Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 26
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
BMW R1100GS (Reopened)
![]() | See comments and recommendations by Hasteur at 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC), though I would add that an RFC might provide a more final outcome. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Regarding the relevance of a sepreate sub-section of text about a particular book that has been inserted into a general article page about a particular motorcycle. The talk page discussion has reached an impasse regarding the relevance/non-relevance of this book material to the motorbike and also, therefore, the relevance/non-relevance of sources for such. Users involved
The original deletion of the book material was reinserted by a user who has 35 out of the article's 50 edits, so there may be an issue of 'ownership' here regarding 'outsider' edits.
Yes (notices given by DRN clerk)
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on the talk page of the article.
Can we get some form of consensus on what consitutes relevance and trivia? For example, the added text regarding the book may be relevant to an article about the book, but non-relevant to the article about the bike. Rivercard (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC) BMW R1100GS discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Wikipedia:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit. The essay is only an essay and is not binding in any way; the MoS guideline is, at its heart, about trivia sections not about the inclusion or exclusion of individual items which are contended to be trivia and, indeed, the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not expressly says:No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so. In light of that fact, then the information must be included or excluded by consensus. The information was originally introduced into the article in this edit in 2009 and has remained there until the current controversy arose with the information being, first, broken into a separate section in this edit, then removed in this edit. It has been restored by two editors since that time. The consensus policy says: There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so. My personal feeling is that while the material is unquestionably marginal that it could be of importance to some readers and, indeed, supports the notability of the subject of the article, so my support would be for continued inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk's note: I have reopened this discussion (originally closed on March 23) pursuant to the request made at User_talk:TransporterMan#BMW_R1100GS_noticeboard. The requesting party, Rivercard, must notify the other parties to the discussion that the discussion has been reopened before posting here. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Supplement: The discussion is being opened to at least consider the effect of WP:WPACT on the discussion. It should be noted that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorcycles#Guidelines expressly makes WP:WPACT also applicable to motorcycles, not just automobiles. It is to be noted that WP:WPACT is not a policy or guideline, but is instead part of "an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies." — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 1
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 2
Re: Dennis Bratland's
So it is clear that there is nothing particular about the R1100GS over other bikes. For example - the R11000RS was produced the year before the GS and is very similar, they even share an engine. Also, the R1100GS was then replaced by the almost identical R1150GS and the R1150GS Adventure - if you look at the tech specs it will confirm this. (The R1150GS was produced in 1999 and Peart made his trip in 2002. See here for dual-sport range: BMW dual-sport range) As an example of the this-bike-versus-that-bike argument that this could descend into, this is the first evidence I found (and there was much more out there) on an Internet search regarding R1100GS vs R1150GS:
They are clearly very, very similar. And this is just ONE example of another model that could have been used by Peart; and these are just the similar bikes from the BMW range - if we introduced other manufacturers then the list would grow longer. So however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not - which is a very, very important point. So:
Based on all this and the consensus that has emerged, the Peart/book section on the the entry BMW R1100GS should be deleted.
(1) * The intitial sources chosen to support the inclusion of the Peart/book material as relevant/notable have been proved to be inadequate. No new evidence has been presented to replace to the initial sources. See (also above)
(2) * The above evidence has been presented not just once but, when it received no answer, presented again in summation further down the debate. See:
(3) * The proposed Peart/book bike connection does not pass established Wikipedia Google Test criteria:
(4) The added and contested material falls within the purview of and does not eet the criteria of WP:WPAC. (5) * Also, to re-highlight the point made by another editor who reviewed this case:
(6) * Point (5) then leads on to the final stage of attempting to prove relevance/notablility by trying to find evidence that proves the R1100GS was the only bike that Peart could have used, thus making it inextricably linked with the experience. However, no evidence has been presented to prove this and, in fact, there is ample evidence that shows other motorbikes could have been used. See earlier evidence after 'Doing' section of the debate - and see excerpt below:
So:
Based on all of this and the consensus that has emerged both through strength of argument and research and contributions, the case for the deletion of the Peart/book section has been proved and the case for inclusion has been refuted in all the relevant instances - and so it seems a perfectly logical and commonsense conclusion to all this that the non-relevant material on the article page should be deleted.
Rivercard (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC) BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 3
RE: the above: You raise points only to then complain about other Wikipedians actually disproving those points. But that is contrary to a central ethos of Wikipedia. There’s an important difference between concision (being concise) and length. So a comment could be short but still be off-topic and non-relevant; just as a comment could be longer but still be on-topic and relevant. It is the content that is important, not the length. And a perfect example of that is your own last 3 comments which may have been short but also have been off-topic and non-relevant to the case evidence. (There has already been a failed attempt to derail this discussion with false accusations, so better to spend time on the actual case.) The (1-6) blue-numbered list above is a clear layout of evidence proving the case for deletion - each numbered point is concise in itself. If you don't like the amount of evidence presented then I suggest that that is because it disproves your case. (In the other words, if the evidence proved the case, there would be no complaint.)
