Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 113

Talk:Elm Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal#Morrison_and_Fairbairn

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Stephenjh on 18:58, 31 March 2015 (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:Elm Guest House child abuse scandal#Morrison and Fairbairn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Stephenjh (talk · contribs) SleepCovo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One editor objects to the naming of two individuals in the lede section to an article. It seems to me there is no good reason to delete them from the lede and no supporting regulation, from MOS or other sources has been provided to reason why they should not be included. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion via Talk Page. Re-written lede (reverted). How do you think we can help? If there is a rule supporting the omission of these names I would like to know of it. At present it seem like biased deleting on the part of one editor. Summary of dispute by SleepCovo As I have mentioned on the talk page, I do not think that Morrisson or Fairburn should be mentioned in the lead. I think it gives them undue bias against them as there are plenty of other politicians both alive and dead who have been accused, so I made the case that either they all be added to the lead or none put in at all. Both Morrison and Fairburn are mentioned later in the article, when it discusses the allegations laid out against them, this I have no problem with as in this section it talks about the other politicians who have been accused. But what I do not think is right is to single out these two individuals and only add these two names to the lead, when others are not being added. As of the present moment, the accusations are nothing more than speculations, yes the police are investigating them and the press have reported the allegations but none have been proven true, so to put their names at the forefront of this article, I believe would look like they were already guilty of child abuse, rather than merely accused. SleepCovo (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:Elm Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal#Morrison_and_Fairbairn discussion Hello! My name is Kharkiv07 and I'm a volunteer moderator here and will be taking your case. Before we begin I'd like to note that I am not here to give an opinion on the issue, but rather to help you discuss it between the two of you so we can have the best possible resolution. I understand what the dispute is about, weather the names should be included or not, and I believe I understand your arguments. I'd like to start by you both giving your suggested compromise, not what you want the most but what you think you can deal with if the other was to agree with it. Maybe things like, adding more names or putting them into a different part of the article, just do what you think you could both agree on. Kharkiv07Talk 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Stephenjh Thank you for your assistance. In response to Sleepcovo's comments above I'd like to say that adding the two names doesn't add any bias, on the contrary the bias is achieved by removing these two names from the list of accused. SleepCovo's edit did not remove all the names, nor did it add all the names, it selectively removed these two only. These two have not been "singled out" they have been included with the others to avoid partiality. It was SleepCovo's edit that 'singled them out'. The lede is quite clear, in that all the names are of accused only, that is stated. I see no reason to compromise on what I believe is selective, poor editing. The lede should "include[e] any prominent controversies" according to Wiki MOS and I think the names are important in assisting the reader's understanding of the gravity and seriousness of the article, and of the prominence of those involved in this suspected child abuse. Stephenjh (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by SleepCovo Once again I must add that only allegations alleging that Fairburn "participated in the parties" have so far been made. The names of the politicians are sufficiently covered in the article later on and as such do not need to be included in the lead. Stephenjh has said that 'excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias' I disagree as if I have no objection to adding all the other named Conservative, Labour etc politicians to the lead, what I do object to is singling out just Morrison and Fairburn and adding them to the lead. Those named in the lead are all people who have either been convicted of child abuse or are known to have abused a child, with the exception of Anthony Blunt who is a disgraced spy. Those named are: Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, the Soviet spy Anthony Blunt, the former British diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, and the Foreign Office barrister Colin Peters, who was later jailed in 1989 for being part of a network which abused over a hundred boys. Nicholas Fairburn is only accused of having attended the Elm Street House and as such there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. As I have said I think that it is right to name him in the article, just not in the lead. SleepCovo (talk)! First statement by Ghmyrtle I have invited Ghmyrtle into the discussion, as they seem to have a large part in the disagreement as well -Kharkiv07 Only involved in the disagreement in so far as I have tried to resolve it through compromise and policy. My background is as an editor who has been involved with this article for many months, as the topic has developed and expanded beyond its initial scope. More and more notable UK politicians and others - mostly, but not all, dead - have had allegations of sexual abuse and worse, up to and including murder, made against them, in reliable media sources, and the police inquiries have widened and extended accordingly. Some of those individuals have long been named in the lead, because they were by all accounts involved in "parties" at the guest house, and their names appeared early in the saga. The dispute between Stephenjh and SleepCovo is simply over whether Fairbairn - a prominent deceased Conservative MP who was allegedly involved in the "parties" - and Morrison - another prominent deceased Conservative MP against whom allegations of murder have been made - should be mentioned in the lead. Allegations have been made against many others, who have (so far) not been named in the lead. Serious allegations have been made against both Fairbairn and Morrison - but they are different allegations. Because they are both former Conservatives, they have tended to be lumped together in the argument - excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias, though I reject that suggestion. Both Stephenjh and SleepCovo have, I think, taken somewhat over-simplistic views on this. Having looked at it in more detail, my suggestion today - which could be seen as a compromise, though I think it's more policy-based - is to include Fairbairn's name in the introductory paragraphs on the basis of consistency with others named as having participated in the "parties" (such as Cyril Smith), but not to include Morrison as the allegations against him, though potentially more serious, are also less concrete. As I've said on the talk page, I would not support the idea of removing all individuals' names from the lead, because including them gives a good indication to readers of the level of prominence of those involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you Ghmyrtle. Before we proceed, I believe that Ghmyrtle brings a good suggestion to the table and I'd like to hear your responses to it. Kharkiv07Talk 23:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Just a note to say I am having broadband problems, so am likely to be unavailable for several days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Stephenjh's response I will happily accept any decision that is policy based. Stephenjh (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) SleepCovo's response Pinging @SleepCovo: for response. Kharkiv07Talk 20:02, 3 April 2015 (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:Lee Kuan_Yew

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lee480 on 14:41, 30 March 2015 (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:Lee Kuan Yew (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lee480 (talk · contribs) Wrigleygum (talk · contribs) Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) HaeB (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew#Lee_Kuan_Yew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew#Regarding_the_proclaimation_that_Mr_Lee_was_the_only_person_in_the_world_that_brought_a_country_to_1st_world_in_a_single_generation Both editors assert that Mr Lee KY is the ONLY person in the whole WORLD, to have brought a country from 3rd world in 1st world in a single generation. I attest to this as it is clear that other countries like Taiwan and Japan have similar or larger development under a single ruler and political party. Then, both editors starts citing sources that are either a rehash of this article and may not be usable. (See talk page for arguments for and fro it) I take as the debate about this issue reached a standstill as whenever I made revisions to it, either users will add it back. Just a little add on: This article may have breached WP:NPOV, You don't need to take my words for it, just read it. Some of the paragraphs starts with "Lee is widely admired", "Lee was a captivating orator" and "Lee ... (was) of high intelligence." If might have been attributed to the Singapore media being used as a source. The media here is not free and tends to side the ruling party and ranked 149th in press freedom ranking. Cheers. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I presented facts and two countries that clearly transformed from a single generation by a single ruling person and party/ How do you think we can help? Need people who are analytical, weigh hard facts (look at Taiwan - Mr Sun Yat-sen, ruled for 42 years, brought Taiwan to what's today), instead of plainly relying on sources that are clearly ctrl+c and ctrl+v from Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Wrigleygum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Have already tried discussing this in the page, and put forth the following points, but were previously rejected: The point about LKY being "1) the only person to have 2) transformed the nation from 3rd world to 1st in 3) a single generation" can be broken down into a 3 parts. 2) and 3) come out so common that I don't even know why there is an argument about this. Just recently at the funeral, one of the US senators said just that [1]. Granted that was a Singapore website reporting it, but unless you say the site is making up the quote, you can't argue with that. Many here [2][3]. The debate about what constitutes a generation is not up to us to decide. As Lee480 previously acknowledged, there are various definitions. What is undeniable is that this "one generation" description is used so often in reports around the world to describe LKY's accomplishment, that there is no need to define what a generation is. The sources says it as such, and it is not up to us to question why the sources used that word. As for counterpoint of other people/parties having done the same, if some party did it, that does not disqualify LKY being the only one since you are comparing a party to a person. More importantly, those other leaders and parties that Lee480 used as rebuttals haven't been described as having fulfilled pts 2 and 3 of turning a third world country into a first in one generation. Unless Lee480 can show a source that explicitly describes another single person that fulfilled 2 and 3, he is just synthesizing his argument as he goes along. For example, I would not use this link to support the statement, since it only vaguely describes a "transformation" (too vague, not "third world to first"), even though it meets the "one generation" criteria. The only arguable point would be the "only person/leader" arguement. I put forth 2 links as evidence, but they were rejected by Lee480 since he said the writer cut/pasted from wikipedia. Again this goes back to the point that if the source used the quote, and its a reliable source, its not up to us to decide that just because they use information from wikipedia, they are not credible. Per WP:CIRC, the sources practiced editorial control, and if they think that Wikipedia is reliable for that article, its allowed. Which is the case, as it was not a pure mirror of wiki's content, the authors of the articles I quoted had taken phrases here and there, but have rearranged it for the narrative they were writing. Or, we can just write that LKY is "recognized"/"described" for this accomplishment. Putting it this way makes it not a full statement of fact, but acknowledges that he is known for this. This actually relates to the points that Lee480 brought up about NPOV. A lot of the positive descriptions about Lee can actually qualified by adding a "LKY was known for", "LKY was described as", "XXX article described Lee as" etc. All the attributes prescribed to LKY can actually be found in publication and sources not from within Singapore media. And even then, that should not mean that local media sources cannot be used. Its just a matter of striking a balance in source and writing. There is an ongoing effort to bring this article to GA status, so editors are only starting to work on this. It should get better as it goes along. Keep the discussion going there. Summary of dispute by HaeB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Lee Kuan_Yew discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. If I may volunteer to mediate, despite a conflict of interest since, I too am editing that article. However, by force of argument I should be able to settle this. Question is, whether "Sun Yat-sen brought Taiwan to where it is today", or paraphrasing it in the context of our article, "like Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore to a first-world economy, Sun Yat-sen transformed Taiwan to a first-world economy". If this statement stands, it would mean Lee Kuan Yew will NOT BE THE ONLY founder/leader of his country to have done so. The question can be settled rather quick if we assume Wikipedia articles as good sources. Wikipedia article on Sun Yat-sen says he died in 1925. A quick search results in the Wikipedia article Taiwan Miracle, wherein the section- 'Era of globalization' has this line: "In 1952, Taiwan had a GNP of... Zaire and Congo. But, by 2010...GNP... soared to...that of... Germany". The dispute has been brought to this forum whose very premise is factually incorrect and therefore needs to be dismissed right at the outset. The need to refer to any external reliable source does not arise. The above quoted, two wikipedia articles suffice to disprove the foundation of the argument put forth. Disputing editors need now, to go back to the article and continue their discussions there. I propose closure of the case. SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC) The disputing editor writes further on the article's talk page: "The Taiwan Miracle, clearly shows that Mr Lee, isn't the only person who turned a country to first world. Chiang Kai-shek did so too." The fact is that article has no mention of this leader either. (Article remains unchanged, right since he wrote his comment.) This is a second argument made which has been factually incorrect and then a discussion developed over absolutely baseless information (in fact someone should have pointed it out right then, and stopped the debate developing further.) SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (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:North Head,_New_Zealand#Volcano_and_reserve

