Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 154
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
Talk:Brexit#History section bias against French president|Adenauer/de Gaulle discussion
![]() | Closed. The discussion on the article talk page has not been recent. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview In the Brexit article Talk page, I expressed the concern two weeks ago that only the French President de Gaulle is blamed for preventing Britain from joining the European Economic Community (EEC) in the 1960s. In fact it is well known that the German Chancellor Adenauer was also strongly opposed to Britain joining the European club. I provided a German reference (Der Spiegel) to illustrate this well-known point. As there has been no material counterview on the Talk page for the past two weeks, I then implemented my proposed addition in the Brexit article today (2 August 2017). Immediately a user "Womblez" deleted my edit, first using the excuse that it is original research. Then he deleted it again, this time using a different excuse, equally wrong. We have now both been cautioned of edit-warring by User 331dot. This User 331dot has recommended I present the matter to Dispute Resolution. I would be grateful if Dispute Resolution could read my cited source (Der Spiegel), could reinstate my addition on Chancellor Adenauer, and give User Womblez a verbal clip about the ears, and oblige him to present his concerns on the Brexit Talk page instead of edit-warring. My suspicion is that the edit-warring user "Womblez" does not read German, and therefore his reasons for deletion do not make sense, and therefore he does not participate in the Talk page discussion. For the same reason it would be helpful if anyone taking on this Dispute Resolution has a good knowledge of reading German. Thank you. 81.131.171.187 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Contacting user 331dot for mediation and for advice. How do you think we can help? In the Brexit article, get a German-speaking editor to read my reference (Der Spiegel) and confirm I am telling the truth. Then, in the Brexit article, reinstate my addition on German Chancellor Adenauer. And finally, request User Womblez to discuss any concerns on the Talk page rather than continue edit-warring. Summary of dispute by WomblezPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Brexit#History section bias against French president|Adenauer/de Gaulle discussion discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Battle for Caen
![]() | Closed. This discussion doesn't appear to have resolved the dispute, because at least one editor wants to expand the article with regard to historiography and analysis and at least one editor does not want to expand the article. One or more Requests for Comments are recommended as the best way to continue to resolve these differences. Discussions about how to word the RFC or RFCs, and the RFC or RFCs themselves, should go on the talk page, Talk:Battle for Caen. Since all of the editors are being civil, it is not necessary to advise them that disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. This thread is being closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Two sides are involved in a prolonged discussion (most of the current talk page and several sections in the latest archive), on how to include and how best describe the various controversies surrounding the battle. Outside opinion is requested to help move the dialogue forward towards a successful outcome. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive talk page discussion. Previously, there was a RFC. A 3rd opinion was requested, and turned down due to there being multiple editors involved. Further development of the article, and further disagreement on the talk page on how best to deal with the issue. How do you think we can help? Examine the discussion, and provide an outside opinion in an effort to push the conversation towards a constructive conclusion. Summary of dispute by WdfordThe article has come a long way since the beginning of my involvement, but as it stands it is still not neutral. Some of the events at the battle remain controversial, including a) Montgomery claimed everything went according to his plan, but actually a lot of things did not; b) Montgomery mislead his superiors about his intentions for certain aspects of the battle, which almost resulted in him being dismissed. This has been reported by several of the most reliable sources, and is even alluded to by Montgomery himself, although with much defensiveness. My position remains that we need to follow WP:NPOV, and include all the viewpoints of the reliable sources, without any editorial bias. Certain editors are flatly refusing to allow that to happen, and have actively edit-warred to keep this information out of the article. Apart from various ad hominem attacks, their "defenses" have included that this article is somehow the wrong place for this information; that including a few paragraphs on this aspect of the battle would distort the article via WP:UNDUE; that I am trying to convert the article into an "anti-Monty diatribe"; and even that I am trying to make it look like the Battle for Normandy was actually an Allied defeat. After much arguing the article has slowly included a few of the contended points, but still in a manner carefully worded to distort certain facts. Other aspects of the controversy are still not being allowed in at all. For weeks I have patiently ignored the ad hominem attacks and have responded with detailed extracts from reliable sources, but to no avail. Wdford (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Damwiki1The Article The Battle for Caen is about the series of battles that led to the capture of the city and the actual consequences of those battles. The "controversy" is about interpersonal relations between the Allied High Command revolving around Montgomery that had no actual bearing on the battle nor did it effect the way the battle was fought. In short, Monty's plan was for the Commonwealth forces to attract and pin the bulk of the German armoured divisions around Caen, while the US Army would capture Brest, and then push west into Brittany through Saint Lo and also wheel around the Commonwealth forces and drive east towards the Seine river. There is no doubt that the German army did commit the bulk of their armour against the Commonwealth forces that were pushing up against Caen, and that the US Army did not have to face these strong units while performing their part in Montgomery's plan. Wdford is trying to state that this was not Montgomery's plan and to do so he has to use authors who rely on an incredibly complex web of anecdotal evidence. Consequently, I have argued that the "controversy" needs to be explored in a separate article since the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is against what Wdford is trying to put forward. Putting in his "summary" into the article will give undue weight to a very minority position amongst historians and lead to endless edit wars as other editors will continually try to remove it, or worse, expand the article to explore it in detail until the article is no longer about the Battle for Caen but becomes an article about the "war between the generals". Another factor here is Wdford's repeated abuse of of editors, which has been ignored hitherto but it hardly inspires confidence in what he proposes. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Keith-264Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
An editor took an interest in a dormant article, which attracted attention. Differences arose over the purpose of the article which led to revert frenzy and the attraction of two other editors, followed by a fifth. Four editors broadly agree what the article is for but the original editor enthusiastically promotes a point of view not shared by the others. Only the constraint of the 3rr rule now that that editor is outnumbered 4:1 is keeping the peace on the article page but the dispute has moved to the talk page. I fear that as soon as scrutiny diminishes, the minority version will reappear to the detriment of the article. Keith-264 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Aber~enwikiWdford seems to be trying to create an article emphasising Montgomery's "lies" and selecting reliable sources to support this viewpoint. However much of the underlying evidence is ambiguous, and reliable sources include a wide range of interpretations. My views reflect D'Este's Eisenhower p579 The furor over Montgomery's alleged failure to carry out his intended strategy in Normandy has obscured a basic truth that warfare is not an exact science, and battles and campaigns rarely evolve as they are projected on paper. Battle for Caen discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try once again to moderate this dispute. Please read the mediation ground rules. Please note that I am serious about wanting a reply in 48 hours. Please also note that the instructions to comment on content, not contributors, and to be civil and concise are critical, and are not mere suggestions. Will each editor please summarize in one paragraph what they think the issues are? I understand that there are issues about historiography of the battle, in particular the assessment of General Montgomery. Are there any issues about the battle itself> (Both are legitimate concerns.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Also, this noticeboard will not sanction editors, but resolution of content issues may resolve any conduct concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors@Wdford:, @Damwiki1:, @Keith-264:, @Aber~enwiki:
