Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 155
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Talk:Indian Administrative_Service
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | One of the two participants in the case has been indefinitely blocked.If an un-block is grented and the locus of the dispute remains, feel free to re-open. Godric on Leave (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by SshibumXZ on 07:27, 18 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 So, user Japanmomo has been reverting edits on the page Indian Administrative Service for a month and a half, he uses words like 'stooge', 'illiterate', 'half-educated', 'vandalism' frequently. But that's not the issue, even after providing an adequate amount of references, he insists on imposing his opinion. So, as per Wikipedia guidelines, we decided to discuss the issue on the talk page. Even after days of attacks, we haven't been able to reach a consensus. Plus, he seems to have a disdain for the IAS, and likeness for CSS. A third party has to come into picture for peace. A mediator has to intervene. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No. How do you think we can help? One of the administrators would a have to mediate. An arbirator is extremely necessary. Summary of dispute by JapanmomoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Indian Administrative_Service discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Taichung#No mention_of_population_in_lead
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. The parties have reached agreement on the wording of the lede paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Recently released government statistics in Taiwan showed that the city of Taichung's population (2,778,182 people) has surpassed that of Kaohsiung's (2,777,873 people). This change would now rank them as the 2nd and 3rd most populous cities in Taiwan, respectively, and has been covered extensively in Chinese and English language media. A user updated the article lead to reflect that Taichung's population rank was now 2nd (instead of 3rd). However, User Szqecs was concerned that mentioning this information in the article would be supporting a fringe theory and has requested that proper weight be given to the assertion that Taichung's rank is still 3rd instead of 2nd, in order to provide a balanced and neutral point of view. There's also substantial disagreement as to whether the population rank is notable enough to mention in the lead. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been a lengthy (and ongoing) discussion on the article's talk page. A third opinion was also requested (through WP:3O). User Szqecs has maintained that any mention of Taichung's population rank requires a balanced and neutral point of view, and contends that Kaohsiung still being ranked 2nd is a significant viewpoint and must be reflected. I have attempted to clarify Wikipedia policies and requested relevant sources, although no such sources have yet been provided. How do you think we can help? There's some disagreement about what constitutes a neutral and balanced point of view on this subject, whether mentioning Taichung's population rank (in the lead) would indeed be undue weight and whether it's even notable enough to mention, as well as what a relevant source on this subject would be. Perhaps you could help clarify some of these policies so that we can more readily reach a consensus on this topic. Thank you! Summary of dispute by SzqecsThere are plenty of sources that state Kaohsiung is the second-largest city, which were cited but dismissed as being "unrelated" by Multivariable. With contradicting information for such an insignificant difference of 0.01%, Multivariable still insists that this be presented in the lead section. It has been suggested that a detailed description from the source be presented. However this is also rejected by Multivariable, who insists it be written in a simple, misleading manner. Talk:Taichung#No mention_of_population_in_lead 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. Is the dispute about stating that the city is the second-largest city in Taiwan? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they are asking about the content of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsThanks for helping to moderate. I believe this dispute has been nearly resolved (pending confirmation from one of the editors). Yes, the main dispute is regarding whether the lead section could state that Taichung is the second-largest city in Taiwan. I think it's worth mentioning, especially since the change to 2nd (from 3rd) was a recent development, received substantial news coverage, and it appears to be fairly standard to mention population and rank in city articles to give appropriate context. I have not found the arguments against (e.g. that population rank is not notable, that stating it is ranked 2nd gives undue weight, constitutes a fringe theory, violates NPOV, etc.) to be compelling. Thanks! Multivariable (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorIs there any disagreement with stating in the lede that Taichung is the second-largest city in Taiwan? If there is no disagreement, the dispute will be closed. If there is disagreement, state it in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThank you for moderating again. It seems like the editor against this change is not responding to the discussion thread nor here. They have still not explicitly stated that they are OK with the change, however. I am waiting on a clear confirmation, since the editor has reverted agreed upon changes in the past. The current revision is acceptable by me, hence there is no more disagreement. Szqecs (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
|
The Exodus
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The opposing editors have used a number of contradicting Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an attempt to exclude a source and author. WP:RS under WP:AGE MATTERS is VERY clear; "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing" The guideline says that; "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job.." (bolding for emphasis) not that they absolutely have done a better job. They are neither preferred or the only sources used.
Whether or not academic consensus is clearly against a specific event such as this, does not mean that older references cannot be used as the bases for reliable sourcing. The current consensus among archaeologists (not all of academia) is that there is no evidence that it happened, not that that it never happened. There are other historians and scholars that theorize that it did. Claims of academic consensus do not seem to be accurate. Kicking back to talk page. I recommend a Wikipedia:Requests for comment as this seems to be less about sourcing, when you look close, and more about not altering the written conclusions of editors. Discussion and more participation may help.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview My edits being constantly deleted.I updated the The Exodus page, to include the earlier exodus dates given by Josephus Flavius (a 1st century AD chronicler), and his assertion that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos exodus. But the update was deleted, because it was claimed that Josephus was a primary source. I re-wrote the update to make it clear that Josephus was not a primary source (1,600 years displaced from the events, and he was analysing history rather than repeating it). But the update was deleted, because it was claimed that Josephus is not a reliable source. This is despite the fact that numerous other Wiki pages continuously quote Josephus without reference to modern interpretation. I was told that I needed to quote a modern historian, so I re-wrote the update to quote two modern historians, who both discuss and support the Exodus dates given by Josephus Flavius (and his links to the Hyksos Exodus). But the update was again deleted. They appear to be changing the goal-posts, to prevent this update. And the threat was made to block me for 'not being interested in making an encyclopaedia' (ie: not wanting to increase knowledge.) Quite the reverse. Josephus Flavius - Judaism's greatest historian - makes some interesting observations about the Exodus, but the Wiki editors will not allow any mention them. Nor to Josephus' very interesting claim that that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus. This is despite the fact that these same editors WILL allow a discussion about Manetho's assertions (who Josephus quotes). So why the selective editing? Why are discussions about Manetho and biblical dates allowed, but no discussion about Josephus' dates and assertions?