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Haminoon on 09:58, 2 April 2015 (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:North Head, New Zealand#Volcano and reserve (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) North Head, New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Haminoon (talk · contribs) 101.98.216.2 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article is about a volcanic cone/hill which is in a historic reserve, which is on a headland. Last year the hill gained an official name (which was previously a disputed name with two competing unofficial names), and the reserve changed its name. An IP editor believes that the hill and the reserve are the same entity, and the hill naming never took place. -- haminoon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) To clarify this for foreign editors, the three names are: the volcano/cone/hill: Maungauika. Previously disputed and unofficial. the reserve: Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve. Previously North Head Historic Reserve. the point: North Head. Never in dispute and name not changed. I consider the volcano name to be the most significant, and that the article is primarily about the volcano. The government, council and iwi (tribes) went through a lengthy process to decide on the names of Auckland's volcanos. This ended last year and some ended up with two names and some with only one. Because of the spiritual significance of Maungauika it ended up with only one name. The IP editor appears unhappy with this decision and has changed the article to suit what they wish the decision was. The decision has been backed up with several references. I am unable to fix the factual errors because of the 3R rule. I think the IP's edits should be reverted to the previous status quo while this is discussed. -- haminoon (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed it on the talk page. Evidence was given. How do you think we can help? Unsure. Summary of dispute by 101.98.216.2 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:North Head,_New_Zealand#Volcano_and_reserve discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Sufficient discussion and notice, waiting for summary from responding editor (to whom I would strongly recommend, first, always signing and dating your posts with four tildes and, second, creating a user account so that you can always be easily identified and have a continuing user talk page, since you're editing from a dynamic IP address which sometimes changes) and then acceptance by a DRN volunteer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I believe the IP editor responded to this on the article talk page ("I never said the hill naming never took place.") I think this needs to be sorted out fairly soon, as there are currently two deliberate factual errors on the page, which will cause great offense to a significant group of people who consider the hill sacred. -- haminoon (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The IP editor must indicate that he wishes to participate here by giving a summary or this will be closed for nonparticipation. This forum is for the purpose of facilitating discussion between editors through the assistance of a neutral mediator, but no editor is required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so, so it is his/her choice to decide whether or not to join in here. We do not provide judgments on article contents (though we may offer a neutral opinion in appropriate cases), nor do we ordinarily edit articles which are the subject of cases here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) 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:If I_Fell

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 50.76.34.161 on 17:19, 6 April 2015 (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:If I Fell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved User:Pizzarello (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "If I fell" is a Beatles song with authorship credited to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney, who is a credited author of the song, has stated in interviews that he made a contribtion to this song's composition and authorhip. The Wikipedia article however states that the sone "was written by John Lennon" and thus does not recognize McCartney's contributions, nor does it even reference or acknowledge what McCartney has claimed regarding the song's authorship. I do not believe that a Wikipedia article writer or reader should be able to control or decide who wrote a song or who did not, nor should he or she be able to exclude commentary from one of the credited authors as to his role in writing such song. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive comments on Talk Discussion page including references to statements made by Paul McCartney--one of the song's credited authors. How do you think we can help? Include in the article statements made by Paul McCartney regarding the song's authorship. Summary of dispute by User:Pizzarello Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:If I_Fell discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment Can this be closed as spurious immediately? And the IP admonished for bringing false claims to the noticeboard? The discussion on the TP was in August last year... with nothing since!!!! And the (misspelled) editor he is reporting has not edited at all since 2009. This is a hoax. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:32, 6 April 2015 (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:Mumia Abu-Jamal

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PhiladelphiaInjustice on 13:49, 4 April 2015 (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:Mumia Abu-Jamal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk · contribs) DrKiernan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The lede in the article Mumia Abu-Jamal does not summarize the entire article, but rather repeats details contained in portions of the article which appeal to an editor's POV. A lede should compactly summarize the contents of an article of this size in a short, declarative paragraph or two. This article is not so long that it needs five huge paragraphs that tediously repeat detailed info contained in lower sections. Further, some of the grammar in the unedited version would shame any grade schooler. Also, many of the links throughout the article do not work (due to link rot?), and personal blogs are being inappropriately used as sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter with another editor. How do you think we can help? Please have a neutral third party write a fresh, revamped, unbiased lede. Or, simply reinsert my reverted version with any reasonable fixes. Also, add working links for neutral sources throughout the entire article and disallow the use of personal blogs as sources. Summary of dispute by DrKiernan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This request is premature. The issue is still under discussion at the article talk page, by more than the two editors listed here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC) I won't be participating any further in the discussion here. This board is for content disputes, not for a forum shopper to make blatantly false allegations against another editor. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Off topic comments about editor behavior In response to user DrKiernan's post on "Summary of dispute by DrKiernann", the request for dispute resolution is not "premature". For many months, user DrKiernan has been arbitrarily reverting all edits that do not meet his/her POV. This ongoing dispute needs to be resolved by third parties.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC) I haven't arbitrarily reverted every edit for months. Or skewed the article to any particular POV. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, you have. For instance, minutes after I and others have made good faith edits, you have completely reverted them, often without explanation. At one point, incredibly biased/non-neutral sources were being used, such as freemumia.com and justicefordanielfaulkner.com. Also, nobody has addressed the use of personal blogs as sources, the dead links, or the fact that the lede includes too many details in what is supposed to be a summary.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) DRN is a place for discussion of content only. Please talk about the content issues and stop discussing each other's past behavior if you want this case to remain open. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Moderators Summary I have carefully read the arguments for and against. The lead does need to summarise most of the key points. In this case there are only a couple that are left out. I also bear in mind that the article is a Featured article. Extra care needs to be taken when adding content as it may not be in line with the wp:MOS. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) CLOSING NOTICE: I'll be closing this case later today as the lone participant (besides the filing party) has elected not to participate in the DRN process as is their right.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:35, 6 April 2015 (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.

MyEx.com

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dorothy Comingore on 15:32, 7 April 2015 (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 MyEx.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dorothy Comingore (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Several Editors including ScrapIronIV, Félix Wolf and Trivialist have undone my contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyEx.com where I simply advised victims of Internet Revenge Porn site MyEx.com on how to remove their photographs/videos free of charge by contacting non-profit victims' advocacy group: Citizens Against Revenge Porn (CARP). While these editors agree that my contribution was 'in good faith', they, at the same time claim that it is either 'spam'/'not meant for Wikipedia'. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have left several comments on the Editors' Talk page - to no avail. How do you think we can help? Allowing this sort of vandalism on Wikipedia is unjust. How is it that one Editor is permitted to 'advertise' MyEx.com's web site by authoring an article about it, but another is prevented from advising victims of MyEx.com on how to remove their photographs/videos? This is nonsensical and smacks of a hidden agenda. I strongly suspect that those profiting from MyEx.com's extortion of its victims are behind the undoing of my post. Kindly adjudicate this matter. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. MyEx.com discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment: There is simultaneously a thread at WP:ANI reporting the filing party, User: Dorothy Comingore, and it is the practice of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard not to accept a case when another dispute resolution mechanism (punitive or otherwise) is also in progress. Also, the filing party has neither listed nor has not notified the other editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (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:Muhammad Ali_Jinnah#Jinnah_did_not_have_any_Punjabi_ancestry.21

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ShamusHarper on 18:10, 8 April 2015 (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:Muhammad Ali Jinnah#Jinnah did not have any Punjabi ancestry.21 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ShamusHarper (talk · contribs) 202.69.11.28 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is about the ancestry/family history of Muhammad Ali JInnah. This individual was of Gujarati ancestry (from the state of Gujarat, India). This is common knowledge among South Asians. And I have left 5 different, neutral, sources to confirm it. Another user, is claiming Jinnah of having a male ancestor from another ethnic group, the Punjabis. This person is using an unreliable, questionable source to support his/hert claims. Have you tried to resolve this previously? On the talk page of the article, I have tried to explain to this individual that the sources he is using are unreliable and that Jinnah's family history is common knowledge among South Asians. I have left several reliable sources as-well. How do you think we can help? Let us explain our sides and you can be the judge. Summary of dispute by 202.69.11.28 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Muhammad Ali_Jinnah#Jinnah_did_not_have_any_Punjabi_ancestry.21 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.

