Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31
![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley
![]() | Over three days since last comment, over four days since last comment by filer Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
For over five years, there has been only one editor for these two papers. I am the subject's husband and, as COI, I do not edit the document, but make suggestions in the talk page. The editor WLU is so irretrievably biased about this subject that I need another editor to look this over. The entries in the article are extremely damaging to the subject, and have been for years. The article is slanted and arguments to the contrary, including sworn testimony to the US Senate, are dismissed. In the most recent conversation, WLU dismissed the topic as a fringe theory on a fringe theory. Users involved
Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:
Yes, I have been patient with WLU for years, on the Talk page only, but the prominence of Wikipedia in searches is harming Wiley as the article reflects the negative opinion of WLU and no one else. He has stated very clearly in the past that he is very much opposed to the subject matter, whihc makes him a poor choice of editor, especially as sole editor. Here is my question: If someone defames you in a reliable source, how are you to defend yourself on Wikipedia if everything you say is "original research?" Even a letter to the editor of a respected medical journal, WRITTEN BY A THIRD PARTY M.D. is dismissed. If there is controversy, why isn't the whole controversy aired, not just one side?
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I would like WLU to be asked to recuse himself from these two article and ask for some help finding some editors who can moderate this objectively.
I'm not sure, but if we can't get some other eyes on this, it would be better to remove both articles
Neil Raden (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The Wiley protocol is a subset of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which has no mainstream credibility - a fringe theory. Accordingly, due weight requires the page reflect the mainstream opinion and not give the impression this is a well-founded, well-substantiated scientific and medical approach, and should include what criticisms are available. Neil doesn't like this, but we are not a place to promote unfounded ideas. I have no issue with another editor editing the page in compliance with the P&G. Neil has been admirable in restricting his edits to the page in question, as one of the few regular contributors I am by default the person he is likely to talk to about this - but the page is adequate as is as far as I'm concerned. I have seen no new sources that I think should be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion I concur with Guy Macon and TransporterMan. Even using the phrase "verged on libelous" suggests that there may be cause for libel charges to be started. We understand that you believe that there is a lack of accuracy in the article, however there are ways to express your thought (such as parliamentary language) without bringing the legal aspect of the equation into play. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wiley Protocol: Who are the players and what are their interests?I would like to step back and look at the big picture, which might involve asking questions that have been answered before, so please be patient. My first question is this: among those who have posted to the Wiley protocol article, talk page or to this noticeboard entry, what is your involvement? Are you a relative of one of the people mentioned in the article? Do you control or contribute to an off-wiki website that covers this topic? Are you a patient that has had this or a competing treatment? Are you in any way involved with a competitor? Note that there is nothing wrong with any of the above, but full disclosure is strongly advised. I will have more questions later. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I am still hoping to hear from WLU and to find out, if he/she chooses to reveal the info, whether there is any connection with Wiley, a competitor / critic of Wiley, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I just checked Wiley protocol and T. S. Wiley and I don't see anyone else involved other that the three listed above. Anyone disagree? Which brings up the question, why are there only two editors listed in the "Who is involved in the dispute?" at the top of this noticeboard entry? (No harm done -- the real problem is when someone doesn't get the news that there is a noticeboard discussion -- but please be more careful in the future.) Also, does anyone disagree with the assertion that those two pages are where the dispute centers? OK, so a couple of closing remarks and I will start the next section. No more accusing Debv of being the author of the Rhythmic Living website. She (he?) has said it isn't true, and here at Wikipedia we Assume Good Faith. In fact, let's all try to avoid any personal comments and keep this a discussion about what is on the Wikipedia pages. If anyone thinks Debv should not be editing because of a Conflict of Interest (nobody has indicated that) the place to bring it up is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard after this is settled. The description of the dispute only lists a Neil Raden / WLU dispute. With that, I am dropping that topic.
Evidence supporting / refuting alleged biasIn this section, we will be discussing specific edits that someone believes are a problem. I think we all know how to cite sources. but if anyone is a bit rusty with citing edits, please see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide, Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide and Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide for help. I want to see a link for every source cited and a diff for every edit discussed. I am going to start with this claim from earlier in this thread: "The worst part of the article is this phrase 'potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives.' No sources." That statement is in the lead of Wiley protocol.[5] (Note how I added a diff leading to the edit where it was added. That's the sort of thing I am looking for). The edit comment for that edit was "rewrite to be closer to body text" So the next thing to do is to look at the article as it existed at that time.[6] So, is that statement in the body text? Yes. It is in the criticism section of the page as it existed when the edit was made, and it is still there today: "...concerns over conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives..." and there is a citation: (Rosenthal MS (2008). "The Wiley Protocol: an analysis of ethical issues". Menopause. 15 (5): 1014–1022. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e318178862e. PMID 18551081.) That edit was made in 2008[7] The pubmed link in the cite leads to an abstracy that uses this wording: "Breaches of professional ethics include conflicts of interest with respect to financial incentives" It appears that the claim "The worst part of the article is this phrase 'potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives.' No sources." is dubious. We will look at the claims made right after that a bit later -- please be patient, one claim at a time. Is there a diff showing anyone on the article talk page questioning the use of that phrase, either in the lead or in the criticism section? Anything claiming it is unsourced or violates WP:WEIGHT? If so, was there a response? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, moving to the next issue, Neil, I need something better defined than "the issue over Dr Taguchi's refuting Rosenthal in the journal Menopause. WLU refuses to add Wiley's newest peer-reviewed paper." First, when you bring something like that up, include a link (can you confirm that the link WLU gave was what you were talking about?) Second, I need a diff showing where you asked that it be added and a diff where there was a response to the request. That will give me the details I need to evaluate the claim. Did you suggest it as an external link? Did you want to put in some specific wording with that link as a citation supporting it? I can get some of this from WLU, but I prefer to hear the details directly from you. Take us much time as you need; we want to get this right. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
![]() | This one should be looked into at the formal mediation case. I've dropped a note there. Steven Zhang (talk) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Dispute overview
User:TopGun placed pov tags on the article without providing a clear reasoning. Initially he stated the reason was, "To be specific, it is stating Pakistan's support for Taliban at multiple occasions as a fact which is clearly not a neutral POV." When attribution was provided to all the statements involving Pakistan and the Taliban and the tags were removed, TG placed the tags again, this time refusing to provide a reasoning on the talk page referring to a mediation in this topic area (which is however not inclusive of this article).[8] The mediation among other things deals with the question whether Pakistan's support to the Taliban 1994-2001 can be stated as a matter of fact or needs attribution, but attribution in this article was provided. TG failed to provide any reasoning for the tags including on the mediation pages and I don't think the article needs to spot tags without any specific reasons being brought forward. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Please provide your input whether pov tags are justified in the article for the content mentioning Pakistan's relationship to the Taliban. This is the content in question:
JCAla (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Protandim Side Effects Selection
![]() | Premature, no talk page discussion. Per the guidelines of this noticeboard, this is only for content disputes which have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. If any user will not discuss, consider filing a request for comments on the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
User Cresix, :continues to remove source information and links to medical sources like the University of Maryland, Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, and now has placed and editorial warning on my account . The user Cresix replaces the post with standard Lifevantege company information as seen below. Protandim Side Effects According to the manufacturer, the side effects of Protandim may include allergic responses, gastrointestinal disturbances (stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting), headache, and rash of the hands and feet This is what I want the page to read……………………… Milk Thistle – “The University of Maryland Medical Center states that milk thistle may react with a variety of medications, including, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, anti-seizure medications, blood-thinning drugs, anti-cancer agents, cholesterol-lowering drugs. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/milk-thistle-000921.htm The Bacopa flower (Bacopa monniera) is being tested as an Epilepsy drug to control seizures. See the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health study posted here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944749 Green Tea concentrations can contain toxic levels of sodium fluoride(January 2005 issue of the Journal of American Medicine), which accumulate in its leaves during processing and manufacturing process (Caries Research (1996) 30:88-92 Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas). Tea leaves appear to be good absorbers of toxins and extract fluoride from the water above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set for fluoride in drinking water which is 4 parts per million (ppm). Fluorides in teas are found together with aluminum. The combination of aluminum and fluorides in tea is of urgent concern, due to the increased damage done by fluorides when in the presence of aluminum, especially “neurological” and renal damage. (Health effects of tea ) Recently many fingers are beginning to point to child immunization drugs as the source to the explosion in Autism in the population. Along with Mental retardation, Learning disabilities, Communication disorders, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Conduct disorder, and Oppositional defiant disorder. The specialists are questioning the amount of Aluminum in the immunization drugs, as the possible source to the destruction of the normal nerves system and its normal functions. Since aluminum is a common bonding agent to the components in the immunization drugs, it is high on the list of a hazard. Ingestion of cosmetics products are a leading cause of Neurotoxicity in females. Many of the ingredients in Protandim have been used as cosmetic ingredients used by lifevantage. Neurotoxicity A detailed personal account of side effects from Protandim can be found here http://protandimzombieapocalypse.wordpress.com/. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
We have discussed this and he has placed warning on my page, because I said he keeps replacing the post with the limited info that the company wants to provide.