Second statement by moderatorPlease be concise. The above statements are civil, but are not concise. Do not reply to other editors. That was already tried on the talk page, and just resulted in back-and-forth. Be civil and concise. Each editor should provide a one-paragraph statement as to how the article should be improved (or what should be left alone in it). If you think that there are two subjects that need improving, such as the description of the battle itself and the description of the historiography of the battle, say so, and I will allow two paragraphs. In any case, focus on how to improve the article, not on a restatement of what happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Do not refer to other editors, and definitely do not comment on the objectives or motives of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThere are multiple neutrality problems, which are all related. A) The article needs to mention the controversy over Montgomery subsequently claiming that the "tie-down-the-Germans" plan was the original plan all along, despite much evidence to the contrary. This issue is well attested by reliable sources. It must be concise and condensed, but still factual and understandable – two paragraphs should suffice. B) The Planning section should include the FULL original plan, as is also attested by reliable sources. A few additional sentences will suffice. C) Montgomery similarly fudged his intentions for the Goodwood component of the battle, in a microcosm of the broader controversy. This is well attested by reliable sources, it is described in the main Operation Goodwood article, and since Goodwood was an important part of the Battle for Caen, a few sentences to summarize this issue should be included here also. D) The Analysis section needs to include viewpoints of all reliable sources, as per WP:NPOV, not just "approved" authors, and it needs to report those sources accurately and neutrally. Wdford (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorIt appears that User:Wdford is saying that the article should be substantially rewritten. That isn't really within the scope of this noticeboard. Do the other editors agree that User:Wdford should go ahead and rewrite the article, or do they disagree? If the other editors disagree, then one possibility is formal mediation, a process that is more appropriate to disputes that are not easily summarized. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Will each of the editors please provide a very brief statement? If you want to rewrite the article, or do not want the article rewritten, say that, rather than providing a restatement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editorsThe article should not be rewritten by Wdford as this is unlikely to resolve the dispute about neutrality.Aber~enwiki (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderatorAre the other editors agreeable to the changes described by User:Wdford? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) By the way, the reference to censorship was counter-productive. Do not refer to "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute, unless the article is actually about censorship. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsNo. We would have to explore the whole topic to explain that this is a controversial minority position.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC) NO. I agree with Damwiki1.Aber~enwiki (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I take the middle ground on this. I feel that the article should at least acknowledge there has/is controversy surrounding various parts (I concede that Monty almost losing his job because of the confusion over Goodwood does seem apt for this article). However, derailing to explain the whole controversy around the master plan is outside the scope of this article and needs its own.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorUser:EnigmaMcmxc has proposed a middle ground. Is it agreeable to the other editors? Will Enigma1990 please elaborate on the middle ground? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsThe existence of this controversy is by no means a "minority position" – some of the biggest names in the field have reported on it. However there is no need to "derail" anything – two paragraphs is enough to properly outline the controversy, with the reliable references so that interested readers can follow it up for themselves. The planning section also needs to report the full original plan - two more sentences is hardly a derailment. WP:NPOV states that the article must represent all of the significant views of the reliable sources, so these views MUST be allowed to be added. WP:NPOV also specifically states that this core principle cannot be over-ruled by editor consensus. Wdford (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC) The "controversy" under discussion is not a simple matter. Wdford has concentrated on Montgomery's role and comments. There are also a wide range of other factors which are relevant to the controversy especially office politics within the high command (stretching back to 1942), differences in understanding of the plan for, and the actual battle of Normandy by different parties, and views on the military capabilities of the forces involved. EnigmaMcmxc's suggestion of a separate article on the various controversies has some merit; adding some sentences to the article to selectively include one part of the controversy does not.Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderatorThere doesn't seem to be agreement on whether to leave the article alone or whether to expand it to reflect issues about the historiography of the battle. One possibility would be to move this controversy to requests for mediation for longer-running mediation with a more skilled mediator. However, even that may not resolve this, and it is probably better to use Requests for Comments. Since one editor wants multiple changes made, it would be be highly advisable to them to formulate multiple RFCs, one for each change. I will assist in wording the RFCs neutrally, but only if asked to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Sixth statements by editorsThank you for your efforts. However, please could you also clarify for us the correct interpretation of WP:NPOV? The wording of the policy says that articles should represent "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It goes on to say that: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." However up to now certain editors have been repeatedly reverting attempts to include some of the views of some very reliable sources. This would appear to be a blatant contravention of a core policy. In your opinion, does WP:NPOV still apply, or has it become acceptable for editors to revert relevant material from reliable sources at will? I would appreciate your interpretation please. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC) The article has already been greatly expanded to include elements on the historiography of the battle. At the moment is still needs some minor polishing, or alternatively moving much of this material into another article dealing with the various controversies. Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement 6.5 by moderatorUser:Wdford – I have already cautioned you once for asking a loaded question, and it seems to be necessary again. You know very well that neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but you should also know that you are not always the sole judge of what balance of viewpoints is the best presentation of the neutral point of view. Neutrally worded Requests for Comments can be useful in achieving the best balance in articles. (Non-neutrally worded RFCs or RFCs containing loaded questions are not useful for that purpose.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F
![]() | The dispute is way too broad-scoped and consequential in the long run to be settled at DRN.The parties are adviced to launch a WP:RFC on the topic and seek community view. Winged Blades Godric 04:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by Mercy11 on 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I expanded a section in an article and another editor (Fierysunset) removed my edits. After I reinstated my edits with an explanation and Talk Page discussion, the editor undid my edits again. His explanation is that the sources of my edits (Newsweek, Huffington Post, The American Interest, and The Hill) are biased. The editor is unwilling to accept WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIASED and similar policies, and defines his own criteria for what I can include. It has become increasingly more difficult to discuss the content because he is being motivated by strong political views. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Staying away from edit warring. Invited editor to add cites of his own with the opposite views. Being neutral in my wording of the section prose. Because 2 other editors initially started the Talk Page section about the article's section in question (but have since not participated again), the dispute did not seem to be a candidate for WP:3O. How do you think we can help? Someone needs to help get across to FIREYSUNSET that so long as edits are relevant, backed by reliable sources, and not undue weight, it is OK for the information to be added to the article. The editor seems to be having difficulty working with me because he appears to be perceiving me as his adversary. The editor gets very excited (belligerent) when I respond to his Talk Page comments. Summary of dispute by Mercy11
NinjaRobotPirate, what's your definition of "peer reviewed academic sources"? You appear unusually comfortable with the term, and I sense I might be thinking differently here. Can you provide a meaning in your own words (as apposed to a link) so we can be on the same wavelength. Mercy11 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FIREYSUNSET
Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirateI'll add a header here for my views. I think too many of the citations are to primary sources, such as editorials and newspaper columns. This is especially important when dealing with defamatory claims about living people. Like the near-meaningless political insult "fascist", accusations of fostering a cult of personality are common in the media. This is why I've suggested we require at least one peer-reviewed, academic source before anyone can be added to the list. This was rejected by at least one person involved in the current dispute, who seems to have interpreted my suggestion as a proposal to abandon verifiability. Instead, I think due weight has already been thrown out in this article, and it's heavily lopsided toward indiscriminate labeling without any care toward whether the views expressed are fringe. The current dispute relies heavily on citing WP:V, but it completely ignores WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I thought about responding earlier, but I figured I would just be repeating myself. I think I made my case well enough that repeating it wouldn't accomplish anything useful. I think there are too many unhelpful examples on this page, and we should prune it down to the ones that have been studied in academic sources, possibly in violation of WP:FRINGE. The best way to combat this is to use peer-reviewed academic sources. If no peer-reviewed academic sources exist to say that a politician has a cult of personality, I don't see why it would belong in an encyclopedia entry on the topic. I suppose this can be settled with an RFC on the talk page, but I was hoping to avoid getting into that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Joseph1100
