This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Too many
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xerographica on 10:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
Unsuitable for this venue (Primarily a conduct dispute, also perhaps about very general content issues better suited to, e.g. WP:RFC). CarrieVS (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I've had many many many difficulties with Arthur Rubin. I've been blocked for a total of 3 weeks for my descriptions of his behavior. I think the "politically correct" way of categorizing his behavior would be to say that it is "disruptive".
I've wasted countless hours trying to explain basic economic concepts to Rubin.
How do you think we can help?
Review his recent edits
Opening comments by Arthur Rubin
The complainant (I'm going to denote him/her by "X", to avoid accidentally insulting him by misquoting his name) has a unique understanding of economics, and is writing articles about concepts nominally in Public choice theory, some of which are legitimately in economics, and some are only related to economics in his opinion, and adding "See also" links from all of them to all of them. In addition, most of the articles consist of an (often unsourced) definition, a list of quotes (some of which are related, but none being specifically sourced — here, I admit sources could usually be found), a "See also" section, and a list of "references" (which should be titled "further reading", as there's nothing, specifically, that is "referenced".) I (and at least two other editors) have been removing the most egregious misquotes, irrelevant sections, quotes from unreliable sources, and irrelevant "See also" entries. We also have been nominating for deletion or transwiki to WikiQuotes some of the articles which (at least I) consider to have no hope of forming an encyclopedic article on the concept or quote.
He may legitimately accuse me of Wiki-stalking; except that it's allowed if the "stalked" editor frequently makes unhelpful edits.
(User:Rubin was notified. I would usually have notified you as soon as I realised the mistake, but I was holding off until I had a reply about content vs conduct, since if this is about conduct I will be closing it anyway. CarrieVS (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC))
Too many discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Is this a dispute over a particular bit of content, or is it over each other's general conduct? CarrieVS (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
edited to address question to both of you. CarrieVS (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's over how the user approaches the content. Personally, I read numerous relevant reliable sources and make an appropriate edit. He does not read the reliable sources but edits anyways...and he undoes my edits. Then I have to waste my time on the talk page trying to explain to him what the reliable sources say about the topic. So it's impossible to have an informed discussion with him. --Xerographica (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but what do you want? Is there a particular dispute over a particular bit of content that you want us to help you agree on? CarrieVS (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Although X phrased the problem as a conduct issue, there is are underlying content issues, which might be suitable for resolution in this forum; specifically (1) whether sub-stub + quotations + See also + "references" (Further reading) is a suitable format for a Wikipedia article, and whether indirectly tangential Wiki-articles are appropriate in "See also". My assertion is that if "B" is relavent to "A", and "C" is relevant to "A" only through "B", then "C" should not be in "A"'s "See also" section, but I can see that WP:SEEALSO can be read, in good faith, to disagree. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's about whether that is generally ok, then I don't think this is the right place. If it's about the format of particular articles, then it might be. And if we do discuss it here, we will be strictly discussing the content in question, and not anyone's general conduct or editing behaviour. CarrieVS (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
CarrieVS, there are, well, too many content disputes to list. You're welcome to look through his recent contributions though. My dispute with him is that he rarely rarely ever reads the relevant reliable sources...but he edits the content anyways. For an example of how it's supposed to work...look on the talk page of public choice theory. You can see some exchanges between Thomasmeeks and myself. That kind of exchange has never ONCE occurred with Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO. If it has actually occurred with Rubin or the others...then I'm sure Rubin would be able to provide one such example. --Xerographica (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If there are too many content disputes to list, then we can't help you here. This forum is for discussing specific content disputes. I'm going to close this thread now. If you have a serious problem with another user's conduct or editing behaviour, you might want to consider taking it to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. For a question over whether a certain format is ok for articles in general, I'm not really sure, but perhaps WP:Requests for comment? CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:X-inefficiency
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xerographica on 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
Duplicates recent previosly closed DR (above); unsuitable for dispute resolution as a conduct dispute and very general content dispute (in which case see WP:RFC). —Theopolisme(talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Please establish whether or not the source is reliable/relevant
Opening comments by Rubin
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:X-inefficiency discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Museum of Government Waste
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xerographica on 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
Duplicates recent previosly closed DR (above); unsuitable for dispute resolution as a conduct dispute and very general content dispute (in which case see WP:RFC). —Theopolisme(talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
All the topics were removed from the see also section
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried talking with the editor in the past
How do you think we can help?