You say - 'the bizarrely high standard that the GS1100R must be the only bike on Earth Peart could have used' - but this so-called 'bizarrely high standard' was one first introduced by yourself HERE when you said - 'Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS' . And that's why I took the time to find evidence that disproved the point. BUT you now admit yourself that BMW themselves said "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" - but you only admit NOW that you already knew this, after we've been through:
Why did you not admit you knew this at the beginning? Your whole case has been falsely founded on this point! And, in effect, you have just disproved your own case. And moving the Peart/book section to a generic BMW GS article would not be a solution, because it presents exactly the same type of problem - that in the vast world of motorbike manufacturing there are other brand makes of dual-sport bike that could have been used. May I humbly ask if that's concise enough?
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 4So in my first edit on this issue, at 12:58 GMT, 15 March 2012, my edit summary said "With minimal research, it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. see WP:POINT" Next, I followed up on the talk page, at 13:01 GMT, 15 March 2012, where I wrote "It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS." and linked to four sources. A scant 3 hours later, before anybody else commented, I added to the talk page 16:00, 15 March 2012: "Furthermore, the basic reason why this is relevant is that the sources tell us that it is relevant. Wikipedia is, ideally, a slave to its sources, and has no need of editors' opinions." I also said, "The only issue is that the section on Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road should be expanded to explain more about the role the bike played," which Coaster92 echoed later: "I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process." Not counting votestacking brought in by canvassing for editors with a grudge, we have consensus on that, and right there should be where this is resolved. Biker Biker made the same point at 14:22, 15 March 2012: "The information is relevant and well sourced." Since then I have repeated again and again that the fundamental reason for keeping this is because the sources tell us it is relevant. The secondary argument can also be made that it should be kept because it mattered that the bike was a BMW GS, but that has not been the main argument since March 15. March 15 was Day One of this dispute. So the "uniqueness" argument was the only argument for exactly 3 hours, not 3 weeks. So all this business about having only argued for the uniqueness for 3 weeks and then abandoning that argument is demonstrably false. Can we drop it? I don't even know why you think other editors will support deletion of content on the grounds that some other editor supposedly changed his mind about which argument to make. It's ad hominem, and so has no bearing on the real issue. By the by, both Elen of the Roads and Dennis Brown have stated that the deleted section must be restored until this dispute is resolved. Since 842U seems to have lost interest, can you take care of that? Elen of the Roads also cited even more instances, where media appearances have community support, further undermining WP:WPACT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Rivercard (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion Since there seems to be an impasse with whether to include or disclude the content, and the significant amount of discussion has taken place, I see nothing more that DRN can do for you. At this point it appears that the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee are your best alternatives for attempting to get this resolved. Would this satisfy all involved users? Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Based on the speed at which these responses are being written I'm almost certain that you aren't reading the other person's point. I'm going to close this thread in 24 hours from 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC) with a suggestion that one or all of you take the debate to MEDCAB or MEDCOM. Know that if you go there, they will enforce structure and order on the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
|
TOMS_Shoes, Timothy_Messer-Kruse
![]() | The dispute is more about conduct; see my comments at the bottom. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have been having an ongoing dispute with User:OlYeller21 which has escalated to the point hat he has decided to follow my new additions and nominate them for speedy deletion when such action is patently absurd. Our disgreements began in a discussion of TOMS_Shoes. He pestered me on a couple of other minor posts. I have asked him to avoid me and if encountering something of mine he disagreed with to ask a neutral 3rd party to investigate. I created a page for Timothy_Messer-Kruse following several media stories about his disagreement with wikipedia. OlYeller21 flagged it for speedy deletion. I believe he did this out of animus towards me. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#User:Litch
Someone else can tell him to quit harassing me. Litch (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC) TOMS_Shoes, Timothy_Messer-Kruse discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi there, Litch. This noticeboard is for content disputes, rather than for issues over the conduct of particular users. Is there any specific content dispute, or is your issues solely with the other editor? If the latter is the case, I suggest mentioning it at WP:ANI. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Donner Party
![]() | This needs to have some current discussion on the talk page. The issue was decided by consensus, at least consensus by silence or abandonment, when it was last raised over a year ago. While consensus can change, the place to change it is not here, but at the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
It may come as a surprise to some (it did to me) that two Indian guides of the Donner Party were killed by men of the Party and then eaten. To me, and to some others, this is a rather noteworthy part of the article, to put it mildly. The killings are included with two references, but the problem is that they are not mentioned until at least 30(!) paragraphs into the article, and then there is not even a relevant sub-heading for this topic. Unless you read the entire article, it would be difficult to learn that these Indian guides were intentionally killed during the Donner Party incident. I have attempted to add at least a sub-heading for this topic, but my edits get reverted. A couple other users (Novickas and Yogesh Khandke) have remarked on the talk page about the lack of attention given to this part of the history, but there are three users (maybe all admins) (Malleus Fatuorum, SandyGeorgia, Moni3) who appear to want the information obscured. I don't know why this is. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have posted several times to the talk page (and I lost my temper too, which I should not have done).