Adding the information so it is not removed, maybe locking the page after the information is posted. DrPlum (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Protandim Side Effects Selection discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Secular Humanism
![]() | Closing due to a lack of discussion on the talk page. Sorry 89.100.207.51, but if you have a problem with the content of the lede, you need to discuss it at Talk:Secular humanism before you can bring it here. I'm afraid starting RfCs doesn't count - you need to actually discuss the content yourself with the other editors of the page, and make a reasonable effort to come to a consensus that respects Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If, after having such a discussion, you are still not able to come to an agreement about the lede, feel free to post a new thread here. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I tried to remove material from the lede of the article that was in breach of WP:OR as well as MOS:LEDE and possibly WP:SOAP. This was reverted on the basis of the lede being the result of "longstanding consensus". I pointed out that per WP:CONLIMITED the editors of a particular page can't choose to ignore other policies based on consensus at one article. This was ignored. I tried to open an rfc to get opinion from beyond the usual cohort of editors at the article. The rfc was repeatedly delisted. The regular group of editors are choosing to ignore various policies, and will not allow me to attempt to bring in editors from outside of their group. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on talk page, on Mann_Jess's page, and at AN/I where Mann_Jess is attempting to have me blocked.
By bringing an uninvolved pair (or pairs) of eyes to the dispute. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Secular Humanism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is already under discussion on the talk page (by editors other than the ip... as the ip refuses to discuss the matter on talk), as well as on ANI. There is agreement among all parties involved that the ip starting an RfC before discussing the matter was inappropriate. For some reason, the ip seems to want to bring this issue to every place he can except the article talk page, despite being advised to do so repeatedly. I'm not sure what further discussion here will accomplish, and this appears to me to be a case of forum shopping. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
|
2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings
![]() | Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
1) The lead states that Merah wished to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank", and is based on this opinion piece. Other sources quote Merah's exact words, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine" and report this aspect of his motivation differently, without ascribing the actions of "the Jews" to the "Israeli forces", or limiting the deaths of Palestinian children to specific regions. I would prefer the lead to reflect how Merah's comments were widely reported. See 1234567
2) Based on this source I added to Sarkozy's other thoughts on these attacks, that he noted an antisemitic motive. This was improved upon with this edit by Vice regent. Since I have been repeatedly accused of "misrepresenting the source", but no suggestions of improvement have been offered, can you advise me how to accurately present this information. Vice regent, contrary to his previous edit, is now entirely opposed to its inclusion, and I am concerned at the apparent tag-teaming, which has previously been commented on by an admin. My suggestions have twice been stymied with a "Let's wait and see what the other editor has to say".12 Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page
Assess the merits of my statement, and suggest a rewording that would reflect Merah's implication of the "the Jews", and would make note of the antisemitic motive.
2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
1) Reading the Grant article, it's clear that his goal is not to accurately define the motives of the shooter, but to caution against drawing conclusions about motive too quickly. His opinion is more along the lines of "The shooter was quickly (and incorrectly) presumed to be a member of one group, so we must condem that group. But in reality he was a member of some other group, and already people are condemning that group. Let's all stop rushing to judgement." His statement that "The Jewish children were killed to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank." is not his opinion, he's just stating what the collective press/governmental/man-on-the-street opinion is at that moment. In fact, later in the article, he states the true message of his writing: "The point here should be clear: it is far too easy to shift responsibility away from the man and onto the environment in which he operates, and to advance a given political agenda accordingly." As such, I don't think using this article to source a statement that Merah's motivation was to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank" is accurate interpretation of the source. In any case, any time you can quote the direct words of the person, it's better. 2) Sarkozy clearly said it, it was quoted in a reliable source, so I see no issue with including it. It's especially relevant because Sarkozy did not attribute the act to any specific group, but simply commented on the motive. I think the edit by Vice regent clearly and accurately summarizes the quote and puts it in the right context. Those are my 2 cents, anyway. I would encourage you three to continue to work together on this, as you're all clearly motivated to get the article right. This is a massively good thing. Waiting for commentary by the third person in a three-way dispute can be frustrating, but is in the end the best policy to prevent protracted edit warring. Good luck! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC) My observations:
Agree with much of what is above but, given the politicised nature of the response to the murders, the article should generally avoid using quotes from politicians to narrate facts. So, a quote from Sarkozy will be fine in the context of a section about responses, but not in the context of material trying to pin down a motive for the crimes. Formerip (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Information from some of the sources that were posted above: Source 2 above states, "says he wanted to avenge Palestinian children, according to his remarks through the door to the police who urged him to surrender" Source 3 states, "French interior minister Claude Gueant said Merah had said he was fighting to 'avenge Palestinian children.'" Source 6 states, "to have killed the Jewish children out of vengeance for the suffering of Palestinian children" Source 7 states, "the killings were to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children"
You correctly state that both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets. However it is not the case that the first one does so twice, the second mention refers to why Merah did it, a completely different aspect. Thank you for your compromise and I now await for Somedifferentstuff's response to see if he is similarly agreeable.