Undo the edit if it does not improve the entry
Opening comments by Rubin
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Museum of Government Waste discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, WP:ORN, WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, User talk:Arzel,User talk:Casprings
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Casprings on 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC).
Current discussions on other noticeboards.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Arzel continues to make disruptive edits on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 and tag the article with a disputed neutrality tag. To resolve this, I have tried to get outside editors opinions. I have done a RfC on the general neutrality of the article and took the issues he raised to the various noticeboards. While I have no problem discussing the issues he raises (such as the subsection titles of the article), his edits go against established consensus on the page. While he has brought up policy issues, no other editor sees these issues.
That said, what really made be bring this here is that he has now taken to calling me an "activate editor". I think at this point, it would be good to have a third party step in and try to help us resolve this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page discussion, RfC, and use of notice boards. In general, I have tried to bring attention to the issues the editor raised, BLP and OR, and get more opinions. Thus far, the opinions have clearing been siding with me on the dispute (or at least in my opinion)
How do you think we can help?
I think a third party to help provide some mediation would be helpful. I would be open to some changes (for example the subheading titles), but I think the editor simply dismisses me as as an "activate" and thus isn't really willing to discuss the issues with me.
Opening comments by Arzel
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, WP:ORN, WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, User talk:Arzel,User talk:Casprings discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, I am a volunteer here at DRN. Once all parties have written their statements we can proceed with discussion. I am reading over the material at hand just now. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
NPOV asside, having quotes in the section headings like that violates a number of policies. For example, MOS:QUOTE: Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Meaning something like "Richard Mourdock: "something that God intended"" has to become "Richard Mourdock: "...something that God intended..."" if there is further text on either side of the quoted section. Regardless, I think that the quotes in the section headings may be against a policy but I can't think what one.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Retrolord on 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC).
Conduct dispute. This noticeboard is not for disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Please use WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI instead. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User Dapi89 has made several personal attacks against myself. This user has not assumed good faith in my edits and has refused to compromise on almost all points. These issues arised after I conducted a good article review of a page he was a significant contributor towards. I believe there are many flaws with the article and documented this on the review page.
In response, user Dapi89 blanked the review page and tried to have another editor, user Misterbee1966, seemingly one of his friends take over my review. After labelling me a "New, thus incompetent" reviewer and describing my review as, "at worst a series of bizarre requests" The issue I am bringing is user Dapi89's rude and insulting conduct towards myself and several other editors.
When I asked user Dapi89 to restore the blanked review page, I recieved this response " No. The only faults are yours.
Your requests are beyond contempt and it seems you have little understanding of how a review is conducted, especially on a fighter ace. If you are not a troll, sit back and watch an experienced edior take over, and learn from him."
After giving user Dapi89 a warning about his insulsts and asking not to be insulted again i recieved this response
"Don't ever leave this kind of post on my talk page again. And for your information I wrote Erich Hartmann, along with Hans-Joachim Marseille and a number of other GA/FA articles. How embarrassing."
It is as a result of this persistant disrespectful behaviour that I request Dispute Resolution.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
All attempts to resolve the dispute have been met with rude and abrasive replies from user Dapi89. All pages where these attempts took place are documented in the location of dispute section.
How do you think we can help?
I beleive it would be beneficial for Wikipedia as a whole if a Dispute Resolution volunteer could formally explain to user Dapi89 that personal attacks and exerting ownership over articles is unnaceptable.
Opening comments by Dapi89
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Golden Ratio
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
A short Structural Dynamics section added to Golden Ratio describes the appearance of this number in a the time domain. The section was rewritten to satisfy a couple objections. The objectors persist in deleting the section for vague reasons, i.e., "inappropriate", "the book is worthless", "As for the building as an example of this equation, it's not a good one." or for punctuation, or the font in which the section appears. A second attacker did not leave anything on the talk page, just deleted the section and commented "consensus on talk (and reading the proposed section) shows the material MAY be suitable after reworking, but has nothing useful now)." The vague ad hominem attacks lead me to doubt the motives for the repeated deletion of the content. Specific criticisms could be addressed in a rewrite. Why is the building not a good example? It just isn't? So you will delete the entire section? Vibration of buildings is an oft-occurring design problem, certainly in the realm of structural dynamics, and one in which the golden ratio appears. Any constructive edits to punctuation, wording or formatting would be welcome.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Rewrote section. Obtained a writeup from the author of one of the references.