I would like a neutral third party to determine whether or not the killings of the Indians deserve at least a sub-heading in the article. Jswap (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Donner Party discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I read the article (and I'm a bit sick to my stomach right now). I don't see why a separate section is necessary to separate this horrible incident from the other horrible incidents. One can assume that the reader of an FA knows how to read an FA and can handle longer stretches of prose. This article, BTW, seems (at least at first glance) to fully deserve its status. As for the suggestion that the abovementioned editors, who are among the best writers in the joint, are trying to hide something, we don't need to say any more about that than this: no. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Bizarre that this would even be a point of discussion (including it in the lede). The way the killing is described is also remarkable: "William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair." Frankly, I don't know what to say. Do Americans view these people as some kind of heroes perhaps? Ssscienccce (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why this is at Dispute Resolution either. I didn't even know there was an ongoing dispute because the talk page has been inactive about this issue since February 2011. This is an issue for Jswap and others(?) who think Luis and Salvador were the only people killed to be eaten to hash out with anyone else who has read the sources. Not just one source, but all. Dispute resolution isn't the place to do this until everyone involved in this convo has read all the sources listed at the bottom of the article page and can discuss the sources intelligently because they don't all back up the claim that Luis and Salvador were killed to be eaten, nor that they may have been the only members to be killed for this purpose simply because they were Indians. One of the white members of the party was accused of killing two whites just to eat them. That went to court in California, and the survivor was a pariah for the rest of his life. All dispute resolution can do is remind parties of guidelines and policies. I hope it succeeds in this venture if only to remind Jswap to engage meaningfully on the talk page by referencing published histories. --Moni3 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Criswell College
![]() | Resolved. See closing notes at end of discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A user, Hungus, has been posting false information about Criswell College. He/she claims that the school is Dispensationalist in contradiction to the college's Articles of Faith X which can be found at http://www.criswell.edu/about/beliefs/. Users involved
Yes (by clerk).
Resolving the dispute
I have notified Hungus several times that the information he has posted is false. I have also warned Hungus that he/she may be blocked by continuing to do so.
You can help by blocking Hungus from editing the Criswell College Wikipedia page. Thank you for your help. Your time and advice are much appreciated. Angelichordesummoner (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Criswell College discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
It is, therefore, forbidden by Wikipedia policy to interpret Article X to say that the college is or is not dispensationalist. Since all assertions in Wikipedia must be supported by an in-line citation to a reliable source, nothing can be included in the article about whether or not the college is or is not dispensationalist unless a relable secondary source can be found which says so. One of the disputants here has made several references in discussion to his or her personal information about the college, including references to interviews he has had with various persons. Such information is absolutely irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes, either as citations or support for discussions, since it is in clearly in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Please remember that at Wikipedia, the standard is verifiability from reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia), not truth. Any assertion that the college is dispensationalist (or any other -ism) must be excluded from the article until a reliable secondary source can be provided for that information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: A slight correction: If there is an official college document which says in so many words, requiring no interpretation or analysis, that the college is or is not dispensationalist, then that might be used as a reliable source for the article. (I'd prefer not to say "can" be used because with primary sources the Devil — so to speak — is often in the details.) — TM 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Closing notes: I am closing this as resolved since it appears clear that the dispensationalist assertion is unsourced and subject to being removed at any time (and is currently so tagged and can be removed), and that the editor asserting that claim has not responded here or challenged the tagging. As for the edit requests in the last posting, above. I would note that Lamar Cooper's bio still shows him to be executive vice president and provost and that a site search of the school's website suggests that they might have several vice presidents, so this is a matter that requires some additional work before changes are made. If Angelichordesummoner's reluctance to edit the page is due to conflict of interest concerns, he should ask for help at Editor Assistance Noticeboard, being sure to say why he is reluctant to do them himself and providing links to reliable sources to support the changes he wishes to be made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Power Electronics
![]() | No discussion at talk page as required by this noticeboard. Listing editor should file an RFC if s/he cannot otherwise get discussion started there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