Dispute #2Moving on to Sarkozy: AnkhMorpork, will you post the exact sentence you want in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Whereas the reference for "the killings were not motivated by Islam", states, "Speaking just hours after it was confirmed that gunman Mohammed Merah had been killed in a gun battle following a 32-hour siege in Toulouse, the French president called for calm. "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently tried adding this content not to the lead but to the article body and you have still reverted me. I ask you again, how would you like this quote to be rendered "This act was odious, it cannot remain unpunished. Barbarity, savagery and cruelty cannot win, hate cannot win. The republic is much stronger than all this. We do not know the motivations of this criminal. Of course, by attacking children and a teacher who were Jewish, the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious. Regarding our soldiers, we can imagine that racism and murderous madness are in this case linked."Ankh.Morpork 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
NoteClerk's note: Are one or more parties in this discussion acting as mediator/clerks or is this just a general discussion that ought to be occurring on the article talk page? If the latter, then I'd like to copy all of this over to that page and close this thread here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Transporterman, the first sentence starts "Prior to the discovery of Merah as the attacker". No problem here. The next sentence starts "He stated that" which is clearly misleading because it appears as a continuation of the first sentence, never stating that this statement was made after the shooter had been identified. I'm willing to close this if we use AnkhMorpork's previous suggestion, "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious. When Merah was later identified and killed by police, Sarkozy stated, "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Adal Sultanate
![]() | No comments by anyone other than mediators for six days Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The issue is that the user seems to accept the fact that the reliable sources say "Dakar" was the first capital of the sultanate but wont include it in because he wants to include the previous "zeila" as the capital of a previous adal emirate under another sultanate for reasons i dont understand. also i have given him many reliable sources indicating that the people in the sultanate spoke an ethio-semitic language but he seems to ignore those and he inserted a POV language section to counter my input by including things like "Arab genealogical traditions" which has nothing to do with the language section of the article and also he changed up my original paragraph in the language section and inputted his own interpretation Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Talk page and through an administrator
by giving outside input on the dispute i believe it can be resolved Baboon43 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Adal Sultanate discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Drive by comment - One quick thing you (Baboon43) could do is post a request on the the project pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somalia, inviting uninvolved knowledgeable editors to contribute to the article's talk page. A third or fourth editor may help resolve things. If no one responds, consider randomly selecting some active editors from those project membership lists (they may not be watching the project page) ... but make sure you dont violate WP:CANVASSING. Or, ask for help from some history/geography volunteers at Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service#History_and_geography. Finally, initiate an RfC following WP:RFC process. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Helpful advice. However, please note that various modern scholars indicate that Adal was already a sultanate when Zeila was its capital and principal city. That includes the Ethiopianist and Somalist scholar I.M. Lewis, who in one of the links I posted earlier describes the shift of Adal's headquarters from Zeila to Dakkar and eventually to Harar (e.g. [23]). So the confusion seems at least partly to stem from what modern authors have written on Adal. The actual historic descriptions from medieval Arab scholars, on the other hand, are quite consistent in noting the centrality of Zeila vis-a-vis the state of Adal. Case in point, as Edward Ullendorff noted on Al-Maqrizi: "The war of attrition between the central Christian highlands and the Muslim sultanates, entrenched all along the eastern and southern fringes of the Abyssinian plateau, is the principal feature of Ethiopian history during the following two centuries. Proceeding from east to west we first encounter the sultanate of Adal (Muslim writers such as Maqrizi refer to it as Zeila, but Adal and Zeila are largely synonymous and their histories closely connected) on the Dankali and Somali coast. At times Adal formed part of the state of Ifat; its ruler was styled Amir or Imam (Negus in the Ethiopian chronicles), and one of them who opposed Amda Sion's march against Zeila, in 1332, was defeated and slain." Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Jerash
![]() | Resolved Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
It is about adding town Souf in Jerash article and mentioning that it only played the main role in Jerash city and Jerash goverenate. There are 4 sentences are wrong and I've provided an evidence about that which is:
Users involved
user banimustafa is from town Souf, also he only participate for only 1 idea which is Souf.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We've discussed that issue in the article for more than 12 days and I wrote a conclusion but no answer and the other part keep playing around the direct answer until I wrote my evidence and no answer also.
Delete sentences related to fake sources, Cause these sentences are already wrong and doesn't exist. Jerash discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Maybe you should close or remove the rfc template now that you have filed a DRN.Curb Chain (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have taken a quick look at the article, history, and talk page, and two things jump out at me. First, we have this sentence: "Souf was the seed for modern Jerash." with a citation to: Surhone, L.M. and Tennoe, M.T. and Henssonow, Souf, VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller AG & Company Kg,2010 Now right off the bat, something is fishy here. Wikipedia does not use phrases like "was the seed of." What does "the seed of" mean, exactly? I would expect something like "X is the oldest city in the Y region, dating back to to the year YYYY." That citation set off alarm bells. Nothing printed by VDM Publishing is a reliable source. They print material copied from Wikipedia. So we have a sourcing problem with this article. The material appears to j=have been added by 86.134.246.80[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerash&diff=490811953&oldid=488940125] I am dropping a note on Curb Chain's talk page in case he wishes to address this issue in the article. OK, moving on to the second thing that jumped out at me. I see in the history an edit war between Wakwakwiki (see below) and Historyfeelings over the edits made by 86.134.246.80 [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] which only stopped when the page was put under full protection,[41][42][43][44] then later semi-protection.[45] For those who may be wondering why Wakwakwiki is not listed under "Who is involved in the dispute?", Wakwakwiki is a banned[46] sockpuppet of Banimustafa,[47] who has his own history of blocks[48] (as has historyfeelings[49]). Can we all agree that this is not the way to settle disputes and focus only on the actual article content and citations? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Achille Talon
![]() | Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute centers around a character called Vincent Poursan, who is named as an example of punning names. The character in question is a retailer selling anything the plot requires and "mercantilism in the flesh" (paraphrasing our french colleages). His name sounds like Vingtcinq Pourcent" (25%). This has been changed to "2000%" (interpreting the name as "vingtcent" (twenty hundred), which is not even french or, more recently as "centvingt" "120" which makes no sense. Calling for a source has proven ineffective, consulting with our french colleages has yielded only responses from the same users. Users involved
To source a pun is _very_ hard. I've been scouring the net for one, but came up blank. An example of punning names is, however, neccesary to explain the character of the comic of which i have been a fan since i first read them, some 35 years ago.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I've tried to argue, bring arguments on the talk-page, but that has only resulted in one party deleting the mention of Vincent Poursan and its replacement by "Virgule de Guillemets" without any explanation as to _why_ that's a punning name, leaving the reader thinking "so what?". I'm a fan of Achille Talon since childhood and i'm getting pretty fed up by my two esteemed opponents.