Tatelyle (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussions on the Talk page. How do you think we can help? They asked for a modern commentary on Josephus Flavius, and it was given. The claim is again made that Josephus is 'unreliable'. But most of Jewish history is fully dependent upon Josephus' accounts, and Wiki is full of quotes and assertions by Josephus. The first century history of Judaea would not exist, without Josephus. An assertion by Judaism's greatest historian should be allowable, perhaps as a side topic - even if the editors do not agree with what he says.
Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nope, the OP has problems understanding why according to WP:SOURCES the writing of the Ancient historian Josephus isn't a reliable source, while the works of present-day mainstream scholars are. WP:DRN does not trump WP:SOURCES. There can be no compromise about performing original research upon a primary Ancient source. If he/she will continue to claim that citing Josephus as if it were a reliable source could establish facts in Wikipedia's voice, he/she has no future as a Wikipedia editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Other problems with his/her reverted edits: citing a book from 1841 as if it were a reliable source (I have quoted myself 19th century works, but just to make the point that the claim wasn't new, other present-day scholarly works were provided for truly verifying the claim), lots of WP:Editorializing and WP:SYNTH (e.g. that Finkelstein's conclusions don't apply to the date advanced by Josephus, in itself this is true, but gets supposedly verified to Finkelstein's book which says nothing of the sort). About Richard Freund: his book has been lambasted as riddled with errors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Freund is apparently a maximalist, which in itself would be fine, but there are two notable maximalist scholars cited in the article (Kitchen and Hoffmeier) who have publicly declared that their aim is to oppose the scholarly consensus upon the Exodus, also they recognize that there is no evidence for Exodus, they just claim it wasn't impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Tatelyle's comment about Isaac Newton comes too late to change any jot of WP:PAGs, this matter has been discussed to death: Newton's writings are not reliable sources, get over it, find other reasons to quarrel, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Scathing review of Freund's book: [3], see also [4]. What is Freund notable for? Discovering Atlantis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Stating that Finkelstein stated that his point does not apply to the dating of Josephus, when Finkelstein did not explicitly state that that his point does not apply to the dating of Josephus is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AlephbPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm surprised this is coming to dispute resolution. The whole issue is laid out pretty clearly on the talk page at Exodus. I haven't been involved in all the edits, but the gist of the issue is an ongoing effort by Tatelyle to have Wikipedia treat Josephus, a 1st-century (CE) historian, as if he were a reliable historical source on events that are alleged to have happened about one and a half millennia earlier. To make things worse, we are talking about events which, according to almost all modern scholars, did not occur. Tatelyle is attempting to use a clearly unreliable first-century source to do an end run around the conclusions of modern scholarship and argue for the historical reality of the Exodus. The comments at Talk: The Exodus show that Tatelyle is using fairly tortured interpretations of Wikipedia policies to argue that Josephus is a better source than modern archaeologists. Their arguments would be fine if they were writing on their own blog or something like that, but the whole effort runs counter to Wikipedia's clear sourcing policies, and so far has included violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In terms of broader context, the Exodus, like the Genesis creation stories, is a traditional tale which has been more or less abandoned by modern scholarship, and as a result, there are constant attempts to fight back against the consensus of modern scholarship on these sorts of pages and defend traditional religious interpretations, primarily by relatively inexperienced editors. This is more of the same, and there is nothing interesting or novel at stake in this exchange that hasn't, in various forms, already been decided by the Wikipedia community countless times. It is simply the latest attempt to relitigate the question of whether Wikipedia relies on the best mainstream scholarship, or whether Wikipedia allows is going to be a platform for the apologetics of WP:FRINGE views. Josephus is, as is well known, not a reliable historical source on the Exodus, but simply a paraphraser and expander of biblical traditions. As Josephus says in his Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 16, subsection 5, following his account of the Exodus: "As for my self, I have delivered every part of this history as I found it in the sacred Books. Nor let any one wonder at the strangeness of the narration; if a way were discovered to those men of old time, who were free from the wickedness of the modern ages: whether it happened by the will of God, or whether it happened of its own accord." Alephb (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIIIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Exodus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - Tatelyle could you clarify "How do you think we can help"? If just the exclusion of Josephus is the issue, this is better discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC) References
|
Talk:Ching Hai
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not the proper forum for this dispute. The forum to contest a Requested Move is Move Review. (The forum to contest a Request for Comments is Administrators' Noticeboard, but the RFC was out of place because it coincided with the RM.) All of the editors are advised to read the guideline against forum shopping, because there appears to be forum shopping. Also, this noticeboard should not be used to try to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines including the Manual of Style rule on honorifics in titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview My request to move the article name "Ching Hai" to "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" was rejected just because the people who opposed,instead of discussing and evaluating the purpose and reason of the proposal, they use the following reason: the input in favor of the move should be from editors with more established accounts than the majority of accounts that have participated in this discussion. (As per my observation, many of these accounts are well-established accounts because many of them are also from the Chinese wikipedia) The reasons in favor of the move are clearly stated in the talk page. I was expecting that Wikipedia administrators should be fair and not bias. Also, please remember,this is a living person's biography, we should respect the subject by providing accurate and fair information on wikipedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? none, only in talk page How do you think we can help? I expect administrators to please read all the reasons listed out in favor of the move as well the opposition reason, and make a fair and unbiased conclusion. Summary of dispute by GenQuestPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DrStraussPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by plumabluePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by In_ictu_oculiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SululightPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by EstebanpaiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by noblemedicPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by saisahiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tomwan17Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FarixPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TiggerluviPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Steel1943Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Power~enwikiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MartinlcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Ching Hai discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Need_Geisler_and_Nix_et_al_added_as_reliable_source_citations