Links in APL (programming language)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by APerson on 02:51, 6 April 2015 (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:APL (programming language)#Inclusion of maintenance templates and some wikilinks in the article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved APerson (talk · contribs) LongTermWikiUser (talk · contribs) Mdann52 (talk · contribs) Tim Pierce (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The linked talk page section begins with a dispute between LongTermWikiUser (LTWU) and myself over two maintenance boxes I added, {{external links}} and {{overly detailed}} (originally {{tone}}). I removed the external links, allowing the removal of the former box, and believed that this problem was done. In an edit summarized as "correction", LTWU removed the other box. I dropped that stick. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. More recently, LTWU has been beating the dead horse; on two separate occasions, they've readded the external links in running prose that we discussed in the "Link inclusion" subsection. In the most recent edit, Mdann52 reverted LTWU and suggested DRN; believing that to be a good solution, I came here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have only discussed this at any length on the linked talk page section. How do you think we can help? I hope that a good consensus can be worked out with regards to the inclusion of external links in the running prose of the article. Ideally, we'd also reach a consensus on whether the maintenance boxes should be there, but that's less in the scope of the original dispute. Summary of dispute by LongTermWikiUser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Issues: External Links (essence/summary of the problem): Wikipedia deleted some 9 internal Wikipedia webpages re the APL Programming Language article (they became "redlinks") within the last 3-4 mos, most affected links were in the History section of the article. Portions of historical development and people associated in the development of a programming language are being lost to posterity, forever. Consequently external replacement links in the article were put in. Wikipedia calls the process of deleting Wikipedia's internal web pages, cleaning up. An appropriate or actual term is deleting history (Wikipedia's internal links/webpages) permanently = ultimate trickle-through effect of deleting/moving or replacing internal wikipedia articles. It is user/reader-friendly to click on an external link. It is significantly cumbersome to go to an External Links section in an article and then click on links. Train of reader thoughts get lost, original article context is distanced - when going to the Wikipedia's Internal Links Section, and then clicking on an actual external link - the original encyclopedic text is "text distanced" - at least 1-2 clicks removed from original reading by Wikipedia users. Article Length (proposed solutions): Moving portions of the article (perhaps the History Section) to a separate Wikipedia web page might provide a solution, but there is/are some admin. or other Wikipedia approval process(es) needed “to create a new Wikipedia entry/webpage.” A) A programming (HTML/markup) “makeover” solution would include tree structures in Wikipedia articles for + = expand/show-detail, - = hide/no-detail. B) A separate but linkable to WikiArchive (by Wikipedia) would be another solution where say the History section of the Wikipedia A Programming Language could be placed/moved to. Digital storage is so low-cost these days surely article length should not be an issue. From 2009: Petabytes on a budget: How to build cheap cloud storage and disk storage costs have declined since 2009. The Telegraph, UK 8/6/2014: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "History is a human right." LongTermWikiUser (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mdann52 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tim Pierce Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Starting in January of this year, LongTermWikiUser added some very detailed and thorough expansion to APL (programming language). APerson found some of these changes to be overly detailed and that they included many external links, and reverted them. LongTermWikiUser took exception to those reversions, arguing that articles should not have restrictions on external links or on overly detailed content, and that doing so is contrary to the spirit of the Web, and that it can lead to confusion if information is moved to other Wikipedia articles that later get moved or deleted. There has been some back-and-forth since then, but that appears to be the core of the disagreement. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Links in APL (programming language) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello! I am a volunteer at the DRN. It is my opinion that links in text are generally not a good idea. I believe that the tags were justified. The further reading section seems fine to me though. We could perhaps move the links in prose to there? That seems the most sensible to me. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Hi Magic Cow and thanks for offering to help at DRN. Please read the DRN volunteer guidelines before moving ahead on any further DRN cases. The volunteers role is to moderate a discussion between the participants not to give their own opinion as in WP:3O. I've also changed the case status back to NEW as cases shouldn't be opened at DRN until all the participants have been notified and consented to the DRN process by leaving a summary here. Thanks for coming by and I hope when you get up to speed on the guidelines you'll continue to participate. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Coordinator's note: @APerson: Please remember that it is your obligation to notify all listed parties by giving them a note on their user talk pages. You can use this text — {{subst:drn-notice|APL}} — ~~~~ — to do that, and since you've added parties after making an initial filing here, you must create a summary of dispute section for each of them, above. If the parties are not given notice in the next 2-3 days, this will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)  Done APerson (talk!) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I will accept this case to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't know anything about the APL programming language, having used many programming languages but not APL. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is a requirement everywhere in Wikipedia.) It appears that one of the issues has to do with the use of external links. Have all of the participants read the Wikipedia policyguideline on external links? I would like each of the participants to summarize their position briefly. Are there any other issues to be resolved here besides the issue about external links? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by APerson The way I read EL, and especially ELCITE, is that external links should be located in their own section at the bottom of the article by convention. As a consequence, I don't think external links should go in the main prose of the article without a good reason. As LongTermWikiUser would like them to be used, they would essentially serve as wikilinks: "IBM Systems Journal" would link to the journal's official website "Philip Abrams" would link to his personal website "The Computer Company" would link to a scientific paper that features a microcomputer made by the company "Garth Foster" would link to the Computer History Museum's wiki In my opinion, none of the usages here represent compelling reasons to go against the position of the external links guideline. APerson (talk!) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by LongTermWikiUser First statement by Mdann52 Just noting here that I agree with not including external links in the article body, except in limited circumstances (eg. referring to stuff that we could never write articles on, such as legal code). However, in this case, it appears to be unnecessary, as articles were written on those topics, and could easily be rewritten if needed. I'm unlikely to be about much, so please ping me if my attention is required urgently. Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by Tim Pierce First, I'd like to observe that technically, Wikipedia:External links is a guideline and not a policy. Many of the arguments in favor and against it still apply, but let's be clear about how strong a boundary it is. My sense of LongTimeWikiUser's argument is that they disagree with the underlying principles of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Too much detail. That's certainly a reasonable position to take, but those are well-established Wikipedia guidelines nonetheless. Absent an argument that's specific to APL (programming language) to explain why those guidelines should not be followed here, it seems to me that they should continue to apply. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderator Based on the statements of the other editors besides User:LongTermWikiUser, it appears that they are saying that LongTermWikiUser wants to add external links in the body of the article, and the use of external links in the article body is contrary to the guidelines on external links. So my primary question at this time is for LongTermWikiUser. Which of the following is correct? 1. That summary of the dispute is incorrect, and the dispute is not about external links. If so, please provide your own summary. 2. The issue is about external links, and you believe that your proposed use of external links is consistent with the guideline. If so, please explain how it is consistent with the guideline. 3. The issue is about external links, and you believe that an exception to the guideline is warranted for this article. If so, please explain what the exception is. 4. The issue is about external links, and you believe that the guideline should be changed. If so, is a Request for Comments in order, or should there be discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)? 5. Something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Also, for all editors, are there any other issues concerning this article besides the issue about external links? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by APerson Besides external links, the other issue is that at the moment, the article and the way detail is added to it are both going against SS and Wikipedia's other rules regulating detail in articles. The extra detail should be moved to the "subtopic" articles (e.g. Development of APL or something) or removed altogether. APerson (talk!) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by LongTermWikiUser Second statement by Mdann52 Second statement by Tim Pierce The other issue at hand, besides external links, is excessive and overlong detail. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderator User:LongTermWikiUser - Please reply to the above question about external links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) User:APerson, User:Tim Pierce - Please indicate what sections of the article you think contain too much detail. Please indicate whether you think that those sections can be trimmed and that adequate detail is present in child articles, or whether you think that the detail should be trimmed and moved into child articles, or propose some other action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by APerson Third statement by LongTermWikiUser Third statement by Mdann52 Third statement by Tim Pierce Fourth statement by volunteer moderator Unfortunately, I am closing this discussion as failed. The primary issue had been the external links. User:LongTermWikiUser included the external links. Other editors said that the inclusion of external links in the article body violate the guidelines on external links. LongTermWikiUser has not responded to my questions. At this point what I can say is that there is no consensus in favor of the links, and there appears to be a rough consensus against the links. If LongTermWikiUser wants to keep or add links, they may either publish a Request for Comments at the article talk page, Talk: APL (programming language), or they may publish a Request for Comments at the talk page on external link guidelines to change the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Concerning the issue of some of the sections having too much detail, please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (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.