Provide a Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Achille Talon 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) Hi everyone. After having a brief look through the talk page discussion, it seems that you are all missing a very important point, which is that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to put their own interpretations of a source into Wikipedia articles, per the policy on no original research. If no sources exist that explain the nuances of Vincent Poursan's name, then the policy says that we cannot include it in the article at all. If there are no English sources then French sources would be perfectly acceptable, but if there are no French sources explaining the reference then we probably should leave it out. Looking over the article, it looks like the sourcing is a major issue: the existing sources look like they probably wouldn't pass our guidelines on reliable sourcing, and a significant proportion of the article is unreferenced. Someone needs to go through the article and either source statements to reliable sources or remove those statements for which sources cannot be found. Removing the interpretation of Vincent Poursan's name may be a necessary consequence of making sure the article is verifiable. Having said this, we are allowed to source descriptions of the characters to the comics themselves; however, any attempts to interpret the characters' names would run counter to the advice on using primary sources found in the no original research policy. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 31, 2012 at 13:43 (UTC) Reason: The dispute appears to have been resolved by application of policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Class action lawyers
![]() | See note at bottom of section; discussion stale. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
User "TooCostly" keeps reverting page to a very biased version. I tried to clean it to a more strict neutral point of view and warn them, but they simply delete the changes/warnings on their talk page and revert the changes. No communication from them on talk page. Users involved
Cannot get response from user.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Warned user on their talk page. Mentioned changes on the talk page of Class Action Lawyers.
Looking for explanation on how I can get this person to keep the neutral point of view version, either by locking page or blocking them. Useredit8741 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Class action lawyers discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 3, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) Reason: Looks like the problems have subsided on the page, no real discussion here other than comments by mediators. If problems persist, I suggest going to WP:WQA
|
Circumscribed_circle
![]() | No discussion on article talk page, no users involved in dispute listed Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have added an external link regarding a novel way to compute the circumcenter coordinates for a circumcenter, and someone keeps removing this link. Users involved
Obviously, someone either hasn't read the article at the link, or doesn't know enough mathematics to appreciate it.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I don't know who to contact. Please email me the email of the person or editor who is doing this, and I'll discuss it with him/her.
98.108.205.19 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Circumscribed_circle discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Armenian Genocide
![]() | Conduct, not content, issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have been subjected to a forgery of my editorial history in which changes which I did not make are shown on the diff page as composed by me; and the actual changes I made are not shown. Meantime, a comparison of the main article before and after my editing today will show the minor revision I made to a paragraph (2.1) entirely removed from the location of the edit charged against me by Gazificator and which he/she falsely produced a counterfeit diff text to support . There is 'assume good faith', "it's not about winning or losing" etc. But is there also an admonition to never engage in dirty tricks against those we differ with and use one's technical skills to neutralize another editor with whom we have clashed on an issue? Please see following exchange: Hi. As you know Armenian Genocide is under AA2 sanctions but you're still editing it without seeking consensus and compromise. Please read WP:SPA and WP:Disrupt. Gazifikator (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) GAZIFICATOR: As I indicated on your Talk page and on the main article Talk page, you are way off base: With your post today at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 you have made a grave mistake. You posted a forgery of an edit that I did not do on the date and at the time indicated. My edit today was on section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908", the last paragraph. This reflects very badly on your judgement and constitutes an unethical attempt to impeach my credentials as an editor. I did not touch line 37 in my last edit. Please take note. Your activity goes well beyond disruption. Diranakir (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Here is the diff where you deleted the translation of Medz Yeghern [1]. Gazifikator (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) TO GAZIFICATOR: You are only presenting the same forgery a second time. I did not touch the term Medz Yeghern on the date indicated or any of the section in which it is mentioned. Please explain how you can attribute changes to me which I did not make and thereby falsify the history of the article. The revision I made on this date was to section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908" . It is reflected in the current version and can easily be compared to the immediately preceding version. Are you going to falsify that history too? Diranakir (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved
I can't believe such a dirty trick at Wikipedia. Is it just the average?
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
When it has come to such blatant dishonesty, I don't think we can foresee a resolution.
You can help by reining Gazipitator in, blocking him, whatever. How can I or anyone else contribute their best when the record of our contributions can at any moment be falsified by an editor motivated solely by partisan advantage in an ongoing dispute? Diranakir (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Armenian Genocide discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Exactly what is the dispute here; Has your account been compromised?Curb Chain (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Guy Macon: In reference to diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 I find the name Sassobot at the top (followed by arabic script). I do not find the caption or date under that name that you are referring to and furthermore do not see what--if I saw them-- they would have to do with what I put into the article or took out of it. My revision on June 3 was only at line 90. I did not touch line 37. Your response does not demonstrate to me that I did something I did not do. Guy Macon: I will restate my case another way. The first paragraph as you see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&direction=prev&oldid=495790789 and in contrast to the previous version is not the product of my editing and falsely attributes the wording of that paragraph to me (once again, in terms of the difference from the previous version). I would hope Wikipedia has some way of correcting the record. If not, then Wikipedia is not what I thought it was and shows itself vulnerable to partisan manipulation and distortion. Diranakir (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.31 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan: Thank you. You have pointed out what I hope will be the solution to my dilemma, i. e., edit deletion. Yes, I am definitely contending--and in fact know with absolute certainty--that the edit shown in the right-hand column at line 37 is not my work. At the same time my edit shown at line 89 in the same column is definitely my own work and is the only edit I made on that day. 67.169.127.31 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012
![]() | Dispute has moved on to an RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The DIFF:I added an election prediction market snapshot (Intrade) for the Gubernatorial Election Wiki page happening in my home state. The purpose was to supplement traditional polling data with prediction market data, since there was alot of coverage about these things in the media, and after some research found that these prediction markets have been around for over 20 years and generated academic interest as well. After a named and an anonymous user deleted my entry for no reason, another user deleted my entry on the basis that "This is not on other Wiki election pages, so it doesn't belong here." This didn't make sense so I reverted the deletion and asked to discuss on the talk page. Another user added 5 sources of recent articles about election prediction markets. The user that deleted my entries then made personal attacks on the talk page and was going to gather others to show me "that this does not belong, and teach you what an edit war is." There was some productive discussion, (after an admin declared WP:0RR), consensus was reached that "A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here" and other questions were posed, and I, (being the original contributor) provided academic and news articles, with examples to other users requesting more info and clarifications. Then two additional users disagreed with the consensus and claimed 'A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere" means this information should be deleted. One of these users reverted my entry 3 times after the admin WP:0RR, made another personal attack, and claimed my WP:TALK was "combativeness." I responded with talking this issue with dispute resolution, and the latter user wrote another personal attack.
Users involved
If there is something to discuss beyond ad hominem of a Wiki contributor that counters the "properly referenced material" on the talk page, let's have it!
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I made a contribution, followed Wiki guidelines edit guidelines, asked for discussion on the talk page, did not reciprocate personal attacks directed at me on the talk page, followed admin guidance when one was called in, presented a case with properly referenced material, and provided additional responses with concerns from other editors. After receiving additional personal attacks and violations of an admin's guidance from other users, and since it involved more than one user, I generated this dispute resolution.