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Already pending at the reliable source noticeboard. (Also, the filing party has not notified the other editors.) The filing party is cautioned that forum shopping is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Hello, I am trying to cite several Textual Criticism Science books in several articles that are cited very poorly with late and erroneous research. The reasoning is given is that Moody publisher is Christian based. This is discriminatory to be clear. Geisler and Nix draw upon thousands of articles and other early to late science books. Wikipedia needs to be a little less biased. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 I'm talking people about the same old game Their running them numbers and the winners never change The dice is loaded, the deck is stacked The game itself will hold you back — Thievery Corporation, The Numbers Game By "the game" I mean WP:PAG. In case anyone wonders, this is sarcasm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Why is the source WP:FRINGE? Because, as seen from Moody, even Wheaton is liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Feelings and poetry do not belong in scientific research methodologies. Mark0880 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 Your opinions are very subjective and emotional. I want to see real evidence posted, not your biased opinions. Please stop reverting my citations. Mark0880 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark 0880 You won't obtain that by casting aspersions nor by exhortations. You have been invited to make a cogent case why Moody fulfills WP:IRS. I am still waiting for such reply. 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Like I already proved, Moody is based on verifiable factual data - and thousands of other sources. Moody's research meets all the requirements for Wiki required resources. There's no emotion in that. Please comply to Wiki standards. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 Do you need to see the bibliography in those volumes to make a decision? Mark0880 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 Which article, which source, and which content are you attempting to support/challenge?Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC) He complains about th Have you tried to resolve this previously? Ive reached out to my mentor as well - There'sNoTime How do you think we can help? I am looking for an admin appvl of these peer reviewed, world-wide classroom texts for source citations. Thank you Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nope, per WP:OTHERPARENT the question is being discussed at WP:RSN and besides assertions by fiat no cogent reasons have been presented why the Geisler source would comply with WP:IRS. Also, the matter is being discussed at WP:EAR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Need_Geisler_and_Nix_et_al_added_as_reliable_source_citations discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=18
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This appears to be another filing here when the issue is also pending at the reliable source noticeboard. Please be patient and wait for a response there. Sometimes noticeboard postings take a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Hello, I am trying to cite several Textual Criticism Science books in several articles that are cited very poorly with late and erroneous research. The reasoning is given is that Moody publisher is Christian based. This is discriminatory to be clear. Geisler and Nix draw upon thousands of articles and other early to late science books. Wikipedia needs to be a little less biased. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried posting in that forum but not really getting many responses from seasoned pros. How do you think we can help? I would like the accepted peer reviewed authors accepted into several articles. Thank you, Mark Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The reason isn't that Moody is Christian, the reason is that Moody is marginal (both academically and as a number of believers that might be represented by its views). Another reason is that his fringe/weak source is contradicted by sources which are more reliable. Does he desire mediation for a WP:RSN debate? Is this guy for real? Or is he awarely trolling? This is especially the case after his previous mediation request was closed for forum shopping. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ApproachingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=18 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kate Kelly_(feminist)#Mormon.2Fformer_Mormon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page has been inadequate, one statement by each editor. Please continue discussion on the article talk page and see if a compromise or agreement can be found. As a matter not only of policy but of fact, if she has been excommunicated from a religious body such as the Church of Latter Day Saints, she is not a member of that body. If she considers herself a "Mormon" based on some extended definition, the issue is how to state that clearly and concisely, but that should be discussed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The page in question keeps getting altered to state Kate Kelly is a member of the Mormon religion. She was excommunicated in 2014 and is no longer a member of the Mormon religion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Issue has been discussed on talk page How do you think we can help? Assist in clarifying that Kate Kelly is no longer a member of the Mormon religion on the records of the church as she was excommunicated in 2014. Summary of dispute by ChristensenMJPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kate Kelly_(feminist)#Mormon.2Fformer_Mormon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. A Request for Comments is being used. Disruptive editing associated with the RFC should be reported to WP:ANI. The RFC will run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Hello. I and another editor are having a disagreement about this section of the Bay Area Rapid Transit article. Since March, this section has been proposed for a move into the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article, a separate Wikipedia article which was developed to provide a more in-depth look at the planning, design, and construction of the BART system. I did not suggest that proposed move, but I do support it, because I feel that this section is overly detailed and off topic of the main content of the article, which is about the existing, built, and operational BART system. I absolutely agree that the article should have a history section covering the basic history of BART. But because there is an entirely separate Wikipedia article on the history of BART, this seems out of place; I feel that the history section in this article should be relatively brief and concise as a result. I would take as a parallel example the history section in the Wikipedia article on the New York City subway system, which is quite brief, because there is a separate, far more in-depth Wikipedia article exclusively on the history of hte subway. My preferred solution would be to retain a few sentences summarizing this content in the article's brief history section, and then move the entirety of the in-depth content to the Wikipedia article "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit." (Note: I just checked and this entire section, word-for-word, has already been moved to the latter article. That only strengthens the case for removing most of it from the former.) The other editor feels that moving this material to the BART history article is an attempt to erase BART's early history and managerial failures. As a result, we're at a deadlock as to whether the proposed move can take place.