State of Somaliland

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hadraa on 21:05, 8 April 2015 (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 State of Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hadraa (talk · contribs) Middayexpress (talk · contribs) AcidSnow (talk · contribs) Largoplazo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview David H. Shinn which i used has a reliable source on the question of Thirty five states recognized Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence is thrown out and instead is changed with a chinese document that is a fraud not only me but also by by The International Court of Justice which i asked them to look at the document and after i showed Middayexpress that, he insist on keeping the fraud document and i can not rvt him every time and about David H. Shinn we have been talking about him in the talk page for over 2 weeks and the chinese document is only found on (http://wardheernews.com/Organizations/NSPU/ICJ%201-01-12.pdf) nowhere else not on the chinese goverment sites or on The International Court of Justice site . Have you tried to resolve this previously? David H. Shinn is a reliable source agreed by —Largo Plazo and me and by showing a email from the International Court of Justice on the Chanise document is a fraud Middayexpress insist on using it and i asked him to show the source of the document twice . How do you think we can help? simply look at both of the documents and you decide which is a reliable source. for the 35 countries recognizing Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence. Summary of dispute by Middayexpress Basically, Hadraa does not want the claim that a state of Somaliland was diplomatically recognized by 35 countries, including all five permanent representatives of the United Nations Security Council, to be attributed to the separatist administration of the present-day Somaliland autonomous region in northwestern Somalia. He would rather this disputed claim be made in Wikipedia's voice in the text, and in the coding itself linked to one David Shinn (a former US Ambassador to Ethiopia). This is despite the fact that a) Shinn has himself explicitly indicated that he is strictly speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the U.S. government. He wouldn't be able to anyway as a former official ("although I spent 37 years with the U.S. Department of State, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the American government[...] nor do I speak for any foreign government" [4]). The U.S. government in fact indicates in no uncertain terms that it did not recognize a state of Somaliland in 1960, but instead only the Somali Republic as a whole ("the United States recognized the Somali Republic on July 1, 1960, in a congratulatory message from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman" [5]; "the United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers[...] formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland's period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent" [6]); b) the 35 countries claim originates with the separatist present-day Somaliland region's administration itself; and c) disputed claims should be attributed rather than made in Wikipedia's voice per WP:WikiVoice ("opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice[...] rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"). The supposed email from the International Court of Justice that Hadraa alludes to above is something he mentioned for the first time only a few minutes ago on the talk page. Although he claims that it was personally sent to him, he never bothered linking to the email itself to substantiate its existence. This is likely because no such email in fact exists. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AcidSnow Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Largoplazo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. State of Somaliland discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: I am neither accepting nor declining the dispute at this time. I will comment that the filing party did not notify User:Middayexpress on Middayexpress's talk page. I have made that notification. I will also note that this is the second filing in a month at this noticeboard about State of Somaliland; I would suggest that theThe other editors, User:Largoplazo and User:AcidSnow, who were in the previous thread, should also be have been notified. Also, in discussions both here and on the talk page, comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (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.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lapadite77 on 21:44, 10 April 2015 (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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lapadite77 (talk · contribs) Lady Lotus (talk · contribs) Lugnuts (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors at the Wikiproject are pushing a local view on list entries, particularly awards in a "List of awards" article, claiming the Wikiproject has a consensus (which past, linked discussion contradicts) decreeing that items on a list need to have their own WP article in order to be reliably sourced in a List article. Community-wide consensus, i.e. guidelines, and MOS does not support this view, e.g. WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC. In the current Wikiproject discussion, a past discussion was linked on a proposal to change the MOS to partly adjust to this view, and it should be noted no consensus was reached there (MOS was not changed). I, and others in past discussions, have pointed out that editors in Wikiprojects don't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them as they see fit, and demand others abide by that, per WP:CONLIMITED and WP:PROJPAGE. The editors in question have refused to accept that, and continue reverting per their view, claiming local consensus and one claiming WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which is not the case given that numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not declare that names, organizations, schools, awards, et al, without articles cannot be sourced in an article. A couple of editors, one an admin, at the present discussion have also disagreed with those editors. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy, and now redundant, discussion at the Wikiproject talk page, where past discussions contradicting their claims was linked. How do you think we can help? Confirm as a third party that the linked guidelines do not support their view, including the claim that their supposed local consensus overrides community guidelines which evidently allow sourced info and items such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, whether or not the items have their own article (which is not remotely a requirement anyway). It should be noted that this statement is part of the original post so it is not a third party comment. Along with that there are no links to any guidelines or discussions to confirm or refute the statement. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lady Lotus There is no need for this. The consensus was clear and Lapadite thinks that ONLY a guidline change is relevent to remove the awards giving consensus no thought. I'd also like to add that Lapadite keeps saying that the awards from the IMBd page are left off and IMDb is not a reliable source - they get awards wrong all the time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lugnuts Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles Here is a more direct link to the discussion than the one provided above. It should be noted that the discussion there is less than two days old so the conversation is hardly "lengthy and redundant" - BTW a RFC should have been the next step. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Yep, and there's clear consensus to show that Lapadite77 is clearly in the wrong. I'm not going to waste my time with this pitiful attempt to get around an obvious WP:3RR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Listing of porn award nominations There's also this discussion about listing nominations for notable and non-notable awards. Furthermore, the policy on Notability states rather clearly that it does NOT apply to content, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article. As long as there is sufficient sourcing for an award, it can be included in the article. This is seemingly acceptable for mainstream actors and their articles with overwhelming emphasis on Bollywood actors. Many of which have SEPARATE articles just to list their awards and nominations. This double standard is biased, prejudicial, and harmful to the Project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Sufficient sourcing as in secondary, reliable sources and not just the said awards website or organizations website, yes? If that's the case, then the award should have it's own article when it meets GNG. Outside of that, I don't think awards should be present. The whole reason why the Chlotrudis Award articles were deleted because it lacked secondary, reliable sourcing. I get that notability doesn't apply to article content but at the same time why have a vast list of awards that carry no significance to the person's career? If I made an award Lady Lotus' Film Awards and created a website for it, are you saying it could go on a person's awards page? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC) If we are talking about figments of your imagination like the Lady Lotus' Film Awards, then yes, I agree that they are not worthy of inclusion in the article. But this dispute is over industry awards that are not AVN or XBIZ. As far as their importance, I think the quote in Tanya Tate's article sums it up nicely, "If you are more popular with the fans, companies are more likely to book you for their production," "Being nominated for awards help build your recognition with your fan base. People that win male and female performer of the year are generally solid consistent talent that are open to many 'levels,' and some of these performers already have higher basic rates than others." References --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC) I was using it as an example of every Tom, Dick and Harry award out there. That anyone can create an award and call it notable or relevant to someones career. And Huffington Post isn't a reliable source. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:21, 13 April 2015 (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:Andrew Rosindell

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 147.143.95.67 on 16:21, 12 April 2015 (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. Sorry if I have followed procedures wrong btw, I have never filed one of these before. Location of dispute Talk:Andrew Rosindell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dtellett (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a disagreement between the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtellett However most concerning is he has placed an "edit-in-process" to prevent editors from undoing his changes. This to me seems against the spirit of wikipedia. Please could an experienced editor advise if this is allowed? To me it seems that he is basically hacking/circumventing the editing system. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have tried to discuss this but he keeps reverting the changes - calling them disruptive, and has also started editing a page so no-one else may edit it. How do you think we can help? To advise on the content of the page (e.g. I feel this user is guilty of WhiteWashing - he also told me he has more authority as a registered user), and also to comment on the tactic of putting the page unable to revert edits. Also to investigate the hack he has used to prevent edits from being undone. Summary of dispute by Detellett Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Andrew Rosindell 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:Moon landing#.22Men.22_vs._.22People.22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LadyLeitMotif on 10:27, 11 April 2015 (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:Moon landing#.22Men.22 vs. .22People.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LadyLeitMotif (talk · contribs) PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) Rhoark (talk · contribs) aflyingkitten (talk · contribs) Stormwatch (talk · contribs) JustinTime55 (talk · contribs) Onel5969 (talk · contribs) MeanMotherJr (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Following a thread on a politically oriented subreddit, there has been a volatile stream of edits and reversions in the last couple days, and I'm concerned that civility has decreased markedly. The dispute is over the presence of "crewed" compared to some editors' preferred usage of "manned." Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've raised the need for civility and pointed out my concern about brigading with a link to an external site. I made one good faith reversion of an edit by an unregistered user, but have now disengaged as more edits and reversions built up. Edit: it's been pointed out to me that the more neutral term is "canvassing." How do you think we can help? I am unsure how to proceed, but I think moderation could help improve the quality of discussion. I don't have a strong preference of wording -- I think "crewed" is slightly better -- but my main concern is to address a deterioration of civility, which has the potential to worsen Wikipedia's systemic bias against female editors' participation. Summary of dispute by PeterTheFourth Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hi! I think crewed is slightly better wording than manned- it's more current, understandable language in my opinion. 'Man' strikes me as a very odd verb. NASA seems to be using the term crewed interchangeably with manned. I reverted twice to preserve crewed partly because there has been offsite co-ordination to change the wording, which does not seem in line with Wikipedia policy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark: It is very disingenuous to call preservation of the initial wording a change. From the 20th of February, 2015, to the 9th of April, 2015, the wording was 'crewed' and 'uncrewed' with no objection. It is my understanding that the wording angered members of some sort of offsite forum and there began a campaign to change it, to prove some sort of point- hence my resistance to this effort. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rhoark Raising concerns about brigading or canvassing in the dispute resolution is a red herring. This is something that has previously been discussed at WikiProject Spaceflight. There was no consensus for the formation of a specific guideline, but there was consensus that it was undesirable to have mass purging of "manned" from historical articles as was attempted. Talk page consensus is against the change. Disregarding anyone apparently canvassed or counter-canvassed, there is unanimity against the change. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC) @PeterTheFourth: What is disingenuous is calling an edit without consensus the status quo because it escaped notice for a while. Manned/unmanned terminology has been used on the page since its creation in 2005. Rhoark (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by aflyingkitten Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. DISCLAIMER:First time doing any of this so sorry if I mess it up. As far as I can see, the term "Manned" and "Unmanned" in almost all cases in the article was changed to "Crewed" and "Uncrewed" with little to no discussion as some editors believe "Manned" and "Unmanned" are somehow gender biased (Apologies if I misunderstood). Personally I don't believe dispute resolution is required as I haven't seen any real incivility in the discussion besides some debatable assertions (Brigading, SPA). I haven't made any changes to the article myself but personally would support the use of the word "manned", since it is overwhelmingly the word used in the sources and historically in spaceflight. Furthermore, besides one example in the American Heritage dictionary , I can't find another dictionary that supports "Uncrewed" being a word. In summary, I think that any dispute is simply a disagreement over whether the word "manned" only applies to men, or is gender biased, instead of simply meaning "carrying or operated by one or more persons" in a similar way that "Manpower" and "Management" are not gender exclusive terms. (Also, unrelated but is anyone else getting the title of the section weirdly? mine says .22Men.22) As I've said on the talk, I hope this doesn't get heated, as frankly, it's not really that big of a deal, and there's no need for anyone to attack one another over it. Aflyingkitten (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Stormwatch Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JustinTime55 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Onel5969 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hi. Like another editor, this is my first time in a dispute resolution, so apologies if I don't do it correctly. At some point in the recent history, an editor took it upon themselves to change the terminology in the article. Reverting and re-reverting began to take place, and uncivil terms were used by editors on both sides of the argument ("brigade", "ridiculous"). Not sure a dispute resolution is needed, as I believe that per wiki guidelines if a consensus cannot be reached the status quo should be preserved. However, in looking over the talk page, I believe that a consensus had been reached (to maintain that status quo - but then I'm not an admin). The research done by several editors showed that the historic term, and that used in the vast majority of material was unmanned. Another search raises concern over the actual term uncrewed as a real word. Anyway, that's my .02. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MeanMotherJr Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hello. This is also my first time participating in a dispute resolution, so bear with me. I made the edits changing back "crewed" to "manned" seeing that although the initial change was made in attempt to promote gender-neutral language, "manned" itself is not only gender-neutral, but the term used historically and in the present the vast majority of the time (6:1 ratio). There isn't much of a debate to this; if one looks at the Google search results for "definition of manned", they will see that it is indeed gender-neutral according to nearly all dictionaries ("(especially of an aircraft or spacecraft) having a human crew.") https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%20of%20manned The change from "manned" to "crewed" seemed unnecessary and seemed to promote an agenda similar to the language manipulation seen in "womyn" and "congressperson". I don't believe Wikipedia should become a hugbox for people with a specific political point of view; it should use the terms that are either historically correct and/or used by officials (in this case, NASA). Talk:Moon landing#.22Men.22_vs._.22People.22 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. I will comment that the editor filing this request has not notified the other identified editors, and notifying all of the editors on their talk pages is required. I will also comment on one apparent minor misconception. One editor says that dispute resolution may not be required because there has not been any apparent incivility. This Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for the resolution of content disputes, not conduct disputes, and civility is required. Incivility is not merely not a precondition to settle issues here, but incivility may result in dispute resolution threads being "failed". Please notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying; I had misunderstood and instead posted this on the article talk page. I'll sort that now. LadyLeitMotif (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (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:Russ Martin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mr Scottch on 20:31, 13 April 2015 (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:Russ Martin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mr Scottch (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) Jay-Sebastos (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm trying to list the full cast list for the show, which keeps being deleted no matter how many revisions I make or how I explain the changes I am doing. I have made edits prior to these that were deemed appropriate by other users. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed what changes I was making and given ideas on how to incorporate them into the page. How do you think we can help? Give an outside view on the changes being made and if the editing done by either user is disruptive. Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jay-Sebastos Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Russ Martin discussion OP is a newbie who doesn't appear to have read any WP:PAG, certainly not WP:RS. Close this and send fish products. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (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.