The main theme of the issues some users have with my contribution to this article is that they feel this contribution "does not belong here." versus my contribution providing "a supplement to poll data of an election." If we can answer that question - does it belong here" I think everyone will agree (whether it does in fact "belong" here or not), that the sources and information I provided on the talk page supports that my contribution of the Intrade snapshots does indeed provide "a supplement to poll data of an election." and was relevant to this election. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Could you point me to the place where this "admin declared WP:0RR"? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Bernhard Goetz
![]() | Neither of the named usernames exists. I see some potential BLP violations so I filed a report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bernhard Goetz. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Goetz is apparently the author or source for some of this biographical story. In it he claims to be a squirrel rehabilitator. In fact, experienced and state-licensed rehabilitator, familiar with his activities in this capacity, have found it appropriate to complain to the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (the regulatory agency in this instance) about Goetz's treatment of squirrels. Attempts to add this element in a relatively neutral way have been edited out by Goetz. He has added personality attacks against those licensed rehabilitators to the article talk-page. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
RFC posted.
The problem is objectivity. Is it possible to block Goetz from editing out content with which he disagrees? djenner (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Bernhard Goetz discussionOne or two editors are attempting to add the material shown in diff [50]. The WP:Reliable source requirement does not permit material which is sourced to "Private communication"s. Therefore, the editors that are removing that material are correct to do so. Material critical of Goetz's animal treatments can only be included if a source, such as a major newspaper, or a TV show like CNN, reports on it. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please close Looks like another case of forum shopping; I don't see the filer listing editors that he has been in a dispute with.Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Tomás Garrido Canabal
![]() | Premature, no talk page discussion as required before listing on this noticeboard. Please discuss the matter with the other editor before seeking dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Member (Mamalujo) trying to forward his own ideology, his poor editorship, not consulting the talk page but instead edit-warring, trying to claim that Socialism and Fascism are the same (due to his own classical liberal views), adding weasle words. He keeps putting Tomas Garrido Canabal and his Camisas Rojas under the category Fascism and keeps trying to add the Fascism infobox onto both pages. This is not at encyclopedic as he is not officially fascist and thus shouldn't be put under that category. Mamalujo has been asked to provided evidence that Garrido was inspired by Italian Fascism and he has offered no such evidence. On the other hand, people have give a lot of sources concerning Garrido's socialist policies in Mexico and even his home life, in which we found that one of his sons was named Lenin, further indicating that he considered himself a Marxist. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=467463986&oldid=467237738 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=494803963&oldid=494766763 Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I had commented on the talk page and tried to resolve the dispute.
Stop the member in question from turning the article into a forum for his personal believes and stop him adding weasle words to try to make the article POV. The Mummy (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Tomás Garrido Canabal discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Classical_Liberalism
![]() | Appears to have been resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Several editors claim that the interpretation given in the article for the origin of "dismal science" has been shown to be incorrect. Another editor believes that the view currently expressed in the article is "mainstream," and should therefore be left, correct or not. The other editors disagree that the current interpretation is either correct or commonly accepted by experts. Users involved
Several more users are involved, posting only under their IP address.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on the talk page.
Judge the evidence and adjudicate the dispute based on a third party reading of the evidence presented. ZG (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Classical_Liberalism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
In an article on the libertarian website Library of Economics and Liberty, it says, "Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship. "While this story is well-known, it is also wrong." This "wrong description" is included in the article and is reliably sourced to Mills, John. A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Another source (Diane Coyle's The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters, Princeton University Press, 2010, p.42) says, "[Malthus' "Essay on the principle of population"] earned economics the description the "dismal science" from historian Thomas Carlyle."[51] While it may be that the blog is right and mainstream historians and economists are wrong, we need to go with the academic consensus. I can find no evidence that the blog`s view has received any acknowledgement. TFD (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following quote, and the title of the essay in which it appeared:
I cannot find any evidence that calls into question the econlib.org claim that this was where Thomas Carlyle first labeled economics the "dismal science". We should report what the sources say about the origin of the phrase "dismal science." We should not put the claim in Wikipedia's voice, nor should we ignore a minority view that quotes Carlyle himself as saying otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It is unclear to me at least whether the Mill text cited above by The Four Deuces is making a claim about why Carlyle used the phrase, as opposed to merely saying, essentially, that the subject is depressing and therefore deserved that description. The Coyle text seems even less useful as evidence of the mainstream economic consensus, as the link given above has the author describing (in an adjacent passage) the modern discipline as "autistic economics". (I make no judgments here as to whether this is an apt description. I'm just suggesting that a neutral reader would probably not see something like that as the consensus voice of mainstream economics talking about itself.) It's possible better evidence exists that informed economic consensus still holds the essay Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question disparages Malthusian population economics (despite not referencing Malthus), but in that case those would be superior cites. Austinecon (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
(out) This is not the case of a false quote being sourced to a secondary source, rather it is what
The theory that population will increase until famine occurs would be understood by readers as a re-phrasing of Malthus's theories. Nine years earlier in "Chartism" (1840), Carlyle wrote, "The controversies on Malthus and the ‘Population Principle,’ ‘Preventive Check’ and so forth, with which the public ear has been deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary, stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that of the preventive check and the denial of the preventive check”. But it is not up to us to read through Carlyle's essays to determine what he meant. We must accept the interpretation supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and economists who have read and interpreted them. TFD (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is how Carlyle's essay was interpreted by J.S. Mill in his reply:
Mill does not say that Carlyle considers the ending of slavery dismal, rather the results that he believes the application of the principles of political economy will cause are dismal. TFD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I've offered the following compromise on the talk page of the article.
