased in an editor's own words, per WP:QUOTE? Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have engaged in ample discussion in the talk page. I also sought advice from other editors, as well as university editing guidelines, which by and large discouraged citing to abstracts over parts of the actual article. How do you think we can help? I am hoping for some guidance in finding the answers to these questions, to get outside support, and to facilitate a resolution. Summary of dispute by Precision 123 This dispute deals with the last sentence originally included in the following passage in Haaretz: Andrea Levin, executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), stated in 2008 that among Israelis Haaretz is seen as a "rather far-left publication" and accused the newspaper of doing "damage to the truth" and failing to correct errors. However, a 2003 study in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians and more likely to report stories from the Israeli side. Due to concerns of WP:Editorializing, I edited to remove the word "however," and I found a relevant statement on p. 117 that said, "Ha’aretz [was] more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." I changed the wording to: "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics stated that Haaretz reporting was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.'" This more accurately reflects the language of the primary source and avoids controversy per WP:QUOTE and WP:PSTS. (See also here and WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, stating, "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source.") Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has rejected the notion that this is a primary source. The editor also contends that the author's words should be paraphrased by an editor to re-include the original statement, even though WP:PSTS reminds us to exercise caution with primary sources: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." I ask for your advice. --Precision123 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dlv999 The dispute relates to how to include details a 2003 study published in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Precision wants to replace the quote currently used in the citation footnote with his own preferred quote from the paper. I don't think it is a good idea. The paper looks at 5 separate indices (use of sources, end quotes, topic and location of stories, and reporting on fatalities), reporting the findings for each parameter separately. The current quote used in the footnote comes from the article's abstract, and is a good overall summary of the paper and its findings. Precision's preferred quote is taken from the "Story Topics" section of the findings and is only a good representation of the paper's findings regarding one of the five indices it investigated. I don't have any problem including Precision's preferred quote in either the footnote, or the article text, as an addition to the current text/citation footnote, but it is not an adequate replacement for the current text and quote because of the reasons discussed above. Dlv999 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zero0000 The source is a paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal and so has the highest status of all source types. Primary/secondary classification is an irrelevance. The word "however" was already gone before Precision came here, so I don't know why s/he features it. It is simply false that the abstract is being cited. The whole paper is cited and the abstract is quoted. The abstract is part of the paper and just as available for quotation as any other part of the paper. In fact, since the abstract was written by the author of the paper as a summary of it, using a summary that does not agree with the abstract would have WP:NOR problems. Zerotalk 09:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Haaretz discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christian Science

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Simplywater on 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Simplywater (talk · contribs) slimvirgen (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm a Christian Scientist, and have asked two things on the Christian Science page. First is that the beliefs be listed in a place where people can see them and second, that the first sentence be neutral. I really don't understand how this system works. There are editors who are able to make as many changes that they want. Paragraphs. There isn't any discussion. I have discussed issues on the talk pages. They at first ignored it. Then I complained and they started responding. The issues at hand are 1. That the first sentence be neutral about Christian Science. Some people believe it is a part of new thought, yet it is also studied under the umbrella of Christianity. I have listed lots and lots of sources that refer to Christian Science as Christian. They will not mention this. They will say "Christian Scientists 'think' it is Christian. But that is another way that the Christian Right has tried to marginalize Christian Science over the years. 2. I asked that the beliefs of Christian Science be presented. I showed them 4 reliable sources, sources they they have used themselves, but those beliefs do no align with the point they are trying to make. They are trying to prove that Christian Science is not Christian, but Christian Scientists think it is. So they will not include the tenets in a box for everyone to see. Christian Science is not being treated fairly here. I've looked at other pages. I don't mind controversy. I don't mind if they make their case. But I feel a bit raped on this site. Sure I could call a bunch of friends who are Christian Scientists and ask them to get on and argue. But somehow I thought Wikipedia had a fair system. Are there some people who kinda own an article? Christian Scientist are not going to tend to be aggressive and get involved because we are not suppose to debate Christian Science in public. I'm a bit unorthodox, but I know when something is fair and when it is not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried the talk page. They are very savy and I am not. How do you think we can help? I guess we could discuss weather it is fair that the beliefs of Christian Science, as stated by the religion and by 4 different academic sources are posted where people can see them and that the first sentence be neutral. They have bullied me every time I make some edits. I'm rally very sad by this process. Summary of dispute by slimvirgen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Christian Science discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.