![]() | Closed for multiple reasons. The filing editor has made some controversial edits which have been reverted. The filing party has made no effort to discuss the edits on article talk pages. The filing party is advised to read the dispute resolution policy and to discuss the edits on article talk pages before requesting any other sort of dispute resolution. The filing party is reminded that all contentious edits must be sourced to reliable sources. The filing party has not used article talk pages, and should use them. The filing party is advised not to lecture more experienced editors. The other editors are not "uneducated" and are not "censoring"; they are simply trying to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview First off I had to edit out (delete) the comments made by the other editors as they were negative and uneducated as to the Wikipedia OR terms. I feel these editors are censoring, only and not allowing the truth of the research as both of my sources are published works and held in high regard. The history of talk page contains the sections. It is not always mainstream research that is entirely true, and my edits are not "fringe" but a truth which has been published in smaller circles. These are important matters which can inspire many readers to continue the grasping of the truth. Have you tried to resolve this previously? It was apparent that they use the talk page for negative comments, to undo their action was tried. How do you think we can help? Review my edits in the context of the published works, of reference, and allow my edits to remain. Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIIIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by YopiePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
procedural notesThis notice noticeboard accepts only content disputes. For conduct disputes you should go to [WP:ANI|ANI]]. So do you have anything content related in specific ??--Kostas20142 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC) User talk:Joseph1100 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Meta-analysis#software
![]() | Closed as not current. There was discussion in the article talk page in June. There has been no further discussion in the past six weeks. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, a request for a Third Opinion would be in order, or another case can be filed here. This noticeboard, like other dispute resolution forums, is for current disputes, not stale ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Meta-analysis page had a list of links to very useful software related to the topic. This was recently deleted by jytdog claiming this was an "indiscriminate list" and justified the deletion claiming that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for links that you believe are useful". I countered this as it says on Wikipedia regarding External links or Internet directories: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" The software lists are very few (after spam is removed) and they are a rich source of information (akin to the existing external links) and are the only way that people wanting to examine the area more can glean more information. Conflating this with a list of songs or an internet directory of businesses is counter-intuitive in this case and actually represents a problem. Please help restore the important links Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried reasoning this out with jytdog but he declines all lines of reasoning and keeps reverting my edits How do you think we can help? Please help make a decision on these external links after reviewing the edits I have made that jytdog reverted so that these can be reinstated Summary of dispute by jytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Meta-analysis#software discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Draft:BIRAD
![]() | Closed. This is a request for review of a draft. Please request review of drafts at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview After a thorough examination, I launched a new entry into Wikipedia on "Biard - Research and Development Company Ltd." of Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After collecting the relevant information for the entry, I entered the company information on a draft page. (I've sent you the link). I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. How do you think we can help? I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia. Draft:BIRAD discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Jcc#Regarding_your_review_of_page_on_Dennis_M._Kelleher
![]() | Closed both as pending in another forum, and as not a proper topic for discussion here (or there). The editor has filed a Request for Arbitration, which takes precedence over all other methods of dispute resolution, although it will almost certainly be declined.
The basic issue appears to be the deletion of the article on Dennis M. Kelleher. If the draft at Draft:Dennis M. Kelleher is similar to the deleted article, then I will comment that it clearly was written to praise Kelleher rather than describe him neutrally. That, in itself, isn't a basis for deletion, but articles that are written to praise someone often do not establish biographical notability. User:Jcc asked the filing party repeatedly whether they were working for Kelleher. They noted that the filing party appears to be a single-purpose account whose objective is to restore the article on Kelleher. I will ask whether User:Charnich is working for Kelleher. The proper forum for questions about whether an article was properly deleted is deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview As a new user, I posted a page that had been marked for deletion addressing the concerns cited in the AfD process. The person who reviewed the page seemed to offer a different reason for refusing to move my re-post out of draft space and simply ignored my request of an experienced editor for help and guidance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The talk page shows a lengthy give and take between jcc and myself. How do you think we can help? I'd love for a completely new editor, if anyone is willing, to walk me through my article and show me where I strayed. The original piece was marked for AfD for being a glorified CV and a lack of notability. If my language created the CV issue I could use some help on where. And as I repeatedly explained to jcc, I think I adequately addressed the notability issue but jcc wouldn't really offer any guidance on why I was wrong in that case too as I thought I had addressed it. Summary of dispute by jccPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Jcc#Regarding_your_review_of_page_on_Dennis_M._Kelleher discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute at sr.wikipedia
![]() | English Wikipedia has no control or authority over other-language Wikipedias. If you wish dispute resolution you will need to use whatever processes are available through sr.Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview An editor Obsuser, guided by his feminist beliefs, is repeatedly editing the page on man's rights movement, deleting any links to relevant web sites and Facebook groups (in Serbia actually there is only one web site and one FB group there, other FB groups are more specific, related to father's rights). I would like this ideological policing to stop. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page How do you think we can help? I would like this ideological policing to stop. Summary of dispute by ObsuserPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dispute at sr.wikipedia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Energy Catalyzer
![]() | Closed due to lack of response. Any discussion can be on the article talk page. Editors are reminded that this device falls within the scope of ArbCom discretionary sanctions concerning disruptive editing on pseudo-science, and disruptive editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This is a contentious topic, with a long history of editorial disputes. The particular section is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit and the talk is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit_Settled A RS reported : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=794216280 Triangle Business Journal reports that "Cecilia Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge, dismissed the case with prejudice last month after both parties notified the court that they'd reached a settlement a week into the trial" and that details of the settlement were not disclosed in the court record. Editors agree that 1) the case was settled 2) the details were not released The contentious element is that I want to include the phrase "with prejudice" (in any suitable format). And seeing that I've opened this dispute, I also want it noted in the article (RS Popular Science) that Rossi was paid $11.5M in addition to the $89M ($270M with triple damages) he sued for. A couple of other issues, but I'll hold off on those for now/