Has this been resolved, or is there something else we can do to help? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 16:32 (UTC) Reason: Np discussion for four days, appears to be resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal
![]() | No discussion for five days Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
This page summarizes the nature and events of Match Fixing Scandal in Turkish Soccer. However, the page is unfortunately organized in a way to accuse Fenerbahce Sports Club (as also clearly stated in a funny way the 3rd paragraph). Majority of the information and references provided are actually not the facts but rumors and/or falsified. When I first saw the page, naturally I would like to edit the page. However, faced with accusations of VANDALISM. [54] When freedom of speech become vandalism, I asked myself? So I am opening this dispute following user:MBisanz suggestion. My intentions are constructive. I would like the page to be either deleted or edited in a fair way. 1 Here is an example of how I was accused of vandalism.[55] I was publishing a recent statement (with references), which was immediately deleted by LordoBalsamico. (Please also see the reason for edit which was called a VANDALISM!!!) 2 Here I am publishing a crucial information which was agian deleted immediately. [56] Which clearly shows Galatasaray is also involved in corruption. The former president of Galatasaray is going to be on trial for 7 years !!!! 3 Examples of falsified information with references but actually rumors. - On 10 May 2012, Michel Platini, President of the UEFA, said "If you do not relegate the teams, you can not be in Europe". - The scandal potentially stretches back several years, with the prosecutor announcing on 26 September that he had discovered suspicious betting activities on a match between Fenerbahçe and MTK Budapest on 30 July 2008. - Authors persist on involving Fenerbahce Ulker Basketball team, however there is not evidence of match fixing on Fenerbahce Galatasaray basketball game.[57] - Here authors are completely falsfying the information stating that Fenerbahce fans were protesting not to be relegated. However the truth is that they are protesting because of TFF's decision on banning Fenerbahce from Champions League. My edits are again tretaed as vandalism :) [58] 4 Some examples of unrelevant information: On 2 May 2012, Galatasaray SK fans protested Turkish Football Federation in front of the UEFA building in Geneva, Switzerland and 13 different country including Turkey. "As a Turk, I'm very ashamed to say this, but only UEFA can clear us," Yusuf Reha Alp, a member of the Professional Football Disciplinary Board(PFDK) told Kanaltürk television during a popular sports show on Monday night. "Turkish football's future is very dark," he also said. Users involved
LardoBalsamico is the main user who keeps accusing me of vandalism and keep reverting my edits.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Yes. I did post in my talk page and also in LardoBalsamico talk page. [59]
Either delete the page forever or help me edit the page so it has fair and true information. Mguvendiren (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal discussionIt looks like the initiating editor, Mguvendiren, is concerned that unfounded negative material about a particular sports club is being added into this article. It also appears that this sports scandal is widely covered in the news media. This is a fairly straightforward matter to resolve: the article must only contain material that accurately reflects the statements of WP:Reliable sources. If the negative material is not accompanied by a citation (footnote), it can be removed without discussion. If the negative material has a citation, but it does not accurately represent the cited source, the material should be changed to represent the source's statements. That can be done directly, but should usually be discussed on the Talk page first (just present quotations from the source, and discuss how to best paraphrase). If the negative material is out-dated, it should be left alone, but newer sources should be found and incorporated into the article to present the latest, fullest story to the readers (be sure to provide citations for the new material). This can usually be done without prior discussion on the Talk page. If the negative material is not related to the Turkish sports scandal by the source it can generally be removed from the article: editors are generally not permitted to make tenuous connections to the scandal by themselves: the sources must make the connection. In conclusion: editors should present quotes from the sources in the article's Talk page, then discuss how to convey those sources in the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Ramapough Lenape Nation
![]() | There appears to be a clear resolution Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
the issue is over the words "Noted Scholar" The issue is about Prof Herbert C Kraft, who has written 170 articles on the Lenape, authored many books on the subject and was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall. Users involved
I have given references and included URL where it is stated he is a "Noted Scholar". I have included these links, yet they have not read them nor commented on them.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have discussed on my page, the subject page and theirs. They will not discuss.
I think they are working together and I need an unbiased opinion. Saying Kraft is just an Anthropologist is like saying Steven Hawkins is just an astronomer. Ramapoughnative (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Ramapough Lenape Nation discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The article is actually called Ramapough Mountain Indians - I'm not clear why the editor prefers the redirect, which doesn't lead to the article's talk page Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians where you can find that I posted about this at 2:49 pm, Yesterday and his claim that I and another editors are vandals for reverting him. You'll also find my statement that I've taken this to WP:NPOVN]], and on my talk page some discussion which was basically his objection to my removing some obvious original research of his[60] as the sources don't mention how this group might have gotten its name. Understandably the editor as a member of this tribe feels that they are an expert on it, eg "I am a Ramapough and I know the truth", but this is not their article although it is difficult for other editors to make changes this editor doesn't like. As I've said, I've taken this to NPOVN. I think this is argument by authority, I don't disagree that he's a noted scholar as I am aware of his excellent work. The newest revision is hopefully more acceptable - it says "Howard Kraft, a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape, wrote. I've given the editor a 3RR warning and asked him not to call editors vandals on the talk page or in edit summaries when it is simply a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"Has to be *demonstrated*, not just stated". what do you deem acceptable for a demonstration? Working with Lenape scholars to write over 170 articles, winning awards from the state of New Jersey for his research, becoming Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Seton Hall and giving reference to it printed in black and white in various sources. "Kraft's father, Herbert C. Kraft, was a noted northeastern prehistorian and expert on the Lenape. At the time of his death in 2000, Kraft was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University and director of the university's Archeological Research Center and Museum, according to anthrosource.net. " http://tri.gmnews.com/news/2007-11-29/front_page/001.html What else is required to be considered to show demonstration? If it walks, quacks and acts like a duck, guess what.. It's a DUCK! Ramapoughnative (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Generally, articles should avoid characterizing the scholars that are mentioned in the article. Calling Kraft a "noted scholar" should be done only in an article devoted to Kraft himself. In this article about the object of study, the opinions and conclusions of the scholars should simply be stated. It is important to use plain, neutral wording that reflects the thoughts and interpretations of the scholars. Editors must avoid the use words that may sway the reader to weigh one scholar over another. However, the WP:UNDUE policy does suggest that the amount of material devoted to the scholars be roughly proportional to their expertise and depth of research (see WP:FRINGE). So if, for example, Kraft is the formost scholar in this field, then it would be appropriate for his thoughts to be represented with more space than other scholars. But the article should not use puffery or flattering words to designate Kraft. --Noleander (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 18:27 (UTC) Reason: There appears to be a clear resolution, as noted above, pursuant to policy. —
|
Vassula Ryden
![]() | Cannot be resolved here. Suggest RfC as next step Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I am attempting to add an important piece of information regarding Vassula Ryden's dealings with the Vatican to the Vassula Ryden page. A group of editors are blocking my attempts. Users involved
It seems clear that the users have no particular interest in Vassula, or where they have, they are very negative about her. It is unclear why they are so determined to prevent a small but important piece of information to a page about someone for whom they have no particular interest.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Quite a lot of discussion has taken place on the talk page.
by either persuading the other editors to stop blocking the information I believe is important, or to explain why Wikipedia can not allow its inclusion. Sasanack (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Vassula Ryden discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Filer has edit warred heavily on the article and has not rebutted any Comment - The issue seems to be that an editor wants to add the following material:
And the citation is to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfrydn3.htm. It appears that the material is relevant to the article, but the issue hinges on the source ... does it meet the WP:Reliable source requirement? The source is www.ewtn.com, which is not a rock-solid scholarly source. I would suggest that editors that want to include this material find other, additional sources that cover that letter and other related issues. The thing that is missing from the source is a discussion or analysis of the letter by a commentator or analyst. See WP:SECONDARY. If ewtn.com is the only source on that letter that can be found, that may indicate that the material is not appropriate for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
EWTN is not a great secondary source, but their summary of the Vatican CDF's four Ryden-related documents here fails to mention dialogue, positive or otherwise. TLIG.ORG i.e. Ryden's supporters, appear to be the only one that is advancing the idea of "positive dialogue". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Some useful comments have now been added on another noticeboard which are relevant to all this. I think it is fairly clear from the above that a group of editors are blocking a piece of factual information which upsets them and it appears that there is no easy way to stop them. As Fifelfoo says on the other noticeboard about the best source of information about the CDF/Vassula dialogue, "The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling.". Yet Wikipedia seems not to have any way to counteract such behaviour by editors. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to find other WP processes to deal with this problem.--Sasanack (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What a pity that the Wikipedia dispute resolution system can happily make solemn pronouncements on conflicts of interest yet cannot do anything to correct the blocking from Wikipedia of highly relevant factual information about Vassula. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wrote in 2004 that, "this Congregation published a Notification in 1995 on the writings of Mrs. Vassula Ryden. Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God" The original letter can be viewed here and the translation on the 3rd party website (which is negative about Vassula) here. Why is Wikipedia not able to show this information? --Sasanack (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
EWTN is a perfectly reliable and appropriate reference source and is used on the Vassula page elsewhere. So I repeat, why is the information being blocked? Also, just in case you haven't read the words of Wikipedia's founder a month or so ago on his talk page: "I believe that the most effective change we can make to policy in this area is for WP:V to be changed to move the words further apart, so that "verifiability, and not truth" tends to go away as a mantra. It is false. It doesn't describe how we work, nor does it describe how we should work.". Sadly, we have here an excellent illustration of Wikipedia acting just in the way Mr Wales is complaining about.--Sasanack (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that Mr Wales' proposals have not been accepted. This shouldn't be a surprise because I think there are probably quite a lot of editors out there who quite enjoy deleting stuff - a bit of a power trip I think.