I have spent the last month working on the Power Electronics article, and for the most part I had a good time trying to improve it. But now one particular user is going through and saying that the entire improvements that I made are awful. Here are some of the comments the user has made:
Before I tried to improve the page the average user rating was 3.5, after it went up to 4.6, but this user thinks my edits are awfull and is not being constructive with their edits. Another user tried improving one of the sections I added and he deleated it. Then that user tried undoing it, he said that "Information included at this time (00:07 11 April 2012) is beneficial and insightful," but the other user still undid it. (posted by P-Tronics) Users involved
This dispute has made it very difficult for me to want to continue to use wikipedia, and i just don't know what to do.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I think you can help by looking at the article and see if what he says is valid, i don't think it is. P-Tronics (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Power Electronics discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Strictly speaking, this does not belong here,given the rule: "It is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.", so i could tell you to first try and talk things out, but I doubt that's what you want to hear right now. You wrote 90% of that article, pretty good for a newbee. I understand his point regarding style and tone somewhat, but those things can be fixed, and certainly don't deserve such a reaction, out of the blue. As far as I can see his last reaction until then was "OK, that's going in the right direction in my opinion", and 18 days later he wants to revert back more than a month??? As to the best way of resolving this, I trust someone more experienced than me can point you in the right direction, one of the projects perhaps. Hello, and welcome to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. It was noticed that the article talk page has been used by only one editor in this dispute. Before we can consider it here, this really needs to be discussed to an impasse, preferably at the article's talk page. Pending any significant reasons, this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC) for lack of discussion. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Many of Wtshymanski's specific comments are very useful but are overshadowed by their unjustified nastiness there. And offering alternate opinions using highhanded "I'm right and you're wrong" type wording is not right. Doubly so when it involves beating up a newbie. So maybe this should be at an etiquette noticeboard rather than here, but maybe just a few thoughts here would help enough. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Narcissistic personality disorder
![]() | Premature, no discussion on article talk page (see instructions for this noticeboard). — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
It's not really a dispute involving my own editing, but an older dispute involving other users. What basically happens is a source has apparently be caught being an editor, using itself as source, which was considered hostile. I do not claim to know the whole dispute. Also, I suspect that since that source had a hint that Barrack Obama might had NPD (without confirming it) might had made the issue political or affected by political bias. The real reason I make this request is that I just want to use information that NPD is abusive, as it can be seen in the last part of the talk page. I do not want to either use that source or to go into a dispute. I just want that information includes, whatever the source (and of course any source that doesn't include Obama). Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Perhaps unlocking that URL from being used by third party. I'm neither of those people, why can't I use it? Even if he did something wrong, isn't he a psychotherapist? But I really don't care about that URL to be honest. I just want to see that information posted. NPD is a dangerous condition for those around it, it's not just something that is kept to a narcissist. 195.74.250.78 (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Narcissistic personality disorder discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Masakre
![]() | Please discuss this on the talk page first. Please also avoid edit warring, which may lead to the page being protected and users blocked. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
"MASAKRE" page. Place of death is incorrect. He died in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina a suburb of Charleston Metro. He died at the home of his son. All of his immediate family were present. Users involved
Rada8765 is my brother and son of Radames Cocco Masakre
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
AmnerisCocco (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Masakre discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R
![]() | Closed as stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A protected status has been place on the article due to an edit war which was initiated when I added an interview with Marek Edelman. The edit war had to do with two other contributors who did not want my addtion to be included in the article. There was very little discussion (back and forth) on the dispute and no resolution or compomise to speak of. Users involved
I was somewhat surprised that an edit war took place. Although both Malik Shabazz and Roland R continuously deleted the addition of the interview I made - Roland R did not choose to take part in my invitation to discuss this dispute(directly with me) in depth in the Talk Page.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
I had started a third party resolution because until today I thought that Roland R was the most active in deleting the addition of the interview I had made. After I had initiated the third party resolution - Malik Shabazz indicated that he want to get involved as well - so I decided to go this route instead.