How do you think we can help?
Require specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements.
Opening comments by dicklyon
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Tibbits does not seem to have put much effort into following up on the discussion at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics. The Golden ratio article is a magnet for trivial, biased, tangential, and unprofessional content, so a number of us are more protective there than we might be at other articles. The standards for getting new stuff into it are perhaps higher than a new editor expects. But we've talked to him about how to get there, and he hasn't done much. His assertion that the GR appears in "Vibration of buildings" is patently absurd; it appears in the solution of certain quadratic equations that are special cases of those that show up in just about every field; this is relevant to GR only if those special cases can be shown to have special significance. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Johnuniq
As Dicklyon explains above, the article requires more care than most other technical topics. As well as the five editors who have not supported the proposed text, there are numerous others who watch the article and who would have joined the discussion if they felt the matter needed further attention. The best thing would be for anyone wanting the addition to study the points made at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics, then rework the text and ask questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Golden Ratio discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I'm Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've read through the discussion on the talk page, read through the page history, and read the section of the article that was added via the page history as well as your opening statements. Is there anything else any of you feel I should read that is relevant to this dispute? Please bear in mind that I am not a mathematics expert, especially in the area we're talking about here. If we need a mediator who is receptive in that area, it'll have to be someone other than me. I am, however, happy to guide a compromise discussion. Nevertheless, back to my original question, other than those items, what else do any of you feel I should read? Please limit your response to that, for now, prior to spilling the discussion here. Thank you very much. GoPhightins! 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A cursory look at the table of contents of the book by Morin cited in the Structural Dynamics section will reveal that it is not a "bunch of problems cooked up that happen to involve golden ratio". It is a college text on mechanics. The book can be searched on Amazon.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A look at the text Random Vibrations: Theory and Practice (Dover Books on Physics) by Paul H. Wirsching, Thomas L Paez, Keith Ortiz and Physics(May 12, 2006) will give an idea of huge number of engineering problems to which structural dynamics applies. Design of buildings to withstand earthquake vibration requires understanding their natural frequencies, for example.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Re-reading the talk page will also reveal that not every editor who commented is opposed to the inclusion of the section. "I think an illustration and brief comment is worthwhile, at least if it's done properly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)"Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me like this dispute centres around whether or not the sources for the section are reliable to prove this is a documented effect rather than an unusual quirk when in the right situation. If this is a common issue then there should be no issue finding further sources, per WP:BURDEN it's on User:Tibbits to provide these sources as, currently, it would seem consensus is against him. I would suggest, perhaps, inviting the members of Wikiproject Mathematics into the discussion as they may be able to provide an insight into the reliability of the sources. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Our volunteer asked for documents, rather than discussion. (1)The book Design and Nature, searchable in Google Books has an extensive section on φ in dynamic systems. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9hOaEMFchvMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA153&ots=j-HZEA4Jw4&sig=KTEFUZKuql6_ef4834fFGptTEW8#v=onepage&q&f=false
(2) An article, Turning points of the spherical pendulum and the golden ratio, available at cost, documents another manifestation of φ in a dynamic system.
European Journal of Physics Volume 30 Number 2, Hanno Essén and Nicholas Apazidis 2009 Eur. J. Phys. 30 427 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/2/021
(3) Manifestations of φ in fluid mechanics and chaos theory have been deliberately omitted , although these both reside in the general area of dynamics.
(4) Works related to the controversial and suspect El Naschie and his journal Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals have been ignored.