There are two points to make about the EWTN references on the Vassula page. The editors who are blocking the insertion of information about the Vatican-Vassula dialogue are quite happy with the EWTN reference for the Notification information and the Levada letter, but when the reference is used for the Ratzinger document it suddenly becomes an unsuitable reference! EWTN (who are NOT Vassula friendly) correctly list four documents, yet my editor friends are blocking just the one document which refers to the dialogue. And yes, the blocking is achieved by these editors instantly reverting any insertion of the item about the dialogue, followed by accusations of warring if I revert them. With regard to the suitability of EWTN as a suitable reference, I fail to see why it is unsuitable. Noleander says the site "is not a rock-solid scholarly source". Well, probably not, but do all citations need to refer to 'rock-solid scholarly sources'? Undoubtedly the best reliable source of all the dealings of Vassula with the Vatican is the cdf-tlig.org site but this has been rejected out of hand because the owner of the site is a supporter of Vassula. But I am happy to see that editors have now come forward challenging that assumption.
It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level. The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Wikipedia. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Wikipedia page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section.
All the above advice is most useful and needs reflection before a decision is taken as to the next stage.
I just want to make a quick response, TransporterMan, to your lengthy and detailed response. You have restored my faith in Wikipedia! For the first time since editing the Vassula page someone has made a serious attempt to look at the problem and respond in a constructive way. I want to respond to everything you have said tommorrow after reflecting on all your points. But thank you very much for this response which is greatly appreciated.--Sasanack (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I have now responded to your points, TransporterMan, inserting my responses in italics under each of your points. Once again, many thanks for your help. --Sasanack (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone thinks that we can further profit by further discussion here, I propose to close this discussion 24 hours from now so as to move on to the next step, if any. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Marshall Strabala
![]() | No discussion for three days, advice from Noleander will, if followed, settle the dispute. Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Looking at just Marshall Strabala#Gensler The issue or conflict is whether the job position and title of Marshall Strabala is both relevant and important during a) his hiring with Gensler and b) his position at Gensler when the Shanghai Tower was designed. I have provided reliable sources both statistics and cites which indicate that he held the position of "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" specifically during his employment with while he worked on the Shanghai Tower while he lived in China. Dispute detail For the full thread see TALK at Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update, below I recap the relevant points. Firms like Gensler are normally the "architect of record" people are interested in who designed the tallest buildings or what employee provided the creative input. Examples, see Adrian Smith (architect) and Burj Khalifa - search for "Adrian Smith" and even search for "Strabala". I think that articles on the web such as a news feed "Construction Starts on China’s Tallest Building, Designed by Houston Architect" [[63]] and also an organizational chart, made by Gensler itself "Shanghai Tower Gensler Team Organization" Appendix A of MOTION by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions (docket #71, Appendix A, Page 13 of docket #71) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois] PACERin Gensler v. Strabala (1:11-cv-03945) https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (-or- a non-citable copy of same, page 13, that I have made public here - https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753Bbab1lQN0dyVGhnYTQ ) are highly relevant due to the existance of a contrary opinion that is being cited. The contrary opinion stems from the fact that Gensler sued Strabala issued soem news feeds (or a court reportign service picked up on the case). Eventually Gensler lost (note, they has just filed an appeal) as per this ruling http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv03945/256636/47/0.pdf?ts=1329913307 - pagse 1-2 sets forth the facts of the case (which was dismissed in this opinion) as seen by the Judge:
Adding Strabala's positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" which he held while at Gensler during the design of the Shanghai Tower supported via cites (especially the organization chart made by Gensler itself during Strabala's employment) provides a much more balanced article, considering that the paragraph in question contains the contrary claim via the text in the current Wikipedia Article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala#Gensler Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower. The current Article reads as follows:
My proposed and reverted update ([64]) reads as follows:
Oddly enough Novaseminary himself wrote the first sentence above "verbatim" back in May of 2011 he is now trying to change it in the last five days by dropping "as the firm's South Central Region Director of Design" - this I find remarkable as it is the same time I start citing his title during the design and construction of the Shanghai Tower via declarations and org charts and other web articles - with the reasoning that the 'importance of the title' is not cited. Note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We've discussed that issue in the article for about 5 days essentially my initial, revised, and latest update have all been reverted (even afer he agreed with me in one instance), yet I believe provided proper citations to make a stronger case and provide a more balance nuetral article and that I only quoted the cites themselves. The reasons for the reverts don't seem very 'clear' or 'consistent' to first two pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars . I have tried diligently to discuss the problems with Novaseminary's reverts to my edits via the Talk page. There specific Talk section in update Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update it is quite lengthy, and I tried to provide more and more citations (and lengthy discussions) to support the proposed updates I made. At know time did I put an "opinion" or "original research" on the main article. In my most recent edit I provided a what I considered a balanced verifiable perspective, I didn't claim he was Gensler's sole "Director of Design" and did not include any original research ( 16:36, 4 June 2012 ) [65] , however this was immediately reverted. Maybe I am the one confused here, but Marshall Strabala, unlke Gensler doesn't release news feed items about law suits, the progress and/or conclusion of any lawsuit and the dismissal are enough to "speak" and provide neutral, verifiable, and reliable sources that can be cited (from the legal record either pacer or RFC express) to counter claim and internet posts at the onset of the case like Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower. I agree with Nova, this isn't a marketing piece but the fact that Marshall Strabala held both positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead." while he worked on the Shanghai Tower is important, newsworthy and relevant. It is even more newsworthy and relevant considering Gensler has made the claim Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower..