The main reason I think this route may help is that I believe there needs direction in how to stop this edit war and to come to a resolution. The article itself has become highly politicized which as I see it does not help to enlighten the subject of the article in a truly meaningful way and objective way. There was a protection template added to the article which has helped to calm things down and I am hoping now a discussion of the dispute can begin in earnest. I hope that after the protection template falls off on April 11, 2012 that an edit war does not begin again. Perhaps feedback on the best way to proceed with this dispute would probably be the first step right now I think. Thanks 184.2.174.194 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) IP editor, please notify those who you have listed Comment by ZeroI have not edited this article, though I do edit in the general subject area. The complainant is not reporting the situation accurately. He/she didn't just introduce a source, which would be fine, but deleted existing sources as well. He/she is claiming, on the basis of his own interpretation of an interview, that the previous sources are wrong and wants to suppress them. This seems to me a pretty clear case of original research. Zerotalk 14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Malik ShabazzThe IP editor is 100% wrong when she/he writes that no attempt at compromise was attempted. I incorporated the 1985 interview in question into the paragraph, together with previous language that is based on other reliable sources. What the IP editor would like to do is (a) completely replace the previous language based on the 1985 interview and (b) remove Edelman from a category that she/he finds distasteful. I initiated the discussion at Talk:Marek Edelman#1985 interview because the IP editor was edit-warring. The article was protected because the IP editor was reported for edit-warring after coming off a 24-hour block for 3RR. The IP editor's efforts to paint her/himself as the voice of reason here is belied by the facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by RolandRAs I am away from home at a union conference, and my laptop has packed up, I will find it difficult to comment on this for several days. I have not edited the article for several days, I have commented on my edit on the talk page, and I have not been notified of any previous request for comment or third party involvement. As far as I recall, the IP is arguing that his/her own interpretation of an interview posted on YouTube can be used to discount several reliable sources which disagree with this interpretation. As I am using a very clunky tablet, it is difficult for me to comment in greater detail for the next week, so I request patience in dealing with this. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to add something here. If there is going to be any real frank discussion I believe two things should at least be recognized. The first is that - (as any historian worth his salt will state) - a PRIMARY SOURCE is often the best historical evidence that can be had. An interview with Marek Edelman -in his own words- is much more reliable (with regards to his views on a subject) than any third party hearsay. Mr Edelman words certainly deserve priority - regardless of any political bias anyone seems to have (with regards to this subject and/or article). The second issue that needs to be recognized is that Wikipedia should (ideally) not be an ideological playground to simply just add opinion pieces - with respect to a particular subject matter - and then use those same opinion pieces as "reliable sources" or as fact. To bring up just one example of such an opinion piece that was used as a "reliable source" (in this article) - one need only bring up the op-ed by self described Trotskyite Paul Foote. For those who are unaware - an opinion piece is different animal than what a journalist does in simply reporting a story. There is no attempt to give an ideological or political slant. The basic facts are given without reliance on emotion or on subjective references. The founders of Wikipedia ideally did not aim for political opinions as the basis of articles on subjects. Hard evidence (from the source itself) should always be the priority. And I might add - if anyone chooses to use an opinion piece in a Wikipedia article (which I find both amateurish and unnecessary) then at least please have the courtesy to describe it as such in a Wiki article. Unfortunately Paul Foote's piece was just one of many such opinion pieces used as "fact" and "evidence" in this article. I have no problem if any of the editors embrace the viewpoints of the authors of such articles. I do have a problem with using these coulumns as "reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Zero but I really cannot buy what you are saying... Actually what Marek Edelman said is exactly what he meant. And you are accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing... In other words interpreting what he meant to say. His words should be taken as they are. He said he did not oppose Zionism on an ideological basis. Instead - he addresses his view of the logistical problem for longterm survival of Israel surrounded by a larger more hostile population - and expresses to the interviewer in answer to why he cannot consider himself a Zionist. And yes - History is more a social science than an art and simply saying that something is up to interpretation solves very little I am afraid to say. It is very much you - who is reading more into the interview than there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Thank you for posting here 184 IP. Having taken a look at the edits in question I would like to review a set of policies/guidelines that I feel are important for this dispute
First of all I'm aware that BLP doesn't really apply in this case, however the policies in general still apply. Second, most people will not self identify as a negative tag (like anti-Zionist). As such any first person assertions about what they claim should probably be ignored. We work on what other educated people in the field have categorized the subject as so as to keep a relatively neutral position on the biography. Finally, the page was semi-protected because you were unable to follow the Bold,Revert,Discuss guideline for establishing consensus. After you were warned and encouraged to go to the talk page and discuss the edit, you continued with the change. Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Words have meaning. The point is that a term like "anti-Zionist" is not quite the same thing as saying one is not a Zionist. If you were to tell me you were not a Jew I would not call you anti-Jew... You cannot simply make an excuse for people to use words so loosely because of a political bias or for any other reason (educated or not). And honestly; I do not care if Paul Foote chooses to use such words. In any event - an op-ed piece should have no place in an article based on factual evidence and historical fact and veracity. I am not going to get into hysterics here Hastuer but FYI I did go to the talk page... I did plead for discussion and there was more deletion and edit warring than discussion unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) For those who are wondering I was told that it would be in the Wikipedia tradition to get my own nick and so here it is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
@66 I do not think it is helpful to engage in insults or rude behavior. Insulting the way I write text rather than the content does not solve much (which is what this space is for). Edit warring was not being conducted by myself and more to the point - even when there is a consensus on something - when consensus proves to be wrong (and when there is new information) the article should be re-evaluated. It sounds to me like you may have simply not liked the content of what I added. I am very sorry for that. And incidentally - the "less reliable source" as you call it - is actually the subject of the article himself being interviewed (ie the primary source) FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC) I just want to add that if anyone has any suggestions in mind that they think will help bring about a compromise solution - I think it would be a good thing to bring up here - (in this section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for nine days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Ok, it appears that the issue has smoldered out. Hearing no real complaints, I think this can be safely closed with the resolution as Resolved at the time listed above. Any objections? Hasteur (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising
![]() | Stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
some users are reverting criticism of the Syrian opposition by official Christian and Catholic sources claiming that Catholic new agencies are biased.--Rafy talk 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
made my arguments at the talk page.