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page. Nearly every change I have made has been severely edited or reverted, sometimes without discussion. I have consulted with other editors. How do you think we can help? 1. To determine whether I can say that the case was closed "with prejudice" (ie can never be reopened) 2. To recommend/approve the exact wording 3. To add the fact that Rossi was already paid $11.5M by IH Summary of dispute by VQuakrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cold fusion topic subject to GS. OP isn't getting any support for propping up a viewpoint that he believes lends credibility to the subject. The 11.5 million thing hasn't been discussed on the talk page to my knowledge so I don't think it is eligible for discussion here. In general I think escalation beyond the talk page is premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by InsertcleverphraseherePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Per the actual disputed material that has been discussed on the talk page, "with prejudice", I don't see the harm in including it, but I also don't see an absolute necessity to include it either. I don't understand why VQuakr is so adamant about not including it, or why Alan777 thinks it is so important and am pretty much on the fence here. As per the other thing about Rossi getting paid, I'm not aware that Rossi got paid anything other than the 11.5M (he was paid this ages ago). As far as I have read, the settlement seems to merely return the IP rights to Rossi, and doesn't involve him getting paid any additional funds [6], however EVEN THIS has not been reported in a RS as far as I am aware, and so I don't endorse including anything to the tune that Rossi was paid or anything regarding the settlement without a RS that says so. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 31.48.240.103Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A silly dispute over adding legal jargon that the sources cited don't explain and which the readers' cannot reasonably be expected to understand. The article states that the dispute has been settled, and that the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Which is all it needs to say. Neither unexplained jargon nor WP:OR about what we think it means would add anything of merit to the article. Frankly I am at a complete loss as to why Alanf777 thinks this is of such importance anyway. Perhaps he could tell us? 31.48.240.103 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC) And as for anything Popular Science has to say on the E-Cat, or any other sources not previously raised on the article talk page, I have no intention of discussing them here, since it is clearly an abuse of this noticeboard to bring up issues not currently under dispute: which they clearly can't be, since we don't know what they are... 31.48.240.103 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisI have edited the page but have made no comment one way or the other regarding the facts that the OP mentioned. As such I do not intend to participate here. In closing, my views on the overall conduct of the OP largely echo those of User:VQuakr. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GangofOnecomments and references since this filing added to Talk page. Summary: "with prejudice" is part of direct quote, it is completely appropriate. No explanation need be given. GangofOne (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TenOfAllTradesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I go away for a few days, and this happens? I gather that there's a tiny wordsmithing argument that somehow is being escalated here. How very silly. Ho hum. If I must opine, I think that it's unnecessary and potentially confusing to the majority of lay readers to use the technical term of art "settled with prejudice" when the much more common and readily understood "settled" will serve just as well. (This is one of those lucky cases where the 'casual' meaning of a word happens to convey the correct 'legal' sense.) Wikipedia generally follows this principle; a quick Google search suggests that the phrase "settled with prejudice" appears only three times on the English Wikipedia—and two of those, oddly enough, are in articles related to Duke Nukem Forever. I would use the technical terminology – with appropriate explanation – only in particularly complex instances where it might otherwise be ambiguous what cases or parts thereof had actually been settled (for example, if a settlement involved only some of the issues, but left others for trial.) On a procedural note, I strenuously object to Alanf777 using a trivial wording dispute as a wedge to 'trap' future disputes he intends to start regarding this article (at least one of which he hints none-to-subtly at in his statement) at this noticeboard rather than more appropriate venues—e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia is better served when content disputes in fringe areas (like cold fusion) are reviewed by a broad, scientifically-literate cross-section of editors – as one might find at RSN or FTN – rather than confined to the invited participants from a fringe topic's talk page—like we get here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Energy Catalyzer discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to moderate this discussion among those editors who want to discuss it. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. You are expected to check this page and reply to it at least every 48 hours. Comment on content, not contributors. Now, to get down to the fact that we are talking about content, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their issues, if any, are with the content of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsI'm not sure anything more needs to be said at this point, until Alanf777 gives a clear explanation as to why he thinks the article should include unexplained legal jargon which scarcely appears elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that GangofOne's comment about it being a direct quotation is rather beside the point, since there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for a quotation anyway: we normally precis third-party sources, rather than quote them, unless there is something particularly significant about the wording, or something particularly significant about the source, and this is run-of-the-mill reporting by a local business news website. 31.48.240.103 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorThere have been no substantive comments since I opened this case. I will wait for a little while and then, unless there are any comments, close it due to lack of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors
|
Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not_warring_over_any_page
![]() | The following case has been put on hold. Please do not modify before a third opinion has been provided |
![]() | General close. There has been no Third Opinion, and one of the editors has not responded. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. A Request for Comments may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This dispute is about which state controls the neighborhoods of Garsoor and Horumar in Galkayo city. Another dispute is about the number of neighborhoods that exist in Galkayo city. I said the town consists of 4 neighborhoods[1]. and he is saying 5 neighborhoods. I used a reliable source article from UN organization of reliefweb. The UN article says neighborhoods of garsoor and horumar are part of puntland state . [2][3] The user Mohamed958543 is using as a source non-english article from unreliable website[4] that is biased. This user is saying Galmudug state controls parts of Garsoor and Horumar neighborhoods but he has not provided any reliable source to back up his claim. Here in this [[7]] edit he replaced a UN organization reliefweb english article source with a somali language article from unreliable website. References
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried resolving on the talk page but no progress. How do you think we can help? Help us resolve Summary of dispute by Mohamed958543Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Procedural comments
Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not_warring_over_any_page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
comment by volunteer The case seems ideal for WP:3. Did you try filing a request there? --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorPlease read and comply with User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what the issue or question is? Every editor is always expected to reply within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsThis is the edit in dispute [[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faarax200 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
|
International Anti-Corruption Academy
![]() | After an extensive discussion of the issue, all the parties have more-or-less agreed to a compromisatory version(See the last proposed lead in the General Discussion section.) If any party is still not satisfied, he/she may launch arequest for comments.Thanks for your participation!Winged Blades Godric 09:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by Richard.eames on 18:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Hi – I’ve been involved in a talk page discussion/dispute with user Jytdog regarding "independent" sourcing of content about the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). Can the Wikipedia community help to clarify? First of all, let me declare my COI in connection with this page – I’m the Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at IACA and have previously made direct edits to this page in my own name. I stopped doing this owing to my COI and instead proposed content on the talk page. I fully understand that a Wikipedia page is not the IACA website and I want to play a part in helping to improve it, but I’m struggling to understand what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source. The content I proposed is basic facts about the organization that are of public interest. All the references I used were external and supported all the proposed content. In reply, Jytdog says the following sources are not independent: 1] A press release from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), because UNODC was one of the agencies that formed IACA. However, the current page about IACA includes a press release from the UK government, which also played a role in IACA’s formation. Why is one press release independent and the other not? 2] The IACA Agreement, the organization’s founding treaty, because it’s a "primary source". Is it Wikipedia policy not to allow any primary sources as references? 3] The IACA website. But the Wikipedia pages of many other international organizations that operate in similar areas to IACA - such as UNODC and Interpol - have multiple references to their respective websites. Why the inconsistency? I’d be grateful for any comments/clarifications here that will help build content and create a more useful page. Thanks and best wishes, Richard Summary of dispute by Richard.eames and other associate COI editors