We've had an extensive discussion on the talk page. I have suggested retaining a couple of sentences summarizing the content, but the other editor is not satisfied with that solution. How do you think we can help? I am hoping that an editor can provide some third-party input into the dispute, or at least can encourage other neutral parties to engage in a constructive conversation about whether this section should be moved or whether it should remain. Summary of dispute by 166.107.163.254Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am willing to try to moderate this dispute, if it is a dispute about article content for which compromise is possible. The purpose of this noticeboard is to try to facilitate compromise on article content. I will ask each editor to state briefly, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are, so that we can determine whether there is an article content issue. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue or issues? Please read the rules. Be sure to respond to every request within 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsI don't have a problem with this particular section of content per se. My problem is whether this section of the content belongs here, in the article "Bay Area Rapid Transit," or whether it belongs in a sister article, "History of Bay Area Rapid Transit." The other editor is largely responsible for writing this material. It is excellent, well written, and well sourced. However, sometime in the past two years, the BART article became so long and detailed that the Wikipedia community chose to move several portions into sister articles, including the history of the system. Because there's now a separate Wikipedia article on the history of BART, I believe that this long section belongs there, and is now out of place in this article. I have proposed a compromise: I think that the BART article should have an overview of the system's history, a couple of paragraphs long, that would include a synopsis or summary of this content, and a link to the separate "History of Bay Area Rapid Transit" Wikipedia article for those who want to read more. I would take as my example the parallel case of the New York City Subway. There is a main Wikipedia article about the subway system with a brief synopsis of its history. Then there is a separate, very long article that gives the history of the NYC subway in exhausting detail. That's what I propose for this article and I believe it to be a fair, reasonable compromise. The other editor is attached to this material and feels that it should remain here in its entirety.Mole2 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorIs the historical material in question also in the history sub-article? If so, is there a policy-based reason why it is important to repeat it in the parent article? As a volunteer moderator, I am supposed to be neutral, but the argument for keeping detail in the parent article when a historical sub-article exists sounds like WP:ILIKEIT, known not to be a policy-based reason. If the main article contains too much techno-trivia, can the techno-trivia also be moved to a sub-article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThe historical material in question was already moved into the history sub-article (not by me). It's still there, but the other editor partially reverted that change by reincorporating it into the parent article, and asked for discussion about it on the BART talk page, which has gone on since March. I don't know of any policy-based reason why it should be repeated here word for word. I disagree with the following choice of words--"evisceration," "bury unsavory episodes"--which, to me, does not show evidence of assuming good faith. I fundamentally do not share the other editor's belief that a move to the history of BART article constitutes censorship. I am also uncomfortable with blanket declarations of what is or is not important. As for "techno trivia," I'm not sure what is meant by that, but I am willing to support the creation of other sub-articles on various topics, if that is the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community. Mole2 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorI was asking the unregistered editor whether there is a policy-based reason why it is important to repeat the historical material in the parent article when it is already in the sub-article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editorsAt this point, I don't have anything else to add. I can only refute the other editor's argument point by point.
Mole2 (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Fourth statement by moderatorOkay, let's take it from the top one more time. I didn't ask for a point-by-point refutation. I asked the unregistered editor to provide a very brief policy-based reason why the historical information should be repeated in the parent article when it is already in the sub-article. That is all that I was asking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsSince you only addressed the unregistered editor, I have nothing to add in the fourth statement. Mole2 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderatorOn the one hand, the sub-article already exists. The question is not whether to split off the subarticle, but whether content that is already in the sub-article should be duplicated in the parent article. If the unregistered editor thinks that the sub-article should not exist, they may propose to delete it via Articles for Deletion. On the other hand, since the sub-article already exists, the real question is whether to duplicate its content in the parent article. No policy-based reason has been given to duplicate the content. (The page view metric that is cited probably indicates that the other readers were not interested in the history.) However, a Request for Comments is the only remaining way to resolve this dispute, since the unregistered editor is insistent on keeping the content in the parent article. One last statement by each editor will be permitted, and it would be wise to use it on how to word the RFC neutrally, then a Request for Comments will be published. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsI would appreciate the moderator's help in formulating a good Request for Comments. Here is my proposal: Should this section on the history of BART's early train control problems be moved to the sub-article "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" and a condensed summary remain in the parent article? Or should it remain in the parent article in its entirety?Mole2 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderatorI have composed a Request for Comments. I will be closing this discussion here shortly. Since I know that the participant editors want to discuss at length, that is what the Threaded Discussion section is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Involved editors have concluded that the existing RS (excluding those deemed not meeting Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources) has no historicity context. Filing editor has agreed the use of their contribution is best in an "origins" section or article about the Book of Mormon.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