Give a neutral opinion on whether criticism of the Syrian opposition by those sources is ok to include. Rafy talk 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
When you say "official ... Catholic sources", what you mean is the official media arm of Vatican City, an undemocratic country in Southern Europe. I was raised Catholic myself, but that doesn't mean I think we should count a state news agency like Agenzia Fides as a reliable source. The Vatican has a political agenda that is avowedly anti-Islamist, and it seems from Fides' reporting in Syria (which relies on anonymous sources identified on the basis of their religion), it is fulfilling the state's agenda. I have asked User:Rafy to produce editorially independent sources that support Fides' account, but aside from Christian blogs parroting the Fides/Vatican official line, he has been unable or unwilling to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Clerk comment@Kudzu1: I have half a mind to close this because you have not indicted where you have discussed this but a general "my arguments are on my talk page".Curb Chain (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for seven days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Younger Dryas
![]() | ![]() |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
An editor is completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on these subjects, has an apparent intrinsic bias or belief about these subjects, and is letting those biases demonstrate themselves by the inclusion of several false claims (thus far) into the content. The editor in question is dominating the editing of the content of these pages on the basis of these false claims, and does not seem to recognize the limitations of his understanding or comprehension of the unique and arcane subjects that are necessary for an unbiased review of these subjects. Users involved
I have managed to convince him that the primary and most recent reference to the literature is a valid addition to these pages, but he insists on dragging in tangential subjects far removed from the primary hypothesis in the hopes of bolstering his misunderstandings, and then has proceeded to make false claims about those subjects.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have tried to edit out the most obvious false statements made by the editor as I have encountered them. He appears to have reverted to more subtle language in order to impress his biases on the reader, but his unfamiliarity with the issues is readily apparent to any informed workers in the field.
I'm not sure, the editor's intrinsic biases appear to be deep seated and unfounded in any peer reviewed scientific literature that I am aware of. CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Younger Dryas discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) CosmicLifeform, it seems that two editors disagree with your edits: SkepticalRaptor and Keilana. Unfortunately, that means there is consensus in favor of not having your additions to the article. Please also note that edit warring is considered disruptive and you may be blocked if you continue to edit war. I also suggest that you read this about fringe theories, in accordance with Wikipedia policies, please add content with reliable sources. Finally, there is no talk page discussion. This is a prerequisite for the dispute resolution noticeboard - to have talk page discussion. If you have any questions, please ask on my talk page. Thank you for using dispute resolution on Wikipedia! Kind regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Then I suggest you learn the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and evidence. I have no wish to edit ANY content of this page, all I wish to do it make sure that the edits do not contain any false information and are unbiased. The editor in question, SkepticalRaptor, has already made several scientifically demonstrable false claims made out of his intrinsic deep seated bias against the hypothesis (independent of theory and evidence) and is clearly unfamiliar with any of the literature and the complex interrelated issues (theoretical, hypothetical and evidential) with regard to this subject, and clearly has demonstrated his desire to dominate this subject completely by injecting his biased and unfounded views into the record. Furthermore, my talk page discussion apparently broke some obscure rules that I am unaware of and subjected me to threats of blocking. The only reason I made this account in the first place was to confront the unbiased and false editing of SkepticalRaptor on a subject that I am indeed intimately familiar with at the theoretical, hypothetical and evidential levels, having read the entire body of scientific peer review and gray literature available on the subject. If I thought that SkepticalRaptor was persuadable by any legitimate or rational means, I certainly would have pursued it. This entire dispute started with SkepticalRaptor edited out a reference on both pages to a recent PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) peer reviewed and published article directly addressing previous published criticisms of their work, claiming it was 'fringe science'. When confronted with the audacity of those edits, he was unapologetic, and refused to revert the edits until apparently he engaged in enough superficial research on his own to realize the dramatic magnitude of his mistake.CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
SkepticalRaptor's claim that I have sent him personal emails is false. If the subject has little relevance to him, and since he is clearly unfamiliar with it at a scientific and technical level and he clearly possesses an intrinsic bias against the hypothesis, modifications of the hypothesis, theories behind the hypothesis, and evidence for and against the hypothesis, then I suggest a resolution to this dispute would be for him to withdraw as a credible editor of these pages, since his scientific and technical credibility in this matter is severely and apparently irreversibly compromised. And again, I state that I have no wish to add any content. If you would take the time to review the editing history of the page then you would clearly see that the edits I made were minor, and the deletions I made were based on absolute facts. For instance, Carbonado is not composed of Lonsdaleite. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity
![]() | Not a dispute. Will drop a note on listing editor's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
i wish to draw attention to serious shortcomings in these sections Users involved
i have no dispute with any other user
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
i am semi computer literate/dyslectic,have sporadic web connection and appeal to the wiki community to address my concerns which i have presented on the plutonium talk page,i am not capable(tho i will continue to try) of creating acceptable edits so i am also appealing for help in impoving this articleSebastian barnes (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Katie Piper
![]() | Insufficient discussion on talk page, see discussion below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I believe the race of the attacker is relevant, others don't. That's OK; But I gave a thoughtful (hopefully) argument, with example, in favor of inclusion. The info was removed with a cursory retort amounting to " you're wrong" and the article was then immediately protected. My concern here is not as much about the actual content as it is about (what I see as) the abuse of process here. Granted I am a relatively new editor, but it seems that admins here bully nonadmin editor and enforce their pov via fiat, with the bother of citing any relevant WP:( policy) or the need to engage in substantive content discussion. This is deadly to Wikipedia, as it creates a stifiling environment for new or dissenting editors and enforces content approval by hierarchy rather than discussion. On the content at issue here, would this information be excluded if the person described was laudable, rather than notorious? I can cite numerous articles where the race is included with much less justification than given in this case. ( e.g. Is the race of Beyonce's father relevant, as mentioned in the article on the pop singer?) I would like to expound, be I hope I have hit the main issue(s) here, so I'll end here for brevity. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Gave reasons on talk page. Was dismissed out-of-hand.
guidance on / creation of policy. 108.210.33.203 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Katie piper discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, I'd note that even the bare yes-I-did/no-I-didn't discussion which is already at the article talk page would ordinarily probably be enough to satisfy the requirements of this noticeboard. However, I wholly agree that under the circumstances that more talk is needed and that this thread should be closed, but would add one additional thought: One of the very first things which ought to be discussed there is whether there are any reliable sources which tie the race issue into the event discussed in that article. To try to bring that factor in from the mere fact that the accused perpetrator appears to be black in news photographs is original research on both, first, the mere assertion that he is black and, second, the assertion that it has anything to do with the alleged crime. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This thread will be closed 24 hours from 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) unless someone can offer particularly good cause why it should remain open. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Fascism and democracy
![]() | Closed as stale or resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Dispute over fascism's position on democracy as a whole. Dispute over whether World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires is a mainstream source. Blamires' encyclopedia states that fascism rejected that it was against democracy as a whole but that it was against liberal democracy, a paraphrase of this: [15]. I am not making a position of whether fascism is democratic or anti-democratic but am addressing what fascists' claimed its position was.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have tried discussing this with The Four Deuces at the talk page, I have addressed the users concerns about other sources, and I have provided a mainstream source that the user requested, the Blamires source that is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries - including the Harvard University's library [16]. The user refuses to accept the source and denies that what it says is significant and goes on to complain that no mainstream source has been provided - denying that Blamires is a mainstream source. Talk page section link: Talk:Fascism#Someone is complaining about the length of the intro, if we reduce it, it will have problems
What would help is the following: R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Relationship between fascism and democracy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The source is a tertiary source because it is an encyclopaedia and can not be used.Curb Chain (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(out) R-41 provided a review of Riley's 2010 book: "fascist movements appear considerably less anti-Toquevillian and not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." (p. 500)[17] WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If a book has been recently published and the academic community has not weighed on its claims, it cannot be considered a significant viewpoint - yet. R-41 took a quote by from the book's dust jacket which calls it "[T]he most original and provocative new analysis of the preconditions of Fascism that has appeared in years, together with an often persuasive interpretation of the development and failures of civil society". In fact Payne praises the author's writing on civil society, but not on democracy, "It is doubtful that this definition [of democracy] will gain much acceptance, while to term Fascism 'authoritarian democracy' is also to take a broad-brush approach that would nominally include many forms of authoritarianism on the one hand, while failing to distinguish Fascism from Communism on the other".