Tibbits (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I tend to agree with Cabe that, at the moment, consensus is against Tibbits. That said, I would also agree with his suggestion that maybe inviting some members of WP:WPMATH to comment would be good. GoPhightins! 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of posting a message in WP:WPMATH inviting some of their editors in to discuss. Additionally, I'd like to hear more from User:dicklyon and User:Johnuniq as I notice they haven't contributed to the discussion as of yet. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
My opening comments above are accurate—there is only one editor at the article talk who favors the material in its proposed form, while five do not (plus others who would have seen the text and the discussion, and who were happy with the consensus). I appreciate the efforts made by volunteers here, but can this case be described as a dispute? No one has objected in principle to a mention of the topic if it can be shown to be WP:DUE, preferably with a WP:SECONDARY source. The main problem is that the proposed text is simply unhelpful for a reader in a crowded article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is best to focus on the reliability of the sources, and on the quotes from the sources. The fact that there is a 5-to-1 opinion on the Talk page is not too relevant: lots of times there is a minority voice that has a valid point. Also, the article does not appear to be too large yet: it is only 5K words. Granted, it is a very important article, and trivia or fringe views should not be included. But the way to exclude trivia/fringe material is to look at the quotes from the sources and go from there. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Such essay-like stuff as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ratio&diff=533038680 can be marginally tolerable in obscure articles where an expert's edit is a rare event, but not in such developed article as "Golden ratio" is. I advice Tibbits to go to talk:Golden ratio and explain what these cited works actually say. His essay is not intelligible enough to remain in an encyclopedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
For reference, here is a version of the text that is under discussion:
Attaching two identical harmonic oscillators in series creates a two degree of freedom (2DOF) system having two modes of vibration. The ratio of the frequencies of the two modes is the square of the golden ratio φ.[1][2] The quantities φ and -1/φ also appear in the mode shapes.
A variety of physical embodiments of such a 2DOF system are possible, and a number of them appear in the text by Morin.[3] Another example is two pendula of equal length and mass connected in series. This system points up the division of intervals of time, rather than distance, by the coupled oscillators, whose periods also have the ratio φ squared. An application in engineering consists of a three story building whose second and third floors have equal masses, and are supported on columns of equal stiffness.
The occurrence of φ in the time/frequency domain extends into the quantum realm. Certain quasi-particles in the electronic environment of a solid state lattice exhibit phenomena in which the golden ratio appears as the ratio of the first and second energy peaks.[4] The quasi-particles consist of vibrations, or oscillations, and because the energy varies as the square of the frequency, the frequencies associated with the first and second peaks are in the ratio φ squared.
^Blevins, Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, page 48, frame 2 of Table 6-2
^Crystal M Moorman and John Eric Goff 2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 897
^David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics: With Problems and Solutions
I think it is appropriate to ask for the editor that wants to include this material, per WP:BURDEN to supply specific quotes from the sources, so others can validate that the sources are indeed focusing on the golden ratio. If the four sources are talking about the golden ratio, and if all four are talking about it in the context of "structural dynamics" then the material should be okay for the article ... although perhaps in more condensed form. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The impression given by deleting the section in its entirety is that the section is not wanted on the Golden Ratio page. If the subject matter is acceptable, then the question is not one of content, but of whether constructive suggestions will be made rather than inflammatory off-the-cuff comments. I am willing to consider any suggested wording, but unwilling to feed the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
All right, let's please remember to assume good faith; comments such as the one you posted are not helpful to solving the dispute and I would recommend you retract that statement. GoPhightins! 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
These are trolls who start a flamewar over a piece of substandard article content instead of making and improving something really useful, who blatantly ignorecontent and conductguidelines. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
For some encyclopedia topics, the amount of relevant material on those topics is small enough that we can include essentially anything that is reliably sourced. Golden ratio is not one of those topics. It has such a huge literature (and one that, frankly, is filled with so much credulous nonsense) that we need to carefully pick and choose what we include in our article, so that we cover the significant topics without undue weight being given to topics that are not particularly important. In particular I believe that Tibbits' request for "specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements" is wrongheaded — value judgements are exactly what we need. My own judgement about the particular topic in question is that it is certainly not nonsense, and is reliably sourced, but its significance has not been made clear, especially given the length and level of detail in Tibbits' preferred version of the text. So, if he is to change the minds of the multiple editors opposed to this material, what Tibbits needs is not reliable sourcing for the truth of this material, but for its significance as an important part of the golden ratio topic: for instance, does the connection he describes inform other applications of the golden ratio? Is it fundamental to all mechanical systems of this type, or is it just an algebraic coincidence caused by the fact that these systems are described by low-degree polynomials with integer coefficients, some of which have the golden ratio as root and others of which don't? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't regularly edit WP:Mathematics, I am however a Mathematician. The Golden ratio has been the subject of several monographs and has been mentioned in almost any disciplines spanning science and art and the appearance of the golden ratio in dynamical systems may like other universals from Chaos theory (Feigenbaum constants) illuminate why the ratio is so pervasive. I think that that User:Tibbits has more than demonstrated the factual basis for including a new section on dynamics into the article. I say this because as an independent observer I find his sources of a fine pedigree and indicative that WP:Due weight is in excess of a number of exiting section (e.g. book design). Having looked over the talk page and I find that the comments have shied away from the facts and from actual policy and have have centered on whether the material is worthy of inclusion. While this is a pragmatic concern it does not merit deleting the section outright as this goes against the collaborative spirit of editing wikipedia. WP:DUE is quite clear that the length of the section should reflect its significance in line with available citations. If the section becomes too long or technical it can be moved to a sub article (which its sources could support) - and have a brief mention in the main article. Accordingly I recommend the following courses of action:
To restore the section to the best version produced by User:Tibbits.