By giving outside input on the dispute I believe it can be resolved via one or more third parties chiming in. I am trying to avoid an edit war here which I fear might happen without third party input. I think that Novaseminary and myself are kind of far apart on things here and a tie breaker so to speak would (regardless of the outcome) would most likely be honored by both of us. Normally we (Nova and myself) can work things out and come to a concessional agreement, but reading the "tea leaves" I don't think it is possible here. Once again note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI 108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Marshall Strabala discussionThere is a dispute, according to the sources, about who designed this important building. Neither of the two proposals presented above is ideal: one claims that MS designed it; and the other says "he is reported to have designed it". When the sources conflict, it is best for the article to plainly state the two or more viewpoints. Something like "Strabala claims that he is the primary designer of the building, but Gensler disputes this, and says that Stabala was only one member of a team. The dispute led to a lawsuit after Strabala left Gensler ... The suit was dismissed ..." Presenting both sides plainly should resolve the matter. --Noleander (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Thor (film)
![]() | No discussion for three days. Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
In articles about superheroes a standard issue to address is the source of the powers of the superhero. In the case of the superhero film "Thor", there is some dispute over the origin of Thor's powers and, in general, of the nature of Thor and the other Asgardians. That is, the dispute is over whether the Asgardians are gods in that their powers are derived from magic and are supernatural, or if they are actually beings from an advanced civilization using incredibly advanced technology, who were perceived to be supernatural and then worshipped as gods by primitive humans. The article originally simply stated that they were "gods", without further explanation. I have argued that this is incorrect, and that even if they are referenced in the article as "gods" because they were worshipped as such, additional explanation is needed because of the many references in the film and elsewhere that they are in fact actually advanced beings. My edits were reverted by two editors who apparently have been involved in this article since it was created, and who have strong feelings on the matter. They have not made any offers of compromise. My sources include the following:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/05/04/avengers-assemble/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/04/the-mighty-thor/
The editors who are preventing edits to the article claim that the Asgardians are "clearly" using magic, and (I'm paraphrasing here) that even if they were, because they are seen and worshipped as gods by some humans, they can be referred to as gods in the article without further explanation. Unfortunately, despite my best attempts at discussion, these have not addressed many of the points I raise above, and have not countered with other sources. Yet they insist that no changes to the article can be made. Frustratingly, they have claimed that it is up to me to come up with even more sources to prove my points, despite not having citing any counter-sources themselves. I'd also like to add that, as someone who is new to wikipedia, this has not been a pleasant experience. After making good faith attempts to correct an inaccuracy and cite a credible, verifiable source, my edits were reverted with a flippant comment by an editor who admitted he had not even bothered to read my source. This editor, DarkwarriorBlake, also continued to revert edits while ignoring the talk page for the article, refusing to enter into a discussion on the matter until I engaged him several times. Then despite my good faith effort to engage in a lengthy discussion with DarkwarriorBlake and TriiipleThreat (the creator of the article), they have not been open to any compromise whatsoever. It has been incredibly frustrating. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
I initiated a discussion on a talk page, and it was discussed at length. No compromise was offered by the two editors who are preventing edits to the article.
I am new to wikipedia, so this isn't clear. But hopefully someone who has not been involved in the article previously could facilitate a compromise. It would be nice to also have some confirmation that if I make an edit to an article that is backed up by a verifiable source, then that edit should stand unless someone can provide a counter-source. For editors who seem to have some attachment to the way an article is written to flippantly dismiss my edits, without any sources of their own, is very frustrating. Why would I bother editing other articles in the future if this practice is accepted? Cardonculous (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous 67.188.3.9 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Thor discussionIP: The sources you list above are not very strong. They are two blogs, and some quotes from the movie/trailer itself. Generally, the WP:Reliable sources policy requires more concrete sources: mainstream magazines, reviews in newspapers, books, etc. Blogs are rarely used for WP articles, and only if the author is a very notable journalist or figure. Unless you can come up with some more solid sources, the additional details about the source of their powers may have to be omitted from the article. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting
![]() | User Conduct Dispute, not Article Content Dispute. Suggest that the discussion be moved to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the problem, to WP:RFCU. Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User:Good Olfactory and I disagree ion the implementation of guidelines for categorisation of images. I want a third part to determine who is "right" or "wrong". There are huge numbers of images in question and a lot of time is being wasted in restore/revert edits. There is a relevant thread on my talk page at User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removing_images_from_categories. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
User talk page discussions.
Need to clarify file categorisation guideline implementation -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC) User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is looking less and less like a article content issue and more and more like a user conduct issue. I am inclined to suggest that the discussion be moved to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the problem, to WP:RFCU. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
|
List of tallest buildings in Australia
![]() | Resolved Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There has been as dispute coming down to what is defined as a bulding. However I have found based upon this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building that the definition of a building is: Any human-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy, or an act of construction (i. e. the activity of building, see also builder). However this user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MelbourneStar) (Melbourne Star), seems to be under the impression that certain "Towers" are in-fact, not a building. An outside neutral opinion in this issue would be much appreciated. Users involved
The users comments towards myself seem to be quite bias.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have informed the user on numerous occasions that I believe his information to be inaccurate but they do not seem to want to negotiate ad just revert the page without consulting myself about the issue.
If a number of users could come to a decision on what should or should not be included as a "building". It would be most appreciated. CharlieTN (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) List of tallest buildings in Australia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What's wrong with using the criteria the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat uses? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: This is the first I have ever crossed paths with User:CharlieTN - unless s/he goes by IP:121.216.86.150 - whom I simply have reverted and explained that the Sydney Tower is an observation tower/structure - not a habitable building, which according to the article Building, needs to be habitable - to be considered one. As well as pointing out on the IPs talk page, that freestanding structures have their own article (Sydney Tower included) - I also provided them previous discussion regarding the tower and this article. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment:I believe you will indeed find that Sydney Tower is inhabitable. Unless you are that ignorant you have not studied the building you are speaking of. - CharlieTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment:The tower has a total of 19 floors that are habitable. Whilst none of the floors are used for residential or office space, the building contains a number of facilities including a shopping centre, observation platform, restaurant and communications centre. I believe by "needs to be habitable" you are referring to the building exclusively as a radio mast? Quite the contrary it far from that. - CharlieTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Futhermore - The Sydney Tower is not being cherry-picked out of the article. That's the same case with the CN Tower (List of tallest buildings in Canada); The Eifel Tower (List of tallest buildings in France); The Sky Tower (List of tallest buildings in Auckland); and who can forget the world's tallest tower, Canton Tower (List of tallest buildings in the People's Republic of China) -- all of which, are tower's (free-standing structures - not buildings). They are all located in article's that list tall Structures. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment I completely understand where you are coming from. I understand the building is not being cherry-picked. However I do find that these free-standing structures still fit the definition of a building. I think if you where to consult the NSW department of planning they would assure anyone that it is a building. There obviously needs to be a complete universal set of guidelines covering all aspects of structures to determine exactly what is and isn't a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You both ignored my question. If it is your intent to simply shout at each other and ignore the input of DRN volunteer mediators, I will be happy to close this discussion and send you back to the article talk page to yell at each other. So again I ask, what's wrong with using the criteria the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat uses? if you look here you will see a section labeled "What is the difference between a tall building and a telecommunications /observation tower?" which should settle this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"What is the difference between a tall building and a telecommunications /observation tower?" "A tall “building” can be classed as such (as opposed to a telecommunications/observation tower) and is eligible for the "Tallest" lists if at least 50% of its height is occupied by usable floor area." This appears to be the definition that consensus has agreed on for multiple "tallest building" pages on Wikipedia. I believe that it should be for this article as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ Richardson, "utilitarianism is usually seen as the dominant ethical theory in twentieth-century liberal societies", p. 31
- ^ Richardson, p. 33
- ^ Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, Carlyle, p. 531
- ^ [66], Levy, David M., and Sandy J. Peart
- ^ Ratzinger, Joseph. "Letter on Vassula Ryden to the Episcopal Conferences of France, Switzerland, Uruguay, Philippines and Canada (10 July 2004)".