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 I would like to add about two sentences, including pro/con points of view with references. Another editor heatedly opposes it for an ongoing series of reasons, which I try to answer and where I cannot see how the reasons reflect wikipedia policy. He has stated he doesn't think the page should exist. Given that the content is related to historical information about a religion, perhaps the motivations are strong. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Only long discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Provide outside perspective and a calm, practical influence toward resolution. :) Summary of dispute by TaivoLinguistReligious issues are tricky. The article in question here consists of a series of broad-based sections that outline the main issues of the Book of Mormon's (BOM) supposed historicity. There are sections on archeology, geography, linguistics, and genetics. Each covers a topic that is relevant to the entire BOM content and the underlying story presented as fact within it. Two sections deal with major outside comments about the text as a whole and its historicity. Finally, the last section names two major Mormon research organizations that are responsible for conducting and publishing the church's historical and scientific research aimed at proving the BOM narrative. The other party wants to add a trivial matter that concerns a minor issue found in only one chapter of the BOM and not a fundamental issue. Once a single trivial issue is allowed to be placed on the page, it opens the door for hundreds of other trivial issues to be placed there by other editors who will then justify the pollution by, "But we talk about olives". While the other editor is sincere in his belief that olives are the most interesting thing in the world and that the chapter of the BOM where they are mentioned is the most important chapter in the whole book, I beg to differ. It is important to keep the big picture in view and not delve into trivialities on pages that are dedicated to the big picture. --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Question: Do you think that asking for a third opinion first would be more helpful? --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Counter-point You keep going back to the beginning of our discussion and minimizing the main point which I was making--that trivia has no place in an article that focuses on the big picture. You also conveniently ignored the part of WP:WEIGHT which is actually relevant: False balance for minority views. The discussion of olive horticulture may be of great interest to you, but compared to the other, major, issues discussed in grand terms on the page--archeology, linguistics, geography, and genetics--it pales to insignificance. You simply cannot move beyond that simple fact that your topic is not equivalent in weight to the other topics. That's the definition of "trivial". Do I think this article should be deleted for problematic issues of encyclopedic content? Yes. So what? Do I think that your sources are unscientific [BLP issue removed]]? Yes. So what? That makes no difference whatsoever to the trivial nature of the addition you want to make to an overview article. --Taivo (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
DR: help? --Lcall52 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Continuing on Talk Page. I might note here that there are continuing substantive comments at Talk:Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon from previously uninvolved editors and a longer comment from me there as well (since it fit in context with the other editors' comments, it was better placed there than here). --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary convenience break
The disputeI would like to ask Lcall52 to add the exact contribution in question as it was added to the article and the source or sources used to reference the claim below in this section. Also if you could please provide the diff of your addition. The diff is the history difference showing when you added the content. If you are unable to provide the diff that is OK.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
References
References
Uncontroversial Page Move RequestedUncontroversial page move to "Historicity of the Book of Mormon" requested here. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Ken Ham
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for both procedural and substantive reasons. The discussion on the article talk page was not sufficient to warrant discussion here, but besides Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear, and Young Earth creationism is considered pseudo-science and should not be given equal weight to mainstream science. If the filing party wishes to discuss, they may try filing a thread at the fringe theory noticeboard, but are likely to be told that they are pushing a fringe theory. If there is disruptive editing on behalf of pseudo-science, it may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am trying to change the obviously biased first paragraph to a less biased, more neutral version, while one other editor keeps reverting it for no valid reason besides he believes in something different. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried a civil conversation with the other editor, and when it got heated, I apologised and he continued to be hostile. How do you think we can help? Review my edit and give an unbiased answer to whether or not it should be changed. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomsonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
OP twice tried to censor the article, then tried to create artificial balance (reverted each time by different editors), then cited a public opinion poll (that didn't quite back up their argument) for a scientific claim. This is removing or downplaying material that the talk page archives reveal regular consensus for. It was only after this that I finally entered the scene, reverting his latest edit to the article, warning him about edit warring using the standard template, and starting the talk page discussion. Zsnell443 then claimed that we had accused him of "inciting a riot" (demonstrably false). When I notified him that CreationWiki and Conservapedia are not regarded as reliable sources, he stuck words in my mouth, and called me a close-minded, "anti-theology" atheist (something that is easily verified to be untrue, as if it was relevant at all). I pointed out that this was neither true, relevant, nor especially insightful into the relationship between religion and science; and tried to explain succinctly our policies regarding sourcing and neutrality. He did apologize, while claiming that failure to include his personal beliefs amounts to bias in the article (regardless of our policies) and showing a lack of awareness of what exactly a Scientific theory is. I elsewhere again tried to explain our site's policies regarding politics and faith, as well as letting him know that there's more to the world that Christian creationists and Atheist "Darwinists," apparently to no avail. I did admittedly dare him to try to insert his POV into the Evolution article (and implied that his continual accusations were psychological projection), though it proved necessary to clarify that he'd have to use edit requests. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ken Ham discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Infinity Isha
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as improperly filed. This case, as written up, will confuse the case management bot. I have not yet looked at whether there has been adequate discussion. The filing party is requested to read how to file a case request here, and to file this request properly, or, if necessary, to ask assistance from a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