To help trim it down to a size commensurate with the number of citations he has provided with the understanding that if the section becomes too long it will be forked to a new article keeping only a minimally technical extract from the lead section in the main article.
To the existing editors:
Avoid such vague langue like the word (obscure) when discussing mathematics (particularly when considering a system mechanically equivalent to ... a compound pendulum).
Complexity is not grounds for outright deletion of material. In Mathematical articles complexity is an indicator of quality per "no royal road to mathematics" - it is your mission should you choose to accept it to make mathematical material more accessible.
Ganging up on one editor is not in line with WP:Civility and creates a situation where he cannot respond to your claims. Better let just the first one or two editors handle new comers.
Requiring quotes from reputable sources is somewhat pointy - a full citation is sufficient for academics - so it should be good enough for us.
Comment: What worries me about Golden Ratio is that the current version of the article has vague statements and even peacock terms like "...deviations from the truly beautiful page proportions ..." and relies excessively on text from popular literature all indicative that you have been driving out more professional editors whom are necessary to further improve the article's quality. BO | Talk 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts and for the manner in which you presented them; constructive discussion is most helpful. Thoughts on this anyone? GoPhightins! 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
BO's program sounds promising. Is anyone willing to begin by restoring the Structural Dynamics section? Tibbits (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the way to proceed is to make a draft of a new section somewhere, like a user subpage, or on the article's talk page. If you and BO start, I'll help. Then, when it looks sensible and we get agreement, we can move it into the article. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Holy moly WikiBatMan! There's talk and then there's TALK. Please try to hash out at least a reasonable attempt and not giant reams of WP:TLDR content prior to coming here Hasteur (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
On Dec 31, 2012 a section on Jared Diamond's bio page, "Vengeance is Ours (2008)"that had been stable for years, was deleted on Dec 31, 2012 after James Cantor advocated for it with Joe Roe. It is notable that Dec 31 2012 was also the day of Dr. Diamond's book launch. On Dec 31, 2012, the word "forthcoming" was cut from in front of Dr. Diamond's book title to reflect knowledge of the books launch date by James Cantor and Joe Roe.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to work with James Cantor on the talk page as advised by an editor, Tiggerjay. In good faith, I went from advocating for the entire stable section to be restored to focusing on making small changes in one sentence. Dr. Cantor after only agreeing to the very small changes in one sentence, suddenly added a demand, in another sentence we never discussed. I asked questions and made arguments but he cut the words and declared the page done in middle of discussions.
How do you think we can help?
Looking at the case and offering independent advise.
Opening comments by James Cantor
I believe this was a premature and now stale request. Discussion was still on-going at the talkpage and has already moved past this point. Filer is an investigative reporter, asking for more detailed coverage of her findings on the BLP of the subject of her investigation. It might be illustrative to read her userpage mention of the topic.— James Cantor (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Jared Diamond discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Conduct, not content, dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. Consider WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI for conduct disputes, but — I am not implying anything, just giving general advice here — beware of WP:BOOMERANG when doing so. Feel free to refile here or pursue other content dispute resolution if you care to focus on specific content issues instead of conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Wonchop and I have several articles that we regularly edit in common. Since at least 2010, when I have brought issues I have with some of his edits, I have posted to his talk page to explain things or ask that he change his editing habits. He has only once ever responded to my inquiries. Within the past few months, with new articles both in our editing areas, he has once again performed edits that I found helpful, but in need of work, or I requested sources for content he added, but he has not responded to me. Examples of these situations are at User talk:Wonchop#JJBA episodes and User talk:Wonchop#Dokidoki! PreCure. Wonchop refuses to respond to anything and it is making things difficult, particularly when he refuses to change his editing practices.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I posted this message nearly 48 hours ago, requesting that he respond to me. He ignored this and edited as he does every other day.