On the talk page I proposed the following wording to go at the start of the article: The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution[1] based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders[2]. IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization[3]. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking[4]. In reply, Jytdog said the first source (Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy) doesn't mention IACA. It is an index page. So here is another link on the same Ministry website that goes direct to the Ministry letter confirming that IACA is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution: https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf Jytdog said the second source (UNODC) is a press release by one of the agencies that formed the academy. This is not independent. - Winged Blades, I see you don't have strong objections to this Jytdog said the third source - the IACA Agreement or treaty - is what we call a "primary source" and not independent. Look forward to hearing from you, Winged Blades - many thanks. Richard.eames (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, @Jytdog added the statement that "IACA has been asked by one of its major donors, Siemens, as well as by reporters to published audited financial statements". But the Correctiv article that Jytdog cites doesn't say that Siemens has asked us to publish audited financial statements. This content is not supported by the source - please remove the reference to Siemens here. Assuming the current lead is Jytdog's preferred version, and if @Winged Blades has no big problems with the sources I previously cited, please could the moderator suggest a way forward? Thanks, Richard.eames (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Dear all, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in here. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue this civil discussion and improve the page. Best,Richard.eames (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) @Moderator--Hi, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI. I, as well, want to contribute and improve the Wikipedia page and thank you all the volunteers for your work. Sorry I have not been active in the past days but I will reply within the next two days if possible Winged Blades Godric? Thank you.Adrian.ciupagea (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Hi again, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI. Thank you Winged Blades Godric for your proposal and volunteers’ efforts to suggest a way forward! Just a few comments to your lead’s proposal: Firstly, the legal personality of IACA as an international organization is supported by other sources as HeadOverHeels mentioned (e.g. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/23august2011/report/chapter2). I do not understand why the legal personality is contested if it is a fact based on international law and the proper referencing is done. Secondly, the year “2010” is not mentioned in the source. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-corruption-fighting-academy. Thirdly, if you say that primary sources can be used to assert the founding members, we could still use richard.eames’ proposal, right? It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders with the following source [9] Fourthly, second sentence is not fully supported by the source (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-backs-new-corruption-fighting-academy). Please check e.g. references to training of government officials and especially in the developing world. According to your Winged Blades Godriccomments, your contribution and confirmation, I believe we can agree that the lead below and the sourcing is acceptable: The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization[1] and post-secondary educational institution[2] based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders[3]. IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization[4]. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this Agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking[5]. Apparently Jytdog accepts the current lead. Winged Blades Godric, Could you please assess these comments and our proposal since still there are sourcing issues in the current lead? Hi again, this is Adrian Ciupagea, graphic designer working at A&C department of IACA, and I disclose my COI. Winged Blades Godric, Thank you again for your input and for your devoted interest in coming to grips with this matter. I hope that it has been clear to you that the references from my proposed lead were the ones you questioned. 1) Regarding Jytdog’s reply on “international” and „academy“. “Organization” alone does not describe the legal personality of IACA. Headoverheels, thank you for pointing this out. Winged Blades Godric : this means that “educational institution” is accepted. Do you think that you can include the reference to "educational institution" in the lead? 2) Great, however, another sources might be more accurate than the one used in the proposed lead. There are sources, as suggested in my lead, that make direct references to the required information. Headoverheels, thank you, agree. 3) Winged Blades Godric, could you explain what a primary source is in the light of the explanation made by Headoverheels? Your proposal still only relies on one article. You stated “that primary sources can be used in a limited number of cases”, do you think certain facts included in the lead qualifies for the use of primary sources? 4) There are plenty of sources which describe aims and purposes. Winged Blades Godric, the essence of the original text has to be kept even when paraphrasing a source. The current second sentence of the lead, as stated in my previous comment does not reflect what it is written in the article. That is why I suggested to use the same IACA Agreement; no doubts can arise if you quote directly from this source. Looking forward for your comments.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian.ciupagea (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
As requested regarding point (3), here’s an independent reliable source (Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) that names IACA’s founding members (UNODC, OLAF, Interpol, Republic of Austria) in paragraph 6: https://www.mae.ro/en/node/11653 Can all four names now be mentioned in the second sentence of the lead? Sorry for not proposing this sooner – I only got back to IACA today (again declaring my COI here). Best, Richard.eames (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Just talk page discussion with Jytdog How do you think we can help? By providing more clarification as to what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This article has been under a ton of promotional pressure. The OP is continuing that, and wants us to source the WP article to the website of the organization he works for (which he writes) and to use a bunch of primary sources to describe the mission of this organization, which may or may not have anything to do with what it actually does and how well it does it. He is giving the "other stuff exists" argument, which is not compelling. I have explained that Wikipedia is full of poor content, and instead of understanding that, he is continuing with the "why the inconsistency" argument. I have requested independent sources several times, and that request has been steadfastly ignored. This is rather surprising, as I would expect the PR rep to be able to easily cite independent reporting on his organization. But I would be very happy to flesh out the article, based on independent, secondary sources that are reliable. The sources at hand are also confusing with regard to the "founding" date. Claims have been made in various places, including by each of the other accounts, that 2011 is the "correct" date but what that means is unclear. This organization appears to have been founded at three times in seemingly different ways (initially under a first treaty, later becoming operational, and later yet as some sort of formal "international organization".) I have asked for sources explaining this, and this too has been ignored. The third account mentioned here, very oddly appeared and started making the same arguments that the OP has made, arguing for the exact same language and sourcing. Hm. There is really no valid dispute here - the way forward is clear but instead of following the path laid out, the two accounts are arguing for content that promotes the school based on sources that say little about what actually has happened. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Summary of dispute by HeadOverHeelsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There seems to have been plenty of useful data and facts about IACA in this article until recently, where some editing conflicts seem to have taken place. It would appear that a content campaign has been fought. The current text of this article has been shrunk by an admin to three paragraphs, based on this admin's interpretation of pre-existing data in the article. This led to an article which is clearly against WP:NPOV, which contains typos, wrong data (founding year), and stating controversial facts which are partially unsupported by the reference sources. Flawed sources are in German. Although not against editing policies it makes it impossible for most readers to understand the missing support of these claims. Here they are: "unclear" unusual staff turnover stated as fact, although the source article in NEWS refers to hear-say only, moreover the referred press article makes clear that an official explanation had been provided by the organization, so it's not unclear, reference to a "revolving door" is not supported by the cited NEWS article.