The concept of Infinity Isha Upanishad. Dear Sir or Madam, I wiki-war or wiki-battle, howsoever you want to look at it, is being waged on the page of Infinity. The bone (sholok) of contention is a sholok from Isha upinishad that talks about the concept of Infinity. I will not like to bias your adjudication, but I do want you to look at the talk page dealing with the topic. There are several talk page sections that deal with the topic, therefore, I request a patient perusal of the same. As per wiki-policy, I think since there are so many strong opinions about the concept having originated in the quoted text, I think it should be allowed to be placed here and the citations can be provided. Also, <citations needed> can be added and conversation can continue on talk page. Please advise! Thanks! Wilkn (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as the subject of apparent unverifiable promotional claims. I am requesting semi-protection for an extended period to prevent further disruption by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There's a dispute on the article about Dan Wagner regarding him being the founder of British E-Commerce. There are references present pre-internet to which I am able to provide scanned copies of the reputable newspapers and coverage (and, indeed, have done soon the talk page). There are also recent online references present from Asian national newspaper sites. But there is disagreement to their interpretation and reliability between editors. In my opinion, many of these references can easily be used to credit the subject person being at least called the founder of British e-commerce attributed to that source if not called the founder of British e-commerce as a fact. The former way of saying it was also my suggestion of a compromise and likely more neutral version if some one thinks that is more neutral. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Detailed talk page discussion has taken place, I have provided references and argued with contributors but the disagreement continues on content and also on how to interpret these references. How do you think we can help? There is contention due to some editors being blocked and others assuming other editors maybe related which has lead to more discussion about contributors and less discussion about content. Putting this aside, some prejudice on the content as well may cause this disagreement. I would like to take the help of moderators who can review our references neutrally and help us stay focused on the discussion about content. Summary of dispute by scope_creepHi I don't have a dispute as such. I undertook a copyedit of a heavily spammed WP:BIO article: Dan Wagner and took out everything that wasn't puffery, or couldn't be verified via references, of which there was a lot. It was full of blog references, WP:OR, puffery, financials, share prices, IPO's, share movements, monies gained, and other non notable stuff; everything you see in this type of puffed up article written by spammers, several of them have now been blocked. The person who opened this dispute, at: User talk:95.210.221.6 wants to put a statement back in, which is synthesized from various newspaper and online articles and can't be verified to be true, hence the reason I removed it. Specifically, 95.210.221.6, who I have asked to undertake disclosure per WP:PAID, as it is somebody representing Dan Wagner, want to put in the statement that Dan Wagner is the father of eCommerce. After several hours of searching I couldn't verify the statement. I like these father types, as I'm a software engineer,like Vint Cerf, father of IP and Alan Turing, father of AI, but couldn't verify the statement. It was that original statement, that got me copy editing the article in the first place. My reason for taking it out, is it couldn't be verified as factual. It is plain WP:OR. If it was a known thing, it would be all over the shop, in IT and computing books, magazines, newspapers, the wayback machine, whitepapers, but it isn't. scope_creep (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Yak shavingAs stated on the talk page, the original citation from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955 is actually 'the founder of the British e-commerce'. That particular piece reads like a press release and is questionable under WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:QUESTIONABLE. 5 of the 6 Chinese supporting articles cited in the talk page are word-for-word the same as the Taiwan News article. The last Chinese article from the China Post does not support this claim. The newly supplied press clippings do not call the subject the 'founder of the British e-commerce'. The IP editor claims the clippings imply the subject is the founder and/or a pioneer which is WP:SYNTH, 'is a conjectural interpretation of a source' (WP:BLPREMOVE) and has no place in WP:BLP. I agree with the both scope_creep, Melcous & Ol king col, the statement should no be included. Also, it's worth noting this is a similar POV to other previously banned IP's/users, most notable Techtrek who was recently banned for socking, WP:QUACK seems very relevant. Yak shaving (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MelcousI first came to this article as it had been flagged as one with WP:COI and WP:PUFFERY issues. I don't claim any kind of expertise or knowledge on the topic or subject of the article. But to make such a broad claim as "the founder of ecommerce" in the opening line of a WP:BLP would seem to me to require consistent and widespread confirmation (and as has been said above, if the claim was true, one would expect it to have that kind of verifiability). Instead what has been proposed is a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as well as some poorly worded Chinese and Taiwanese sources that appear to be based on press releases issue by the subject of the article (or his company) when entering that market, at least one of which appears to be truncated from a quote that simply refers to him being the founder of a particular ecommerce company. The discussion has been made more difficult by the history of promotional editing on this article, and the difficulty in distinguishing between a number of IP editors, but there has seemed to me to be a fairly clear WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page that the phrase does not belong in the article. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ol king colThe claim that the subject is "the founder of British e-commerce" or words to that effect is being pushed by the filing editor based off 3 articles, the first is a recent Taiwan News article which as another author has noted appears to be based / repeating a press release. Of the other 2 sources 1 is 20 years old, the other is nearly 30 years old, both are press clippings that the filing editor has been able to supply, but no one else has been able to verify. That these articles state words to the effect that Dan Wagner was involved in e-commerce is not in dispute. Claiming he is "the founder" is what most other editors disagree with as outside these articles there is no other verifiable source. In fact there is plenty of evidence that E-commerce was happening in the UK before Mr Wagner even set up his company, and therefore it can not verifiable that he is the founder. The filing editor has made 2 recommendations, one that the statement "Dan Wagner is the founder of the British E-Commerce." as this is clearly unvrified, and untrue it can not be included. Alternatively they believe the article should say "Dan Wagner has been called the founder of the British E-Commerce by [attribute here]." I can supply 3 articles comparing the subject to David Brent http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7341836/powa-dan-wagner-david-bowie-brent & http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3894780/Real-life-David-Brent-convinced-Goldman-Sachs-firm-worth-16bn.html & https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/28590/bowie-bentleys-and-cantonese-powa-failure-fallout-rumbles-on by the filing editors own argument we should include the statement that "Dan Wagner has been compared to David Brent". That's a patently ridiculous statement, and not worthy of Wikipedia. Finally, the subject has been in the news alot in the last few years, first for generating a huge amount of Series A investment for his business, and subsequently for the collapse of the same business, in not one of theses many, many articles in many, many very reputable publications has the claim that he is the "founder of British e-commerce" appeared. Ol king col (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Comments by 95.210.221.6 (the filer)
95.210.221.6 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