How do you think we can help?
I need help getting the dialog started on the other end, or advice on how to deal with his continued refusal to cooperate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Wonchop
Have you ever considered that I don't respond to you because you are just plain stressful to argue with? Not to mention the matters you argue about are the pickiest of things (There's no source for this blatant Western reference so it must be written in weirdass romaji, songs should be credited to a character instead of the actual voice artist, pretty much everything involving the Persona 4 anime) and a lot of them don't really make sense in the first place (arguing about the order the episode titles are listed, really?). To put it as kindly as possible, you're the only one who cares. Wonchop (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
User talk:Wonchop discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John Lurie
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The sentence is badly written and makes claims about the artwork that cannot be referenced by a non expert. Tastes of the work itself, or comparisons to the artist's other work do not stand up to the notablitiy of the work itself or mention of the piece in the lead, just not with the mention being used now. Consensus is to re-word the mention of "Bear Surprise" by John Lurie" in the lead without mentioning the Russian internet meme or the opinion of the journalist describing the work as "Primitivism". Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is with the sentence in the lead, "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006." As I've tried explaining to Binksternet on his talk page, this sentence does not summarize a key point in the article. It's already included in the Painting section, and should not be included in the lead. Further, John Lurie is not a primitivist painter. Bear Surprise is distasteful, and it doesn't represent his painting.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Binksternet and I have discussed the issue on his UserTalk page.
How do you think we can help?
Please remove the sentence "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006" from the lead.
Opening comments by Binksternet
I hold that the lead section guideline, WP:LEAD, indicates that all major points of a person's biography that are covered in the article body should be mentioned in the lead section. To define "major" in this case, I think that anything worthy of an article on Wikipedia is worthy of mention in the opening paragraphs. There are three articles specifically based on the career of John Lurie: the Lounge Lizards, Bear Surprise and Fishing with John. All three of these should be mentioned in the lead section regardless of whether they are representative of the artist's work. A very notable work such as Bear Surprise does not have to be representative, or in good taste, to be important to the artist's biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
John Lurie discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. After reading your initial comments, I can state that the main point of contention is the worthiness of the inclusion of that specific sentence into the lead. I will take a look at both user's talk pages before further commenting on this issue. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Pinged participants. —Theopolisme(talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for hearing the dispute. Just to reiterate, I'm not disputing the inclusion of the Bear Surprise internet meme in the article, just in the lead section. Again, the painting isn't primitivist, and the sentence isn't a key point in the article. Reverend Eccles (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. From your comments, I see that we have several points: The importance of the painting, its inclusion on the lead, and if it's primitivist or not. We can deal with the first and third before jumping to the big one, the second. I think this is the best way to solve this dispute. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. According to Wikipedia's article on primitivism, it is "a Western art movement that borrows visual forms from non-Western or prehistoric peoples." Bear Surprise is clearly a post-modern cartoon. As shown in the photo of Lurie's serious painting in the Painting section, it isn't indicative of the bulk of his work. In light of the rest of his career (music, film, television, art exhibits in museums all over the world), Bear Surprise is unimportant. Reverend Eccles (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Bear Surprise is important no matter what kind of painting style we determine it to be. Bear Surprise is important no matter whether it is indicative of Lurie´s larger body of work. Bear Surprise is important because it was extremely popular in Russia and became an internet meme. It is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the painting style can only be determined using reliable sources; otherwise it would be considered original research. On the point of level of importance, I can see how the meme thing highlighted the painting even if it was not important before. We can further explore that, I think. — ΛΧΣ21 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There's no source calling it primitivist. The meme is mentioned in the Painting section, and that's not being disputed. But it's not key to John Lurie or his career, and has no place in the lead. Reverend Eccles (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the use of the term 'primitivist' was taken from this Moscow Times article, which is the citation for the Bear Surprise line in the Painting section. It says that Lurie's style "can be called primitivist or naive", but it doesn't specifically apply either of those terms to Bear Surprise (or any other individual painting). CarrieVS (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Then we'd have to find another source that names it as primitivist, or remove the claim as unsourced. I think that this solves this issue. Going back to the other one, I'd like to see a more deep argumentation from both parties as to why it should or shouldn't be included on the lead. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 18:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have "deep" argument; I have very simple argument. Three of Wikipedia's articles are based on the career of John Lurie, and all three of these should be mentioned in the lead section. This argument follows the WP:LEAD guideline which says, among other things, that the lead section should "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Bear Surprise helps to establish Lurie's notability, and is one of his most important works. The guideline also says "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject." None of Lurie's paintings except Bear Surprise has received widespread notice. Thus, the painting is especially important to his painting career, whether he likes it or not. Finally, LEAD says that for BLPs, "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm." We should certainly not overemphasize the painting Bear Surprise but then again we should not suppress its mention. The painting must be mentioned in the lead section if the LEAD guideline is to be followed. Note that following the LEAD guideline is a key part of WP:WIAGA, the list of requirements for a Good Article. There is no way to have a Good Article without accepting LEAD as a valid guideline. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that WP:LEAD not be followed. We just need to come to an agreement about whether this painting is one of the most important points, and whether it does establish notability. So,
"None of Lurie's paintings except Bear Surprise has received widespread notice. Thus, the painting is especially important to his painting career." ~~Binksternet
Let's discuss that. It certainly seems reasonable to me, but we should remember that painting is only a part of Lurie's career, so something important to his painting career might not be automatically important overall. CarrieVS (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. We are discussing the work of an arist, notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. This particular artist has gained a good deal of notablitlity with his painting. His work with different media will certainly be a large part of his overall importance as an artist...which is what makes the figure notable, but the artwork has become a good part of his lifework even if it seems somewhat recent. I should make a couple of observations. The article itself is only start class, so whether or not to follow suggested MOS WP:LEAD guideline may or may not help to improve the article at this point. I do agree that the paining is not primitivism but disagree that the source was not referring to it as such. They were discussing the artist's style in reference to his range in painting specifically. If the author of the source is an expert in the field we can leave the mention but, it has to be attributed to the author and source. A discription of what the artist's work is, analysis of it etc, all require multiple reliable sourcing because this is a BLP article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Break
The line of prose as it currently reads is badly written and is actually inaccurate: "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006.". The painting did not become an internet meme. The decscription of the work as "primitivism" is simply not being made by an expert in art, art theory or even media. The author, Victor Sonkin is a "scholar specializing in verse theory and Slavic literature" [1]. I would not use this source to label the work's style as fact. It should be attributed to the author and source as opinion (as they are not experts and even experts can be wrong). I would prefer this not be included at the top of the article. A scholar in literature is not the author to use in the lead (and it really should be referenced in the lead if used) to describe the work of a visual artist. The article itself mentions the painting was the inspiration to a Russian internet meme, but it was very localized and not something that may be notable enough for the lead section from the tiny, one sentence mention in the article. At this point I am inclined to support the removal from the lead entirely. There is no reason "Bear Surprise" cannot be mentioned in the lead and I agree that it is important enough a work to be mentioned along with the artist's work in music and television, just not the way it is at the moment. Binksternet, can you propose some different prose?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have analyzed this a bit further and I reached this conclusions:
The Bear Surprise painting has to be mentioned in the lead.
The fact that it became an internet meme may not necessarily be mentioned, unless it is proven to be highly important.
The "primitivist" claim, made by a single source, should be moved outside the lead and attributed as a personal opinion instead of a fact, because to be a fact, it has to be mentioned by many sources and regarded as it.
I am inclined to accept not a removal, but a rewording of the sentence. Any thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes. I have never been attached to the word "primitivist" and if the source is not an art expert then let us drop it. The internet meme bit may be developed in the article body if good sources are found. Bear Surprise must be mentioned in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts from Reverend Eccles? — ΛΧΣ21 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Huey P. Newton, Talk:Huey P. Newton
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The filing editor added information from a source that has since been deemed to be minority opinion and should be excluded from the article per BLP policy: WP:BDP for the recently dead. "Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people." The consensus from the discussion is to exclude the material. Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
One editor repeats "extraordinary claims" (e.g. WP:REDFLAG) from a particular source (this article. Previous discussions have taken place on the talk page about the WP:RS status of other pieces by the same author (Karen Coleman), as there is some dispute. My attempts to find other sources that corroborate the claims that this other editor feels the need to insert have turned up empty-handed. Furthermore, rather than wait until more substantial discussion or, better yet, consensus has been achieved, this same editor has simply re-reverted, and has even posted a warning about the number of reverts that have been made in their edit summary.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Asking for additional, corroborating sources, after attempting to find such sources myself.