Emina (poem)

Closed discussion

Talk:Jihad Dib

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 58.106.235.75 on 06:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Jihad Dib (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WWGB (talk · contribs) Frickeg (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article is about a man and i want to add his children's names in the relevant field, while others (especially 1 editor) do not. They claim that the children are not notable, while i claim that many more prominent articles have the names of non-notable children listed; plus the non-notable spouses names seem to be an acceptable addition, so why not for the kids? Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed on the talk page, with no real settlement. How do you think we can help? I need some outside opinion who can read the talk page arguments and come to a conclusion that is not biased as a result of the previous edit conflict on the article. Summary of dispute by WWGB Please keep it brief – less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Frickeg The dispute has been resolved. Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Jihad Dib discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Notices given, discussion is adequate. Parties: Please provide short summaries in the spaces provided above and wait for a volunteer to open the case for discussion before beginning other discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) 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.

Providence (religious movement)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by GIOSCali on 17:30, 1 April 2015 (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:Providence (religious movement) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Specifically Talk:Providence (religious movement)#Providence(religious movement) Users involved GIOSCali (talk · contribs) Jim1138 (talk · contribs) Shii (talk · contribs) PeterDaley72 (talk · contribs) John Carter (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Providence(religious movement) is religious group based in South Korea whose leader has been accused and convicted of several serious crimes. Despite the controversial nature of the subject, there is a policy issue I have been trying to address in keeping with WP:NPOV: 1. What the Providence group claims to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that the group believes. 2. Both sides are supported by secondary sourcing. 3. My suggested compromise: simply add a "criticism" or "controversy" section to the article per the exception for religious articles under WP:CRITICISM. (i.e. critics claim that members believe...) This is the model used by many other articles on controversial new religious movements. However, as many editors on the page have had heated exchanges with members of the group, they seem wary of accepting any edits that are not critical of the group. I'm sure they are acting in WP:GOODFAITH, but it is coming off a bit as ownership. Also, concerned as one editor PeterDaley72 is actively maintaining websites denigrating the Providence group WP:COI. Discussions do not seem to be progressing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Help us to reach a compromise in keeping with WP:NPOV that allows for the entirety of the subject to be presented in an academic manner despite the fact that the subject is extremely controversial and potentially difficult subject matter to work with. Summary of dispute by Jim 1138 I agree with PeterDaley72 I seriously doubt the "member beliefs" would be anything more than the Church's own propaganda. If members' beliefs are to be included they should be by a reputable second source, likely not involved with the Church and definitely selected for the purpose of a white-wash. Jim1138 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Shii I don't have time to participate in this discussion and I won't be editing the page in the near future, but I think this statement by GIOSCali is misleading: "What members of the Providence group claim to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that members believe." Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature. We have not only news media but also academic sources that explain the group's actual teachings. Sometimes primary sources can be used to support claims about what a group says about itself, but I would trust the primary sources surrounding this group about as far as I could throw them. Shii (tock) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) By request, here is the secondary source I was referring to. (Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's journals of record and has very high standards) "Cult aimed at elite in 50 universities". Asahi Shimbun. 2006-07-31. Ex-members say recruiting on campus started on Jung's orders in the mid-1990s. "It's a fraudulent activity, as they conceal the group's identity in luring members," a lawyer said. An ex-member in his 30s said he and other cultists were deprived of sleep--forced to work late into the night and then wake up early to listen to Jung's videotaped preaching. Shii (tock) 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PeterDaley72 The material suggested for inclusion as "member beliefs" is an attempt to whitewash the article to some extent by presenting "beliefs" the group only claims publically. The selected quotes are in contrast to material included in the in-house book from which cherry-picked quotes have been selected that the requesting contributor is requesting insertion of, material which he/she is strangely reluctant to include which I think is a pretty clear indication of an agenda not inline with the point of this site. The suggested insertions are also in stark contrast to teachings and sermons published by the group on closed forums which show that members believe that the convicted serial rapist leader is the messiah (as mentioned in the article), that he has supernatural powers, that the Holocaust was a wonderful event, and that you will die if you don't obey the leader etc. The material presented as "member beliefs" is simply how the leadership would like their criminal organisation viewed by outsiders and potential victims. I don't really see any value in presenting propaganda as fact. I have been researching this group for 12 years now over at www.jmscult.com. I appeared in one of the sourced media links as an expert on the subject and contributed to several other media reports with more in the works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM Regarding the accusation that I operate a site denigrating the Providence group, my site (www.jmscult.com) provides factual information about a criminal organization that operates worldwide and is led by a convicted serial rapist. One relevant section of my site documents news reports: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg2196#msg2196 To denigrate means to criticise unfairly. I'm really not sure it's possible to degenerate a Hitler-praising convicted serial rapist/cult leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDaley72 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72 Summary of dispute by John Carter I was wondering if I could add myself to the list of "parties" here, given that User:Shii, who is almost certainly one of the best "topic-area experts" we have around wikipedia in this field, has indicated he won't be participating, and having someone to at least try to partially fill the gap in his absence seems reasonable to me. It seems to me, based on what I can see, that there are basically two questions here: (1) the statements of belief by individual members of the community in question, and (2) statements of belief by independent outside sources, presumably in contact with active and/or former members. In my history of dealing with articles about religious beliefs, which is rather extensive, I have always gotten the impression that the members go out of there way to emphasize the beliefs which will help them get positive reception by the community, and downplay and/or refuse to talk about beliefs which have less public appeal. It seems to me that this matter might be one of the points of consideration here. One of the other points is exactly how to phrase the statements of belief. In most religious traditions, we already have, or should have, separate articles or subsections of articles describing most of them, and simply linking to them is generally enough, except in the cases where such sections don't yet exist or where there are unusual variations on them unique to the group. Lastly, there is a regrettable but real question about who even the best independent reliable sources get their information from. "Happy campers" do not as a rule run to the media to talk about the problems of the groups they are involved in, dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are. Anyway, just a few ideas, but I would welcome information about whether there would be any objections to my adding myself as a party. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Providence (religious_movement) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This post is intended not to initiate discussion, but as a reference point for volunteers as to why the case should be taken to dispute resolution: there exists reliable secondary sourcing that contradicts current representations of the Providence group's theology on Wikipedia; these include sources on Wikipedia's list of reliable Korean sources such as KBS and Yonhap News(i.e. http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/Press/YIBW_showPress.aspx?contents_id=RPR20091125022100353 ) as well as others not yet on Wikipedia's list such as Monthly Politic and Economic, Jemin Ilbo and Jemin Ilbo. In some cases these are mentioned on third party lists of Korean media references. The proposal is in regard to theology, not practices of the group. GIOSCali (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is her/his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page — {{subst:drn-notice|Providence (religious movement)}} — ~~~~ — can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note pointing here. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I made some fixes to this page. See page history. I posted notifications on PeterDaley72 and Shii's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the reminder, apologies in forgetting to notify, thanks Jim1138 for helping. As a courtesy I will also drop notifications.GIOSCali (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Per his request, I've added John Carter as a party and moved his request and opening statement into the more usual location for such matters, above. If he wishes to modify and specify that statement now that he's been added, he should feel free to do so. At this point we're waiting for a volunteer to "take" the case and open it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) Would someone please take this on? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Opening by moderator OK everyone, I'll take this on. I will note for the record that I am uninvolved in this case, I am a new DRN moderator, My goal here is to see if I can help you all to reach a mutually satisfying resolution of the disagreement above. I will remind everyone to focus on content, not contributors and to remain civil at all times. To cut to the chase, as this issue has languished and there has already been some discussion, I would like everyone here to make a second statement below outlining 1) what you see as the single biggest issue and 2) what compromises or concessions YOU are willing to make in the name of reaching a solution. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) To that end, my initial review suggests that it would behoove everyone to consider the following: Current and proposed sources; do they meet WP:RS and WP:V? Given that this is a religious topic, remember the adage, "verifiability is not 'truth'." I want to see debates linked to WP guidelines and policies - narrowly defined (subsection links or direct quotes please, not the whole page!) Structure of article: Do new sections/subsections need to be created or existing ones removed? Can you show me examples from religious articles that are FA-class that use the structure you propose? Why will that work to settle this dispute? Tone: Can NPOV phrasing be improved upon? Hope that helps structure the debate. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Second Statement by GIOSCali Thank you Montanabw for taking on the case, and to the other editors for also taking part this discussion. I would happily welcome John Carter to the discussion. Primary Concern My primary concern with the article is the incomplete representation of the subject matter itself. Some important RS secondary sources are missing altogether and need to be included. Others are misrepresented to a certain degree WP:NPOV WP:ALIVE. I think the root of the problem could be that most sources on the subject are in Korean and potentially difficult to access for the English speaking community. In conjunction with the debate regarding the differing opinions on the group's theology, I am including an example of a source with brief summaries to illustrate just how the deep divide is between the current representations of the subject matter and additional information available. Rather than make this post exceedingly long, you can view additional samples on my sandbox at User:GIOSCali/sandbox "JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help) It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article) As for misused RS sources, please also see my sandbox page. Potential Compromise While not ideal for the majority of cases, per the exception for religious articles under WP:CRITICISM, I believe the best compromise in this situation is to add a criticism section for this article. Due to the criminal proceedings surrounding the subject, opinions have become exceedingly polarized and would be difficult to integrate. Also, this simple shift in structure would be a natural solution in addressing WP:NPOV phrasing(i.e. one religious leader claims that CGM believes...) Also, sources like those above with relevant information should be added to the article. Intelligent Design is an FA-class religious article that features a criticism section. I think it is a good point of reference for our purposes, as opinions surrounding ID are also extremely polarized, making integration difficult. GIOSCali (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Read - by the way, to get the ping, you have to do either User:Montanabw or one of the templates: @Montanabw: or @Montanabw: - and then you have to sign the post for it to "go." But don't worry, I also have this page watchlisted. I'll wait until everyone else weighs in before I comment further. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Under the circumstances, a "criticism" section doesn't seem a bad idea, and, so far as I can tell, maybe a "controversy" section, dealing with the various controversies. Under the circumstances, I might also consider moving the "History" section up in the article, possibly to the second section. Particularly regarding schismatic groups like this one, the history tends to influence the theology a bit more than the other way around, and giving greater attention to the history often makes it flow a bit easier for the average reader. The possible "controversy" section, if there is to be one, might be made a subsection of the history section, maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Second Statement by Shii I see no reason to compromise here. The sources translated on User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this. Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) A broad statement like this is not quite what I was hoping for. I am not yet ready to go digging in assorted sandboxes until everyone has had a chance to comment on the article itself. While I have looked at the article and skimmed the discussion, it is not the place of a mediator such as myself to make actual content suggestions - at least, not at this stage of the game. (WP:3O is the place to get new opinions) So, what do you see as the primary issue with the actual article as far as things that need to be added or not added? Are you stating that you are opposed to a discussion of the negatives associated with this movement's leaders? Or do you think it is fine to discus the negatives, it's only a debate over which ones, which sources, and the tone or approach taken? Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable? If either is the case, why? Please clarify. What are you willing to do in order to work with the others? Montanabw(talk) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) The article as it exists right now is NPOV and based on reliable sources. Moving all the unbiased information to a "criticism" section, and replacing it with dubious information directly from the group itself, would, naturally, bias the article. Shii (tock) 09:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC) So, to be clear, Shii, is it your position that the article is essentially OK as is and does not require changes? (with the caveat, of course, that any article could theoretically be improved) Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Pinging @Jim1138: and @PeterDaley72: to weigh in on this case if they still wish to be involved (or at least stop by and say if you are in or out, please). Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Obviously any article can always be improved, but I'm talking about the allegations of bias -- what the article is based on now is not merely reports from former members, but newspaper reports and academic articles from outside observers. GIOSCali wishes to replace that central content with fishy-looking Korean-language articles that make serious WP:BLP allegations. Shii (tock) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I'd say one thing that is clear is that everyone involved in this dispute needs a very clear understanding of the guidelines provided for reliable sources, verifiability and, for a religion article, "Verifiability not truth". And yes, WP:BLP. On articles about new religious movements, I've noticed that finding balanced, neutral, third-party sources is crucial to creating a quality article. I think Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is well-stated and worth the read as well. Foreign language sources are often problematic, particularly when, as with Korean, machine translation such as Google Translate is not a lot of help for people who don't speak the language to use as a tool for verification. (I just tried it with one Korean news article above... it creates near-gibberish) Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC) For the most part, I tend to agree with Shii above. Granted, some newspaper articles are better than others, but the newspaper he has cited is one of the better ones, and, even if it isn't "the best," well, the London Times, New York Times, and Washington Post have screwed up pretty bad in the bast too, but until the clear evidence of that is produced, we still use them, AGF'ing of them that they haven't in that particular case. WEIGHT is a separate factor, and one that probably could be dealt with, but the internal sources about what members of Providence say don't really say a lot that is particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by PeterDaley72 I'm with Shii on this one. I think the article represents the group well. It could be improved with more newspaper articles like these: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2006101884598 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/117_27550.html http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008011523598 And more material from last year's Australian TV report which is already included as a source should be included, especially the letters from the leader in jail to the female members which were partially read on air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM And since Do-hyun Kim, the founder of the anti-JMS NGO Exodus was brought up. Can we consider including the violent attack on his elderly father by members of Jeong's cult? http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.0 I've met Do-Hyun and while there is a language barrier, I can get a response from him regarding his earlier mentions. Would that be helpful? One "supportive" article is brought up in the face of scores of critical articles that document criminal convictions, abuses, and violence. I am all for including primary sources as GIOSCali suggested, but the quotes he/she wanted to include from Heaven's Words, My Words, an inhouse booklet published by the group which I also have were cherry-picked. When I suggested including, in addition to her cherry-picked quotes, quotes like "Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death," he/she resisted. I thought that a fair compromise. And his/her refusal to accept including that quote a pretty clear indication his/her motives continued the pattern of the group's attempts to whitewash this article. Regarding John Carter's comment: "dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are." I would consider myself a "real opponent" of the group as the operator of www.jmscult.com. I'm not sure "lunge" is the right word, but I am always happy to help reporters, which I have and are doing quite regularly - I just finished a 7-page interview last night in fact, and I have appeared on Australian TV in the report referenced in the article. Regarding the reliability of myself as a source, as both GIOSCali and myself mentioned on the talk page, I have several letters from the group alleging copyright infringements. I also have numerous threatening and abusive text messages from the leadership in Korea. The source material I have is certainly legit, hence I was able to identify the stated beliefs GIOSCali wanted to include as attempts to whitewash the article and present an image of the group which is in stark contrast to its inner secret teachings. In my experience with destructive cults former members and critics intimately familiar with the cult in question are often the best sources of information. The recent Going Clear Scientology documentary is another good example. What is wrong with "lunging" at a camera in order to help raise awareness of a dangerous serial rapist? Perhaps a little off topic, there, but I wanted to comment on John's thoughts. PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley While I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong on this issue in my role here as a mediator, I CAN give you my understanding or interpretation of WP's guidelines and policies that may be relevant to your questions: We are all constrained by the "no original research" rule. So no, you personally getting an interview with Do-hyun Kim would not be usable on WP, it's original research. A third party news interview is an acceptable source, though inclusion on ANY article depends on other factors (relevance, etc...) . Similarly, blog posts and bulletin boards/chat forums also are not considered reliable sources on wikipedia, so those can't fly either. The neutral point of view pillar governs the ultimate content of any article; this does NOT mean it's OK to "whitewash" an article to remove negative content; I tell people that NPOV means that the various views are examined and explained, sometimes I call this "teaching the controversy." Let me show you an example of how this might be done in an article unrelated to religion: I helped broker (and wrote some of) the relatively balanced language at Charreada#Animal_welfare_issues, where there was considerable controversy between animal rights advocates and charreada advocates. Finally, per WP:COI, your own web site is definitely a no-no! That said, the sources you found for your web site where you obtained information (such as TV or newspaper stories) MIGHT be ok as sources provided they meet the general guidelines for wikipedia sourcing (third-party, verifiable, and so on). You probably need to be open in disclosing that you have a POV on this issue; it doesn't preclude your involvement, but it does mean that your position will be viewed with a more jaudiced eye than would that of someone who doesn't have their own web site on the topic. I hope this clarifies things for everyone. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Jim1138 As Shii has stated, the critical information is well sourced. Jung Myung Seok raped many, many underage girls, then fled Korea to avoid prosecution. JMS's guilt in the matter is well-established beyond any doubt. I find it amazing that JMS only received a ten year sentence. JMS's followers seem determined to whitewash the article. There is a long list of SPAs (GIOSCali would appear to be another), socks, and editors banned from editing Wikipedia or Providence. This seems an attempt to WP:CRUSH JMS's critics. As PeterDaley72 pointed out, JMS's followers will go to great lengths, including violence, to silence their critics. This is not an article about a peaceful religious institution. While the article could be improved, removal of information critical to Providence and JMS must be avoided. Breaking out the critical information into a separate section would in effect whitewhash the sections it is removed from and should be avoided. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC) In the dispute resolution realm, we generally want to tread with caution about attributing motive to other editors and try to just focus on content. That said, if you have concerns that the process is being misused or manipulated, you also have access to other forums such as ANI and 3O, though having issues on multiple forums at once is probably not a good idea. On articles where there are allegations raised such as those in this case, a focus on content becomes doubly important; I noticed the talk page discussion invoked Godwin's Law almost right off the bat, which is not a good way to resolve an issue. Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Open discussion, round 2 OK, I think everyone has now weighed in and I posted some responses to each person's comments with ideas and my preliminary thoughts. It appears to me that the issues can be summed up as follows: Is there a need to add or remove material in the article that is critical of the religion and/or its founder? Is there a need for discussion, assessment or analysis of the movement's critics? Should any of the above be moved into a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" section, or should it be incorporated throughout? Is there a need to add more positive material on the organization? For all of the above, are reliable sources being proposed and utilized? Ideology aside, is the article disorganized and would it benefit from some rearranging? Finally, Is there a WP:CPUSH issue? While one of the participants here has openly disclosed his COI/POV, it may be true that there are other participants who also have a COI/POV in the opposite direction who perhaps have been less forthcoming. I think it is vital that all participants clearly and honestly outline their views and be upfront if they have anything that presents a WP:COI issue. It is now time to open a general discussion here. Please everyone remain civil and focus on specific content to be added or subtracted from the article. Montanabw(talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I'm burned out on this. I withdraw. Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC) My replies have also been curt because I am currently busy with other work. But I think this formal discussion has shown that there is a broad consensus against the kind of changes GIOSCali wants to make, and that this consensus is based both in Wikipedia policies and in a reasonable skepticism of the sources he has presented. Shii (tock) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I understand that these "drama boards" can create time-consuming situations. I will not drag this out unnecessarily if folks to resolve their differences. We have no authority to force consensus if consensus cannot be reached. @John Carter:? @GIOSCali:? Any comments? Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, close this proposal already. The current edit of #Theology does give more or less a fair balance of RS material out there. What GIOSCali claims to be a reliable secondary source on this is fake (to address the question "Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable?"). So a proposal built on such false premise ought to be rejected. The source GIOSCali specifies as a Yonhap News Agency "article" is in reality a "press release..independent of the editorial direction of the (Yonhap)". This you can verify using Google translator. Such a promotional piece fits the definition of "questionable source" that should adhere to WP:SELFSOURCE guidelines, severely limiting its use. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Key Points The argument is not that the majority of content should be removed, nor that the current article fails to use reliable sourcing. The argument is that the current article is incomplete--some important information is missing, and some current sources are being misused in some, not all cases. While editors have addressed some of these points, others have gone unaddressed or have not been met with viable solutions or alternatives. For clarification I have included key points A, B, and C. A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok. Again, these facts having nothing to do with (WP:UNDUE), the phrasing of the article, or the nature of the group. There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10). The Seoul Broadcasting System in Korea was found guilty of doctoring Jung's sermons to portray him as a sex offender and was forced to pay reparations to the CGM, eventually issuing an official apology letter. Jung Myeong Seok was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea in a case unrelated to the one for which he currently serves a sentence. Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea. Again, these are basic facts surrounding the subject, without which the article would be incomplete. B. An entirely separate issue: sources being misused in cases, particularly regarding the theology of the group. For example, claiming that the belief of salvation is achieved through intercourse with the Messiah is (WP:Exceptional). Although there are a few sources which claim this, they are clearly stated as opinions by specific people and should be clearly conveyed as such. As for the primary sources mentioned by Peter Daley, the argument is not that these sources should not be used, but that they must be used correctly. I do not object to the use of primary material--in fact I think it is wholly necessary. My only constraint is that the WP:NOR is followed and that phrases not be WP:CHERRYPICK to support the critical viewpoint. C. There are several sources(not just one) that portray the theology of the group as different from the majority of critical reports. Some of these are on WP:KO/RS, others are not, but could be submitted for verifiability. The one mentioned by user:kiyoweap was indeed a press release but still indicative of the separate theology that members claim-- because a limited number of WP:KO/RS sources are available, alternatives would have to be explored if sources like this are not acceptable(i.e. verifying other Korean articles, etc.) which would take additional time, but may be the best option. If it would help, the articles could be translated for the purposes of this discussion. The core issue still needs to be addressed: with claims about the theology being so polarized, it would seem difficult to integrate the two. Perhaps as John Carter suggested, the best way to structure the article would be from a historical perspective. As for the potential issue with POV, perhaps offering some background information will help. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am a theology student studying modern Christianity, particularly in East Asia. What caught my attention about the CGM was that while Jung was convicted of these crimes, he was only serving a ten year sentence. After some research, I found the article had some gaps in information. This became the basis for these discussions. GIOSCali (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) For purposes of discussion, it may help for editors to refer to specific arguments A, B, or C. It seems editors have generally commented regarding argument C. GIOSCali (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Some of the above might relate to an issue I have at least commented on elsewhere, in reference to specifically Chinese "religious groups" or cults. Specifically, at least to me, particularly in terms of Chinese versions of Christianity, there seems to me to be an unusually frequent occurrence of allegations of sexual misconduct against the leaders. Part of that, of course, could, I suppose, be due to different cultural norms. Another part of it, of course, particularly in China, which has a tendency to dislike anything not under state control, the possibility that at least in some cases it might be a trumped-up charge for the purposes of defamation and discreditation. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge that I as an individual haven't seen any specific sources discussing the possibility of the government either coercing or manufacturing such allegations. Also, I acknowledge that it might be less important in this case than others, unfortunately, because the Unification Church, from which this group split, has faced similar allegations from some otherwise creditable sources, and, at least so far as I can tell as an outsider, I suppose there might be some sort of general views of religion in the East which might make such ideas more prominent there. While I would definitely support development of content, or maybe even a separate article, if possible, about the unusual characteristics of criticism of Christianity in the Far East, from what I can tell anyway, the sources reporting the matters seem as reliable as any others, so that material should be included somewhere. Just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC) OK, so is this summary basically accurate (if a bit oversimplified): GIOSCali wants to add assorted material that is more favorable to the organization that may clarify some things, add nuance, and could give it a more balanced or NPOV look; GIOS also thinks some restructuring would be a good idea. (GIOSCali, you may have an undisclosed COI here, can you clarify your involvement with this organization?) Shii states that the article is already NPOV, the sources in there currently are fine, doesn't want to see the criticisms "ghettoized" into a standalone section, preferring them integrated throughout; Shiii also views the ones proposed by GIOS are not very credible; generally opposing GIOS' proposal. Kiyoweap - who has been doing a lot of actual editing on this article, more than anyone else here, at least lately, feels that the article has improved and that the debate is pretty much moot. The other parties opposed to GIOS' proposal have assorted arguments about source accuracy and potential "whitewashing". But, Jim1138 is sincerely burned out on the issue, and PeterDaley72 has a COI problem in the opposite direction due to running his anti-group web site (This does not prevent him from working on the article, but it does go to his own neutrality). Do I have this stated accurately? If so, I have to say that there appears to be a consensus mostly opposing GIOSCali's suggestions. Does anyone here see anything in GIOS' proposals that could be added to the article? If so, we can continue, but if not, I will not prolong this unnecessarily. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC) The aim is not proposing information that just favors the CGM, but including critical information which is currently missing from the article.. Why would there be any opposition to including the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok ?(i.e. that SBS was found to have doctored his sermons/lost a lawsuit in the matter, or that JMS was acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2012)? The issue is not WP:NPOV... I have not seen any policy arguments against including this information... is there any reason why these facts should not be included? See point A above... Separately, it seems most editors have concerns regarding sources offering an opposing views on theology, but only one source has been examined... How is this consensus? If this is indeed an issue, there are several more sources which I would be happy to submit for verifiability... (My position on the subject matter was disclosed above in the preceding edit--) So apart from the theological questions, is there any reason why the information regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok should not be included? i.e., are editors not willing to include even relevant info such as JMS being acquitted in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea on all charges of sexual assault against minors? GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Legitimate inquiry to the other users, at least the stuff on the theology and an assessment of the verifiability of these SBS lawsuits. I will be frank: I am more dubious about the court stuff if the man is in fact doing time in prison - often prosecutors drop other charges once they have a single conviction; victims also frequently recant. So before I close this as unresolved, I shall ping the the others for a quick yes, no, or maybe. @Jim1138:, @Shii:, @PeterDaley72:, @John Carter: @Kiyoweap:: Anything here to work on? Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia usually describes how a topic is described in prominent secondary sources. Given the obvious unanimity of prominent secondary sources, and the concerns you offered about GIOS's alternate theory, I think it would be safe to label it a conspiracy theory, which we have guidelines for dealing with. Shii (tock) 07:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC) GIOSCali's A1,2,3,4 strays from the proposed topic of theology into courtroom dealings, and these should have been nudged back to page talk. I guess I'll move topics there. In short, A1 (perjury) and A4 (Kim Do-hyun) are from GIOS's dubious source #2 (see talk). A2 (SBS committed certain broadcast infractions in 1999), but this is stale and trivial compared to what is known since trial in 2007. A3 (sex charges on minors) pretty much as Montanabw says. Prosecution refused to indict on a particular charge. It's creepy if your Christian church is running a kiddie modeling school, but not exactly a crime unless kiddie porn turned up. I see nothing here about "sexual assault" though. B2, former high-ranking members confessed this had been taught. Will add this with sourcing. Will you close this now? --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) FYI  – I have now inserted into the article an source for B2. Jo Gyeong-suk, former Seoul Branch (already in the article) revealed the messianic salvation doctrine was taught. From The Christian Times newspaper (ko:기독교타임즈). On closer reading, Jo Gyeong-suk is female and says she is one of the victims, so this is not as strong a source as the male leadership confessing to teaching this to their member. Perhaps though that part of the teaching was left strictly to female preachers. For A1, GIOSCali's source was Civil Government monthly. Correction on that. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Wait, why would it be considered "stale and trivial" that the Seoul Broadcasting System, major media in Korea, was found to have intentionally altered Jung's sermons and forced to pay reparations to the CGM? Why would that not belong on the page? Especially when broadcasts from the SBS are currently being cited on the article? For A3, actually the prosecution did not drop the case. The Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Jung(forcibly taking obscene pictures of minors would be sexual assault). Why would this information not belong on the page, when other allegations and court proceedings are mentioned? Regarding the actions of Kim, there are several additional sources that publish his letters demanding money. GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) What is reported in the news may potentially be featured in the article, but not with inflated significance, or in a sly way to mislead and insinuate. SBS's infractions were not so serious as to undermine the core allegations. If true, please cite rival news organizations who should have made huge headlines out of them, and/or issued major retractions. As of 1999 when the news broke, the cult leader is not guilty or "public figure". The Korean court may have reasonably judged SBS liable for "defamation" at that time. That defamation case has been eclipsed by news in 2007 and thereafter, when details emerged in criminal trial about what members were subjected to. That's what I mean by "stale". Saying that prosecutors absolved JMS of all counts on "sexual assault" against minors is extremely prejudicial and misleading, when the actual case had to do with a modeling school that JMS ran, where it was alleged that teenage students had lewd photos taken of them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Closing discussion OK folks, it's pretty clear that the talk page discussion has simply migrated over here and there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes. The discussion here keeps coming back to the original issues and not moving forward. So I don't think mediation and DR/N is going to help this any, and I don't want to waste people's time any further here. Therefore, I will refer this case back to the talk page and mark the debate as closed due to failure to reach consensus. This in no way says that anyone is right or wrong, only that you failed to reach an agreement. I want to thank you all for staying on-topic and being respectful both of each other and of the process. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (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.