95.210.221.6 (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderatorI don't understand what this dispute is, because there has been so much back-and-forth. Will the editors please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and please each submit one paragraph saying what they think the dispute is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) First statements by editorsThe filing editor wants the opening line of the subjects wp:bio to include the statement that the subject is the founder of ecommerce in the U.K. based off three articles. One article dates back nearly 30 years, one article dates back 20 years, and the third articles validity has been questioned. No registered editor has found any validation that the subject is "the founder", in fact editors have found and supplied evidence that ecommerce was happening in the U.K. before the subject even set up his company. Other than the three articles, despite the subject having been written about alot, no other corroborating evidence or sources has been found. Consequently nobody supports the filing editors insistence that the opening line should refer to the subject as the founder of UK ecommerce, and because no one agrees filing editor has referred it here for additional input / review. Ol king col (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) The article introduced the subject as the 'founder of British E-Commerce' for some time and other editors recently removed it saying it was not verifiable. When I started editing this article, I looked at the talk page histories and libraries and in fact found a number of highly credible, verifiable references as I was requested to do by these editors. I have given these references in my main statement. I think the article should state one of the following 1) Dan Wagner is the founder of British e-commerce, or 2) (if the references are not enough to use this as a fact, then) Dan Wagner has been credited as being the founder of British E-Commerce by [source#1, source#2 and source#3]. No matter what other editors think about their original research of who came first in the UK with ecommerce, the sources I give still credit the subject as being the founder so it is not a lie to say that these sources at least credit him with this. Regarding the volume of articles stating the subject as being the founder of british e-commerce, the fact that these articles were writing about the subject before online archives comprehensively covered all newspapers and magazines should not detract from the facts that these verifiable sources credit the subject in this way and at the time -- 95.210.221.6 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Hi Robert McClenon. The editor above wants to include the statement that the subject Dan Wagner is the founder of eCommerce in the UK, based on three articles. The first two articles are dated around 1986 when the company was expanding and the maid company starting in 1984. The third article, the Taiwan one, is a journalistic viewpoint, based on press releases and cant be collaborated. An extensive search conducted by myself to collaborate the statement was undertaken and no supporting evidence was found. In that search I used the wayback machine, which has stored over 300billion pages from the early internet which includes the period of the 80's and 90's, and no mention of Dan Wagner as founder of British eCommerce was found. Instead evidence was found that Michael Aldrich was the founder of British eCommerce in 1979 and that Thomson Holidays UK E-commerce was the first to use eCommerce in the UK in 1981, several years before supposed invention by Dan Wagner, in 1984. I have no doubt that Dan Wagner did something with the available technology that he considered innovative and perhaps was (I think it was), but to attach a label eCommerce on to it, which didn't come into use until 1995/96, which is widely collaborated, and take the credit for inventions and use that were invented several years before, by somebody else, and in use by Thomson Holiday several years before, is false. It is a case of somebody doing something new, thinking they have inventing it, and trying to take credit for it decades later, with a label that fit the technology at the time. WP shows true order of events. It could potentially be the first B2B system in the UK, and if it can be proven, put into the E-commerce timeline. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorIt appears that the issue is whether to label Dan Wagner as the father of British eCommerce. Two registered editors oppose this labeling, and one unregistered editor supports it. A compromise seems to be not to put that statement in the lede paragraph, but to state in a paragraph in the body of the article that a few authors have referred to him as the father of British eCommerce. Is this compromise acceptable? I am asking each editor to respond in one paragraph within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editorsHi Robert_McClenon, make that three registered editors are opposed to the label. I am also opposed to the suggested compromise. Only one article has referred to the subject as "the founder of the British e-commerce", https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955. The validity of the piece has been disputed by all the opposing editors as mentioned above. The other two pieces submitted by the filer do not refer to the subject as "the founder of the British e-commerce" and the filer is using WP:SYNTH to support this assertion. Also the evidence submitted by other editors shows this statement to not be accurate. Therefore the text should not appear in the article at all as it does not meet the high standards required of WP:BLP. Thanks. Yak shaving (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorIt appears that there is a consensus against referring to him in the lede as "the founder of British e-commerce". I'm prepared to offer that as a conclusion. Does anyone want to offer a compromise as to what can be stated in the body of the article? If no compromise is offered, then the choices are for the unregistered editor to accept that they are in a minority, or a Request for Comments. Does anyone have a compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Request 3.1 by moderatorPlease provide the exact link if possible, or at least the exact wording, of the Guardian quote. This is a case where the inclusion of the definite article is suspicious. Please provide the exact quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC) By the way, this does not mean that the dispute will be resolved in favor of using the quote. That will still depend on consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not using it to "win" the dispute but only using it as a point of argument that we should not hide info if a source has it? I do not intend it to annoy, apologies if it did. Quoting from The Guardian Newspaper in 1995 (a major national day newspaper in the UK) (first paragraph): "The story of Dan Wagner is almost a commercial fairy tale. School drop-out, 21, sees where the information super highway is headed before any one has dreamed up the phase. Ten years later, widely regarded as having invented electronic commerce, he launches ... " (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlU0ZVlfTGMwd0U/view). The article from Marketing Magazine in 1988 - seven years earlier - says (last paragraph) M.A.I.D has built a unique technology platform that allows articles to be purchased using computers. Mr Wagner has pioneered the technology to take payment in this way. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlE2eGphSEtaajA/view). The first quote clearly "regards" him as inventor of e-commerce. The second rference basically says the same thing at a time when the actual word 'e-commerce' hadn't ever been used yet. Just limiting it to British e-commerce will be more neutral and a toned down version but I don't mind if editors agree to call him inventor of e commerce in general. A variation of my suggestion in third statement that suits everyone will be a good compromise. Not mentioning this at all would be ignoring the sources (Guardian, Marketing Magazine, China sources) and that wouldn't be right, would it...? 95.210.221.6 (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editorsRobert McClenon, you are incorrect in concluding that Dan Wagner is not the founder of the British E-Commerce. As other editors disagree with it as a fact, I have already offered one compromise that he has been called as such. Maybe instead of putting it in the lede of the article, we can put it in the body of the article as a single statement. Remember, not just one source called him the founder of the British Ecommerce. The Guardian newspaper says it as well. The paper goes so far as to say "widely having regarded as having invented electronic commerce". Simple interpretation of Guardian, a reliable source, will be enough to quote this statement as fact. But, as a compromise, I suggest that we put this somewhere in the article: "Guardian and other sources credit Dan Wagner as a founder of the British E-Commerce". This is less biased to other people other editors want to regard in same. This also, correctly so, attributes the fact to the source and Wikipedia will no longer call him as founder rather wikipedia article will only report what is mentioned in the sources. Remember, one process or thing can be invented as a contributed effort by many to reach the stage as we know it. Using the phrase "a founder" allows it to be compatible with other Wikipedia articles that also credit others. It is not exclusive and the rest can be up to the reader. If we do not mention this, it would be censorship of the selective source that I use. Pretty sure Wikipedia is against censorship. I also think consensus should not be the victory of "majority" editors over sources. Consensus should be victory of correct arguments and I request the moderator to review merit of these arguments. In short, compromise version to be put somewhere in the article: "Guardian and other sources credit Dan Wagner as a founder of the British E-Commerce". (variations for better English are welcome). 95.210.221.6 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderatorIn looking over the history, it appears, first, that verification of the claim is tenuous at best, and, second, that there is a history of efforts by unregistered editors to insert promotional claims into the article. An RFC on this claim was proposed a few weeks ago, and was withdrawn to allow for a "full article review". It seems that the claims are being inserted again. This appears to be a questionable but tendentious effort to manipulate Wikipedia. At this point I am thinking that I will recommend that the article be semi-protected for an extended period of time as protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsI support Moderator Robert McClenon proposal. Ol king col (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I too support Robert McClenon proposal. FYI, I was IP who lodged the original RFC referred above, in an effort to elicit opinions from previously uninvolved editors given the promotional history of the article. I withdrew it after receiving feedback regarding the content of the whole article (beyond the narrow scope of the rfc), allowing other editors to undertake a full review. Yak shaving (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
|
List of_companies_of_France
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. There was no attempt to discuss the deletion on an article talk page. However, the answer is that the list is only of articles about companies in France, and there is no article about Elior. If the filing party does not have a conflict of interest, they may write an article about Elior if it meets corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hi, I had listed Elior under the "List of companies in France" on the Wiki page, however i noticed that my company name was removed from the list. Please can I know why was the name removed. Also advice on what do i do to have Elior listed under the "list of companies in France". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have not tried any other ways. How do you think we can help? Let us know what has to be done to have Elior listed in the "List of companies in France" wiki page List of_companies_of_France discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Mansplaining
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn by filing party, but also referred back to the article talk page. This may be refiled if further discussion there is not fruitful. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 30 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 at extent tried to reintroduce a very soft and compromise and politeness seeking portion that was part of the stable edition for over a year in a more direct form and which was recently removed by a seeming sockpuppet (called so by numerous other editors than me in noticeboard discussions) who quickly retired from Wikipedia. I have tried to welcome discussion, but the other party of editors made up heavily out of recently created accounts are at zero interest in discussion or arguing. They pretty much just tag-team edit war instead of any attempts at discussion or real concensus. Just right now again I was reverted and finally afterwards two appeared to voice their disagreement together. The only ones who really bother to participate are for the reintroduction. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried talking, I have constantly made the edit better according to any suggestions anyone has had, I have tried bringing the disputing editors in to Talk by talking to them in edit summaries How do you think we can help? Just be a voice of reason and clearly state to them concensus has to work by discussion and not through tag-team edit-warring. Summary of dispute by ThinkingTwicePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm against the removal of the mention to the fact that this term is seen as controversial in the lead section because as per WP:Lead the section should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed. When you have organisations like the BBC who clearly acknowledge in reliable sources that this word divides opinion and summarises articles with words like "sexist" and goes on to describe it as "labelled with a term which divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society" as they do in this reference (link) on the subject. It clearly shows that there is controversy which should be acknowledged in the lead as well as in the article. However another worrying step is the fact that after the blanking of the controversial viewpoint from the lead there has then been a concerted effort lead by User:Morty C-137 (linked here) to then try to railroaded a consensus by belittling and dismissing commentators who are mentioned in the criticism section as WP:Fringe simply because they do not have the same opinion as Morty C-137. This is an attempt to water down and remove half the section, presumably as a steppingstone for its entire removal in the future. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 06:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheValeyardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Not sure what the point is here. Leave the criticism in its own section, don't clutter the lead with OpEds by some people like Cathy Young who don't like mansplaining and other feminist issues. Problem solved. TheValeyard (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GrayfellPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FyddlestixPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MillahnnaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Morty C-137Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPiratePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's true there's been more edit warring than discussing, but this is probably a good place to have the extended discussion. I'm more-or-less agnostic about whether the content in question should be included. However, some of the objections seem surmountable. For example, one objection was that too much criticism was loaded into the lead. This can be easily solved by figuring out a better place for it. There were also issues of synthesis and weasel wording raised. This seems to be related to the "some critics say" style of writing. Maybe a compromise can be found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Mansplaining discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
But I believe this notice listing has done its work now and can be closed because it really brought in people to the talk and currently discussion is rolling well. However once this listing is closed I wonder if they care anymore after that. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
|