To make this article useful there has to be space for data, facts, and also for controversy. Grateful for any help we can get on this HeadOverHeels (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Australian Parliament: debate and approval to ratify the IACA Agreement (International Organization): Austrian Government, Certificate that IACA is an international organization and institution of post-secondary education: https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf Austrian Government-Legal Information System (depositary of the IACA Agreement) International Agreement (Treaty) on the Establishment of IACA as international organization: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2011_III_22/COO_2026_100_2_653036.pdf Many more links external to IACA are out there on the web. However, my question remains why, as Jytdog explained, statutary (international) law founding an organization is an unacceptable primary source to document this organization, its mandate and function, its financing, its governance. All is herein and for international organizations, their constitution (Int. Treaty) is the most authentic if not only source to learn who they are. It's just as writing an article about a state and not looking into its constitution or legal system. Also facts, such as the number of inhabitants, size of territory, geographical particularities are normally provided by the states, who else should know these data. Why should that not be permitted to establish an informative lead about IACA, by using data from their website and from their constitution before getting into substance matters and controversial content? With my first „ambitious“ editing attack (apologies again), I presented a very concise proposal for a lead which was immediately reverted. I do not have a problems by using any other, more extensive language such as the Richard Eames proposal from the talk page, and sourced with the IACA Agrement and the IACA Website. That is applied standard on WP for international organizations and I simply don't read it as being against WP policies on primary sources: Original Proposal for a lead by Richard Eames was: „The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders. IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.“ Your opinion and advice would be really welcome. Thanks! HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
at 1), 2), and 5), thanks! Specifically the lead seems a solid starting point that says at least something meaningful about the subject of the article. at 3 and 4): Regarding founding partners, I'll see what I can find. Regarding the UK article and primary sources (my last shot, I promise): Laws have a special meaning and function as primary sources. If you'd like to know how a state works you'd go directly to this state's constitutional law. Such as the US 2nd amendment when it comes to discussions on arms control. If you'd like to know how an IO works you go to their constitution, the founding treaty. It is imposed on the organization by its member states such as statutary law is imposed on enterprises by parliaments. The IACA Treaty was not made by IACA but by obviously 30+ States and organizations and IACA can do nothing about it but comply. That's why I think this is one of the exceptional rare situations where we have to use the IACA treaty as a source to learn and inform more about this organization. I understand that Jytdog raised some doubts that the organization is not doing what it was intended to do. But here is my point: If we don't accept to study and source the mandate given to IACA by its owners, how would we know what IACA was supposed to do? The IACA-Treaty is the original, agreed by all states and binding on the organization. If there were criticism of member states about IACA's actual activities that would be relevant but again has to be compared with the imposed mandate. Here, however, we seem to prefer a press release of a UK-minister about what he/she thinks IACA will do in the future, over the binding tasks imposed on IACA by all of its member states. Please consider: Without accepting carefully selected primary sources in articles about international organizations and states there wouldn't be any article about IOs and states, and there wouldn't be the Wikimedia:UN-project, which I think is great value for the WP-community. I hope you'll understand my point, as much as I value WP polices and your input. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Best wishes - HeadOverHeels (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Talk:International Anti-Corruption_Academy#IACA_page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Modified after Rob's edits.Modified after HeadOverHeel's concerns.
Winged Blades Godric 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House
![]() | There has been no activity in this case for six days. Closing. If there are any further questions, discuss them on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is over whether or not the TV show "Cory in the House" should be listed in the "preceded by" box on the TV show "Raven's Home"'s page. The show "Raven's Home" is the second spin-off another show called "That's So Raven", and as such I added "Cory in the House" in the preceded box because they are all in the same show universe, and "Raven's Home" comes after "Cory in the House" chronologically. One user keeps removing it, yet has seems to have no interest in having an actual conversation about it's conclusion. They have been dismissive of my point of view, they have given conflicting statements on website rules to match their point of view, and have told me that a consensus needs to be reached, even though one has not. There have been other users who have weighed in, but overall their has not been a consensus for whether or not to list the show in the preceded by box. The user was the one who told me consensus is needed, yet their last message, was "'Kay. Whatever helps you feel better. If you refuse to let this go, I think it will just be better if we all just ignore you and not make any further responses to you.". That is not helping to reach one. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have not currently taken other steps because the user has been dismissive of having further conversation. How do you think we can help? Involvement from more parties, probably Wikipedia staff, would be helpful to this issue as the user involved clearly has no interest in talking about the issue. There last message flat out said they would ignore further comments from me. That is not reaching a consensus. Summary of dispute by AmauryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CallmemirelaThis dispute involves more than one party. To summarize this, the IP argues that Cory in the House should be included in the preceded by of the infobox of Raven's Home. CITH (mind the abbreviation, it's long) was a spin-off show of That's So Raven and occurred after the original show's airing. Raven's Home occurred after the airing of CITH. However, the dispute is about whether Raven's Home is preceded by CITH. Raven's Home does not proceed after CITH. It proceeds the original show. The show's star, Raven-Symoné, even said herself it was "That's So Raven 2" back when she announced the sequel. CITH has nothing to do with this show. I tried asking the IP let it go as more than one user has said that CITH does not proceed the sequel show. But here we are. PS: The IP did not inform the user above. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator: Hello, I am Kostas20142, the moderator of this discussion. Will each editor please describe in one paragraph what do they believe that the issues are, after reading these rules ? --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator: Looking at the template documentation page, I also found a field named
Fourth statement by moderator: From what I see, the other parties are not willing to accept this solution. So, I would like all parties to describe what would they consider an acceptable outcome, and to what extent are they willing to withdraw from their initial position --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The above is a great example of the template being used way too liberally indeed, but this is not the case with these three shows. They are very closely tied together, and yet again I say, Cory in the House and Raven's Home are related to each other through the character of Raven herself. Raven's Home has aired all of 2 episodes, the connection should be even more obvious in the future. Personally I feel like me being ok with putting the show in "Related to" was a compromise on my part, and now the other parties are resorting to downright lying to get their way. These shows are related. Also we, this is 97.127.112.18, we had a big storm and lost power, and now when our internet was reconnect I had a new IP for some reason. --70.59.85.238 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
|
User talk:HansMair