User talk:Kd3qc

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 96.246.62.184 on 03:09, 16 April 2015 (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 User talk:Kd3qc (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm trying to add reputable information to the page on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and I am being blocked, I think, due to bias. I was a medical library chief at Columbia University/NYSPI, so I'm sure this is high-quality and reputable information from sources that medical librarians respect such as government, NGO, and MEDLINE. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on his talk page and responded to him to try to resolve dispute when he wrote on mine. He was intellectually aggressive. How do you think we can help? Revert the reversion of 20:11, 17 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+852)‎ . . Multiple chemical sensitivity ‎ Summary of dispute by Sciencewatcher Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Kd3qc 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:Brown rice

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2602:306:C5E1:A830:A159:83CC:87D0:81C1 on 05:45, 17 April 2015 (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:Brown rice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 24.33.93.239 (talk · contribs) 2602:306:C5E1:A830:41A3:38D8:8E5E:384D (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor has added content that I feel reads like an impartial op-ed piece. I have placed an "undue weight" tag for the section, and asked the editor to move the content or remove it altogether. I'm new to Wikipedia and our discussion hasn't gotten anywhere. I would like a third-party editor to have a look to be able to resolve the issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. How do you think we can help? The discussion between me and the editor is getting heated. A neutral third-party who can help analyze the situation and offer some guidance would help a lot. Summary of dispute by 24.33.93.239 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2602:306:C5E1:A830:41A3:38D8:8E5E:384D Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Brown rice 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:Sexism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Timothyjosephwood on 21:33, 20 April 2015 (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:Sexism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I don't really know how this works. I'm sorry. User NeilN is completely stone walling my attempt to improve the lead, and threatening to revert any changes I make. I have more than argued my case. There is some tens of pages of debate. NeilN is caught on a wording of a sentence that is frankly inflammatory and completely not encyclopedic. It has been removed dozens of times. It has been reverted dozens of times. It has been debated dozens of times. NeilN's insistence is not only sexist but heterosexist in an article about sexism. The lead has been tagged as lacking for over a year but apparently no change can be made because of those enforcing its sub-par state. Debate has droned on for far too long. There is no resolution other than intervention by a third party. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Pages of debate. How do you think we can help? Be neutral. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Sexism 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.

Female infanticide in India

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Future Perfect at Sunrise on 10:21, 19 April 2015 (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 Female infanticide in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Darkness Shines wishes to illustrate the article with an image despite the fact that it is demonstrably an illustration of a historical situation different from the topic of the article. The article is about "female infanticide" (a well-established, notable topic with respect to India), and the 19th-century drawing is presented to the reader as a matter of course as if it was a straightforward illustration of this topic, but in fact this drawing purports to show a different, unrelated pattern of infanticide, an alleged religious practice of human sacrifice that was not gender-specific but whose victims were children of either sex. DS has brought no arguments against this explanation on the talkpage, but appears to believe (based on some misreading of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE) that he can use historically unrelated images "for illustrative purposes" just the same [7]. He has reinserted the image at least 6 times, reverting 3 different users (one of them, admittedly, an abusive sock), and his latest reverts appear to show a refusal to engage in constructive discussion or listen to any arguments. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None so far apart from explaining the issue on the talkpage – in fact, I'm doubtful if this should be treated as a content dispute in the first place, as it's more a matter of plain old disruptive editing, but I'd like to give it one more chance here. How do you think we can help? Somebody please point out the obvious to DS: you can't use an image showing situation X and pretend it's an illustration of situation Y. Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Female infanticide in India discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The statement as to how we can help ("point out the obvious") is not within the scope of this forum. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice: If Darkness Shines does not post a Summary of Dispute by 15:30 UTC on 22 April 2015, this request will be closed as futile. No editor is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so, and Darkness Shines has been active at the encyclopedia since having received notice of this request without participating here, which will be taken as an indication that he does not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) The issue of whether to include a particular image in an article is a yes-no question which is better suited for Requests for Comments than for moderated discussion at this noticeboard, the purpose of which is to try to facilitate discussion and possible compromise. This thread is being closed as better suited to a different dispute resolution mechanism, RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2015 (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:Honorific nicknames_in_popular_music

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DanJazzy on 00:17, 22 April 2015 (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:Honorific nicknames in popular music (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DanJazzy (talk · contribs) Sabrebd (talk · contribs) Amortias (talk · contribs) Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article cite above gives credit and prominence to Mr. Paul Whiteman as "King of Jazz". This is attributed to a title conferred to the artist during the America of the 1920's and 30's. In contemporary times, there is a consensus among Jazz artists, fans and critics that this artist did not deserve the title-based on artistic merit. I have submitted my request for this honorific title to be deleted from the Wikipedia page, but it seems there is a lack of compromise and consensus in the talk pages. I now request for Jazz experts, musicians and any other interested party to weigh in on this discussion because it means a lot to me as a Jazz fan and amateur player. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have applied for mediation and it was rejected. How do you think we can help? I request you to host an open discussion on this matter, invite Jazz experts, musicians, critics and such knowledgable parties. I feel that this entry is innacurate and may adversely reflect on Wikipedia's integrity. Summary of dispute by User:Sabrebd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by User:Amortias Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by User:Martinevans123 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Honorific nicknames_in_popular_music 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.

Papakha

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Agulani on 07:08, 22 April 2015 (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 Papakha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Agulani (talk · contribs) Hyrudagon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is with Hyrudagon and on my side. There is 3 aspect to this article 1)The word Papakha is an of Turkic Azeri origin, i gave two sources which clearly show, However the user keeps deleting the information citing that it is not reliable while one of the source is a official Russian vocabulary. 2) The user keeps adding Nagorno Karabagh based on a source which is very biased and i discussed with him the issue in talk page, i believe adding the unrecognized territory is against the Wikipedia neutral point of view and if it is the case then all unrecognized territories in Caucasus should be mentioned(Abkhazia, Ossetia, Dagestan and so on)3) While here i do acknowledge my own fault since Andranik for me is a separatist while for the user is national hero i believe again a neutral point should be reached as using his military rank would be more acceptable by both parties. The user has already been warned several times by the me and by one user of his constant Vandalisation however he deleted them from his talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Contacted the user, Warned him, Got an advice from several users on the right way to tackle this problem, got warned by user not to engage in edit war and i decided not to edit but raise the question here! How do you think we can help? 1)The article should include the words origin since it gives the reader a sense where the word is from. The Azerbaijan part should be added since it is worn in Azerbaijan and i showed in more than 5-6 sources.2) Nagrono Karabagh should not be included or in case if its included the political situation should also be included as well other unrecognized territory, 3)Andranik should be mentioned by military rank. Summary of dispute by Hyrudagon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Papakha 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.

User talk:Krimuk90

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 117.197.156.226 on 15:34, 24 April 2015 (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 User talk:Krimuk90 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am Mridul Sharma who was a Wikipedia editor and blocked because of harassing User Krimuk90 or his/her real name is (Redacted). I apologised him/her and he/she didn't forgive for my misbehaviour and called me she in this discussion when talking to Kailash.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_13. This is the link and then I started abusing and I got blocked. I made another account started editing on my favourite actor Arjun Kapoor's article. Then he/she came to know it was me and again he opened a case against me of the Socket Puppetry investigation. Then it was my fault again made a account and did same number of edits. Then got know while I was pretending to some one and writing on his talk page. He/she opened socket puppet investigation on me and then I abused him and harassed him/her a lot because I got frustrated and made lot of user accounts and ip accounts to harass him/her. This he/she and all the Wikipedia administrators were taking his side and not giving chance to me. Now I realized their is a dispute resolution where we can resolve any matter with any editor. Have you tried to resolve this previously? By writing apology on his/her archive discussion page and he/she was not replying to my sorry.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_15&action=history. You can see the archive discussion history then after he/she didn't reply I started vandalizing all his/her archive pages due anger. How do you think we can help? The dispute will resolved by forgiving me for my rude and abusive behaviour and by removing she in this archive discussion which is directed towards me .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krimuk90/Archive_13. You can see this link and the title of the discussion is Combat Mridul and also please unblock my username which indefinitely blocked from the encyclopaedia. My username is Mriduls.sharma which is blocked for the reason of personal attacks and harassment. Then please try to resolve it if possible the unblock process. I just want to say that please tell him/her to remove that Combat Mridul message from the Archived 13 talk page discussion. Then the dispute will be fully resolved if he/she remove's the combat Mridul message. Summary of dispute by Krimuk90 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Krimuk90 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:Don Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 67.180.161.221 on 03:08, 25 April 2015 (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:Don Lane_(Santa_Cruz)  Users involved null (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I had posted relevant information and with negotiation with Mr. Lane's Representative (or really Mr. Lane?)adjusted the post. It has stayed unchanged for five months until recently several IPs and Cruzerinthecruz (Mr. Lane himself?)kept changing it to another version with no discussion. Keri flagged my reversion as a 3RR violation and removed my post and locked the edit page out. She also accuses me of having a conflict of interest by claiming that I am an injured party by Mr. Lane's obscene Valentine's. This is not true. It was Lane or Lane's Rep who assumed my identity. I want my original version put back and for it to be locked in. The information I imparted explains why Mr. Lane felt he was being hounded by the press and for what reasons they might have had in exposing him. All with pertinent and reliable references. Finally, Keri assumed much in her "authority" and didn't ask me any questions or for my side. She just took it upon herself to change the article and lock editing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've asked for editor assistance, used the Article Talk Page, used a bulletin board. How do you think we can help? As explained above. See that I am being forthright, honest, and clear about my intentions along with correct and pertinent information to help impart valuable information. 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Don Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Talk:Emina (poem) – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Sabahudin9 on 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC). Closed discussion Talk:Misconduct in_the_Philadelphia_Police_Department – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by PhiladelphiaInjustice on 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC). Closed discussion