[18] R-41 needs to show that Curtis' "plebiscitary democracy" and Talmon's "totalitarian democracy" are the same thing as "authoritarian democracy". Curtis's book was published in 1979 by Irving Horowitz's Transaction Publishers, which publishes controversial works by conservative writers, and probably lacks notablity, although Talmon is well-known, but highly controversial. Riley mentions neither writer in his book. He does not see himself as developing the concepts of the other two writers and neither do the historians who reviewed his book. R-41 has found a 1967 article about Maurice Barres, in which the writer refers to the democracy advocated by Barres as "authoritarian democracy", although Barres probably never used the term. And of course Barres was not a fascist, so it is synthesis to say that because he advocated something and he influenced fascism that fascists advocated it. And of course we would need to show that this writer's view has gained some degree of recognition. If scholars believed this to be important then we would find it in a book about fascism. As it is, we do not even know if this is a significant view about Barres. R-41 says, "fascists claimed that egalitarianism and liberalism were what was at fault with the French Revolution, they did not criticize the Revolution's nationalism, and both Hitler and Mussolini admired Napoleon - who fused absolute monarchy with Jacobin ideals". That is typical of the arguments he presents on the talk page, but is unhelpful. It is an argument for a position on fascism based on a personal interpretation. It is also unhelpful to make comments such as "you keep making up new excuses for why fascism's claim to support a form of democracy should not be included" or "the only reason I see why you want to remove it is because you do not want to see the word "democracy" associated with fascism". I see a pattern of searching for sources to support a view. The best approach is to pick up a textbook on fascism that explains the various approaches to the subject and use that as a guide for assigning weight. We need something like, "While most scholars view fascism as anti-democratic, a significant number define it as "authoritarian democracy" which was originally developed by Barres and incorporated into Fascism by Mussolini. [Footnote - the term "authoritarian democracy was coined by Riley, but was called x by Curtis and y by Talmon.]" Otherwise, we are synthesizing views from a number of sources and providing a prominence to them that they do not merit. TFD (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
(out) I provided a source and note that normally sources are required to show that opinions have gained majority acceptance rather than sources that they have not. In the most extreme case, it is impossible to obtain sources that an opinion has received no attention, because there would be no sources that mention it. However, here is a quote from the Routledge companion to the far right. I trust it meets your standards of being a reliable source. "It is in this context that we encounter the problematic concept of 'pre-fascism', a term so controversial and contentious that it is often accompanied by quotation marks. In the opinion of some historians, 'pre-fascism' was discernible in the period 1880-1900, the 'incubation years of fascism', as Sternhell has put it.... 'Barrès'...made telling contribution to the ferment in France" (p. 90)[22] Soucy and Sternhell are discussed on p. 69. "[Soucy] has made a highly original contribution to the debate about fascism and 'pre-fascism' in France.... [He] goes on to label him the 'first French fascist' on account of his sophisticated fusing of nationalist and socialist ideas in the 1880s and 1890s". "[Sternhell] argues that [fascism] developed in embryonic form in France in the 1880s and 1890s, and identifies [Barrès] as the key figure in the process.... [His view was] that the late nineteenth century in France witnessed the emergence of 'pre-fascism'".[23] TFD (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 18, 2012 at 22:46 (UTC) because stale; coming up to, no response in 7 days Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Islamic-Jewish Relations
![]() | RfC already under way. Nothing to really do here at DRN Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A user with the account name MJC.2012 (talk · contribs) added a new POV to the article Islamic-Jewish Relations, namely the Islamic POV. Multiple users have removed this POV even though his language was clearly stating that it is the Islamic POV rather than an established fact. Regardless of the validity of his claim, there was an obvious dispute there but other users (who are likely to be friends) are continuously removing his POV check, in many cases without even discussing it in the Talk page . Users involved
Yes.
I have personally added the POV check so to get more editors involved. But it's getting removed by the other members and their friends.
Please enforce at least the POV check tag. 67.247.19.21 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Islamic-Jewish Relations discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I have been trying to revise the language to articulate that there are multiple point of views on the claim that "Judaism has influenced Islam". It's unfair to Muslims to not mention that POV. I've revised my language so it's fair for all POVs, and to make sure that I'm not misusing a primary source I revised my sentence so it doesn't interpret the Qur'anic verse. There are many secondary sources that interpret that verse and I will find one and add it soon. But it's unfair to make the article sounds like that there is only one POV on that claim. At least I think the POV tag should remain there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC.2012 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) I see that a RfC has opened regarding this point. It appears that the best solution (outside of either of the disputing parties relenting) has already occured. With no significant objections, the RfC should continue and should be advertised to interested parties (WP:Islam, WP:Judasiam, WP:Christianity, WP:Religion, etc.). Pending significant objections this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC) with that rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
|