![]() | Closed as inadequately discussed. There has not been discussion on an article talk page, only on user talk pages (and not all of the discussion has been civil). The place for discussion of edits that have been reverted is the article talk page, and this noticeboard should only be used after discussion on the article talk page is tried. Resume discussion on the article talk page, and comment on content rather than on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have been contributing significant sourced material to the USS Constellation (1854) page, specifically the implement a Construction section, until Parsecboy stepped in to undo/revert all of it. He falsely accuses me of "original research", and inserting nonsense, because the official period facts don't support his modern interpretation and agenda. He seems to want to act as a super-editor/administrator, deciding on appropriate content for his favorite pages. Have you tried to resolve this previously? talk page discussion/dispute How do you think we can help? Please instruct Parsecboy to undo his revert, and begin to act appropriately as a regular editor instead of an administrator with special privileges. Summary of dispute by ParsecboyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In a nutshell, Hans is trying to insert fringe theories about the article in question. If we look at the edit in question, we see use of primary sources and coatracking. What we don't see are the numerous modern historians who refute the nonsensical idea Hans is trying to push. This is textbook original research, and what's more, it's based on the work of amateur historians who don't have a clue what they're talking about. On a procedural note, Hans filed this request and failed to notify me. Furthermore, his accusations are entirely baseless. I have not used the tools in any way here, nor is this is not my "favorite article" - I don't know that I've edited it at all apart from reverting his additions twice. I came to the dispute by way of this thread, where another editor reported having trouble with Hans. Frankly, there is no real point to pursuing DR at this point - consensus is against Hans on the matter; what he needs to do is accept that fact and find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC) User talk:HansMair discussionI created a missing "Construction" section for USS Constellation (1854); Parsecboy summarily deleted it. Dismissing sourced official records as "fringe theories", coatracking, and "original research" calls into question Parsecboy's ability to function as either an editor or administrator. He makes it worse by attacking supposed "amateur historians who don't have a clue what they're talking about." Independent Wikipedia authorities will determine for themselves that my contributions are encyclopedic and valid. I hope to continue to improve the page to reflect the two centuries-long understanding of her legacy that has only recently been called into question. That question should certainly be reflected on her page, but cannot be allowed to wipe out or cover up the facts that preceded the question.HansMair (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China
![]() | Closed as apparently resolved. I am not entirely sure what the original issue was, but there has been no further discussion. Any content discussion can be at the article talk page. Report sockpuppetry at SPI. Do not allege sockpuppetry without adequate evidence. The idle claim of sockpuppetry is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview 1.Do we need to avoid the use of Chinese information? 2.What is use neutral Chinese? 3.Delete content that does not agree or dislike. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The page has socks puppet editing, IP editing and registered user edits.Some of them have similar editors.I am trying to explain my understanding of neutrality and the history of previous discussions.I know that socks puppet do not stop editing before reaching the goal, although I do not know his purpose. Remind them not to WP:GAME through due process. How do you think we can help? Honestly, I do not know.But I am very anxious about those who do not know the real purpose of the socks puppet or the Chinese group is planning what. Summary of dispute by EsiymbroThanks O1lI0 for the invitation. I suggested the removal of Chinese terms in the leading section for two reasons, as stated at the talk page: 1. They are Taiwanese terms, and not used in mainland China. Even an editor who don't know Chinese should be able see this from the .tw websites and the traditional Chinese script they used. If Taiwanese words are used in the first line, why don't we use Russian, Portuguese, or Punjab words? I see no need to include native language terms at all, as no part of the phrase "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" need a native language for clarification. 2. They all mean "invasion", or "swallowing up", none means "incorporation". That they are translated wrong is obvious to any editor who knows Chinese. This was meant to be a content discussion. Yet O1lI0, refusing to answer any of the points, had made his opinion very clear: to "avoid the use of Chinese information". And by "Chinese information", the editor means not information from Chinese sources, but "All Chinese users' information". (See the talk page) This is where the point of dispute lies: the editor suggests that Chinese users should be barred from this article, so my opinion on this article is of no importance to the editor. I hope moderator can see that the dispute is unsolvable if this remains O1lI0's attitude. On the sock puppet part: The article has 96 watchers, 28 of whom visited recently. Many of them would know Chinese. And the wrong translation is right in the middle of the first line. I have already answered this at the sock puppet investigation page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aknanaka and a Teahouse section. I won't answer to such accusations anymore. Persistent unfounded accusations are not accusations but insults. Esiymbro (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AknanakaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Lisan1233Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to act as the moderator here. I do not entirely understand what the issue is, and I need another explanation. (It appears that User:O1lI0 is having a great deal of difficulty explaining in English what the issue is. English is the only language in which we resolve disputes in the English language Wikipedia. If you can't explain disputes clearly in English, then you can either edit non-contentious articles or you can edit in another language.) Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor please explain in one paragraph what should be added to or removed from the article, or why the article should be left as it is? (Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI.) Please reply within 48 hours. We can try to get this resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors
|
Talk:Murder of Jo Cox
![]() | Probably resolved. No one has objected to the common-sense solution that the article should say that the killer has been called a terrorist by reliable sources, but that that should not be said in the voice of Wikipedia. If there is any further disagreement, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is over whether or not this incident, the murder of a British MP, can be defined as a terrorist incident. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions but without resolution. There are references to terrorism upon the perpetrator's conviction, but generally the British media did not refer to the murder as terrorism, although it appears the case may have been tried under aspects of UK terrorism law. Most recently it has been added to two terrorism related categories. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The issue has been discussed previously, by a number of editors, but without resolution. I am one of a number of editors who have been involved in this debate. How do you think we can help? The dispute could be resolved by reaching a decision as to whether the murder of Jo Cox should be defined as a terrorist attack, and added to the relevant categories accordingly. Summary of dispute by This is PaulAlthough this case was tried under aspects of UK terrorism law, it seems unclear as to whether or not it has been defined as an act of terrorism by the courts. Unlike these people, the perpetrator of this crime was not convicted on a charge of terrorism, but one of murder, and references to the former in the media appear to be the opinion of one or more individuals. Because of this ambiguity I feel we should refrain from using such terms as terrorism, terrorist incident and terrorist attack in the article, as well as adding it to categories relating to terrorism. I would draw attention to WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". This is Paul (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SceptreThis is ridiculous. It is well sourced that this was a terrorist attack, and to remove any discussion of that fact would be, in effect, giving credence to the fringe viewpoint that it is not. Mair was prosecuted under terrorism protocols and, upon conviction, the CPS stated it was a terrorist murder. There is on Wikipedia, as in real life, a systemic bias that seeks to excuse terrorism perpetrated by white people as not terrorism (something that was widely discussed after the white-supremacist Charleston terrorist attack – WashPo, New Statesman). However, in this case, such a systemic bias in Mair's favour does not exist; when John Humphrys tried to claim Mair was only mentally ill, Humphrys was criticised intensely by other journalists and lawyers. The only justification that I can proffer for the removal of the terrorism categories are in service of this – frankly, racist – systemic bias against calling white people who perpetrate terrorist attacks as terrorists. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AusLondonderThis should be unambiguous. Not only was the offender prosecuted by the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division of the Crown Prosecution Service but it was described as by the CPS as the "terrorist murder of Jo Cox". Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service said "...his pre-meditated crimes were nothing less than acts of terrorism designed to advance his twisted ideology". The CPS list "the terrorist murder of Jo Cox MP" on their Terrorism Fact Sheet. Reliable sources, such as The Guardian have pointed out that Mair was "indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings". Media coverage of the sentencing also mention that Mair was a "far-right terrorist". This is Paul seems to be confused that the media did not refer to the murder as terrorism prior to a conviction - but this is based on the presumption of innocence. Mair has now been convicted and there is no longer any hesitation by official sources and media sources in using the word terrorism. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IanmacmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's clear that Mair targeted Cox because of his crackpot political beliefs. He was given a prison sentence rather than being detained in a mental hospital, because the court found that he was sane enough to understand his actions. The main source that I have relied on is the sentencing remarks of the judge where he said "It is clear from your internet and other researches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazism, and similar anti democratic white supremacist creeds where democracy and political persuasion are supplanted by violence towards and intimidation of opponents and those who, in whatever ways, are thought to be different and, for that reason, open to persecution." This is an accurate assessment of why Mair did it, but it doesn't use the word "terrorism" explicitly. This has set off another WP:TERRORIST debate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TransporterManI've made a number of comments at the article talk page about the ground rules set by policy affecting this dispute. Having made them, I'm done and will not be participating further in this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Talk:Murder of Jo Cox discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their issues are with regard to article content? The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If the primary issue is whether to describe the assassination in the lede as terrorism, please also specify why this matters in the article. It should be agreed that the body of the article should summarize discussions of the motivations of the murderer. Please reply within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsThe debate started off being a question of whether the events described in the article should be added to categories relating to terrorism, but the wider issue seems to be whether Thomas Mair can be described as a terrorist. The trial was held under aspects of UK terror law, but it is unclear whether he could be defined as a terrorist. He was convicted of murder, and although some media and individuals within the legal profession have used the term terrorist when describing Mair's actions, crucially, in his summing up of the case the presiding judge did not use the phrase. While I have no objections to the use of the term, I feel our coverage of these events should be impartial and reflect the judge's opinion since he oversaw the trial. I note our article on terrorism describes it as "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim", while the Oxford English Dictionary says that it is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". In the case of Mair, his actions were not indiscriminate, since he selected his target. It is perhaps the same reason why someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Mijailo Mijailović would not be described as a terrorist, even though one could make a similar argument to do so. Consequently, I feel that while we could record that Mair has been described as a terrorist by various sources, we should stop short of directly calling him one ourselves, or referring to this case as a terrorist incident, and it should not appear in any terrorism related categories. I know this is an ongoing issue that affects many articles (this being the second recent case I know of that's ended up here), and it may be that we need to have a much wider debate on the whole subject. But that's probably for another day. This is Paul (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorOne editor has said that, while we should report that the killer has been called a terrorist by various reliable sources, we should refrain from calling him that in the voice of Wikipedia. )This seems like the most neutral resolution anyway.) No one else has made a statement in 48 hours. Is there any disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors
|
Talk:Sing! China_(season_2)#Edit_dispute:_Episode_5's_inclusion_of_information
![]() | Closed as premature. There has been no actual discussion on the article talk page. One editor has posted a wall of text to the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be opened here in a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Us ers involved
Dispute overview On Sing! China, some contestants were given a second chance to sing again on stage such that a coach who previously did not press his or her button could do so again to recruit the singer on his or her team. At their self-introduction, the show labelled them "抢星学员", or "grabbing-star contestants". As I found this piece of information important to be included, I included it in the article. However, DerricktanJCW at first denied the fact that the show mentioned such a thing, but after proving him wrong, he went on to mention that it was so subtle that no one would notice it. His eit descriptions included remarks like "JUST STOP" and "I believe I have said enough here." without properly explaining his stand, despite numerous requests to leave a message on my talk page so that this issue could reach a compromise. He still did not budge, so I decided to bring this issue to dispute resolution. I hope that this issue can be resolved peacefully. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I left messages on his talk page, where he did not reply to them, and instead deleted them. How do you think we can help? I hope that DerricktanJCW will accept what I am editing as true and supported, and that you would help me explain my stance to him as he refuses to listen to anything. You can check the Sing! China revision history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sing!_China_(season_2)&action=history to assist you in this. Thank you so much. Summary of dispute by DerricktanJCWPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sing! China_(season_2)#Edit_dispute:_Episode_5.27s_inclusion_of_information discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Google%27s Ideological_Echo_Chamber#RfC_about_including_.22Sources_cited_in_the_memo.22_on_this_page
![]() | The case is currently being discussed in a Request For Comment on a talk page.Godric on Leave (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Keith Johnston on 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Should this page contain either a section on "Sources cited in the memo" or otherwise clearly reference the sources in such a way that users can easily refer to them? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page Rfc Survey and discussion How do you think we can help? The talk page discussion has petered out. Its not obvious to me how to reach consensus on those discussions we have had, or how to give weight to the arguments provided. While the numbers are against inclusion many of the arguments have not been addressed. Summary of dispute by ArkonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Minor4thPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dr. FleischmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RævhuldPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ChiveFungiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FallingGravityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KingsindianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Staszek LemPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by airuditiousPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MarkbassettPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by De GuerrePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AthaenaraPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jazi ZilberPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Google%27s Ideological_Echo_Chamber#RfC_about_including_.22Sources_cited_in_the_memo.22_on_this_page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|