How do you think we can help?
Provide guidance on WP:REDFLAG in this context, make suggestions on the WP:RS status of Coleman as an author, and her Salon piece in particular.
Opening comments by Apostle12
For about two months now the WP "Huey Newton" article has contained the following entry under the "Death" section:
Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a Newton benefactor who through the years had provided him with cars, homes, and millions of dollars in attorney fees, paid for Newton's funeral.
This entry was sourced with an article authored by highly-respected journalist Kate Coleman titled: "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther," which appeared in the June 9, 2012 edition of Salon magazine. In this case "The Producer" referred to Bert Schneider, who had recently died, providing access for the first time to handwritten letters he received from Huey Newton during the 1980s.
Kate Coleman (editor UsetheCommandLine mistakenly refers to her as "Karen Coleman") was a natural to gain access to the letters Newton wrote to Schneider, because she has been writing about Newton, the Black Panthers, and the New Left for more than thirty-five years. Her article "The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang in the Center of the Black Panther Party" (New Times Magazine, 1978) was a carefully researched, seminal piece that pulled back the curtain on Newton's violent criminality and his criminalization of the Black Panther Party. A subsequent article, "Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops" appeared in a 1980 edition of New West Magazine and finally put the lie to Cleaver's and Newton's 1967 claim that the Oakland police had ambushed Cleaver, resulting in Bobby Hutton's death and martydom. Coleman has written at regular intervals about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and her pieces have been published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and many other national newspapers. Coleman's research on Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party has always been impeccable; there is no reason to distrust her.
After carefully reading Coleman's latest "True Hollywood Story" article (see above), I augmented the "Death" section entry to read:
Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a benefactor of leftist causes and friend of Newton, through the years provided him with money for a car, a down payment for a home, and more than $1 million in attorney's fees. Journalist Kate Coleman reports that handwritten letters between Newton and Schneider, revealed after Schneider's 2011 death, demonstrate that by at least the 1980s the two had became lovers...."Newton glowingly expresses his 'joy and sensual excitement' after spending his first night following his release from prison with Schneider. The producer had bailed him out, driven him in a white stretch limo by the prison so he could wave to his fellow prisoners, then taken him off to spend the night together 'on top of the (San Francisco) Hyatt.'" In the end, Schneider paid for Newton's funeral.
I believe the information I added is important for WP readers to know, since the fact that Newton and Schneider's well-known camaraderie also became a love affair may go far in explaining Schneider's unrelenting financial and moral support. We know from many other sources that Schneider paid large sums to cover the rent on Newton's penthouse, that he helped Newton escape to Cuba, that he paid untold sums to lawyers (one case alone cost over $1 million), and that Schneider's name was on the mortgage for Newton's residence in the Oakland hills.
During the past 12-13 hours, editor UsetheCommandLine has repeatedly reverted this entire paragraph, not just the new information I added but the longstanding, non-controversial information re: Schneider's extensive financial support and his footing the bill for Newton's funeral. When I objected that he was engaging in disruptive "meat cleaver" editing, he announced that Kate Coleman is an unreliable source, which can hardly be the case--Coleman's credibility regarding Newton, Cleaver and the Black Panthers has never been contested, and it would be difficult for any Newton, Cleaver or Black Panther scholar to ignore her work. In addition, her articles are extensively cited in many WP articles.
I wish to reinstate the paragraph, including the new information about Schneider's and Newton's personal relationship. Editor UsetheCommandLine has now reverted me THREE TIMES (!), and he has been unwilling to suggest any compromise whatever (a shorter quote, for example). This mirrors previous experience with his editing, on this article and others, which has driven at least a few editors away; he pretends to "discuss" the facts on Talk but demonstrates complete intransigence when it comes to his unsupported claims of unreliable sourcing and/or undue emphasis. I have never seen him suggest, or accept, a compromise. Apostle12 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Huey P. Newton, Talk:Huey P. Newton discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be happy to help out. Let me review some of the material first. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Question #1 for Apostle12: the article came out in June 2012, about 7 months ago. Is there any other reliable source that also suggests that the two had a homosexual relationship? Or is the Coleman article in Salon the only source that asserts that? --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Question #2 for Apostle12: We need to assess the reliability of Kate Coleman. You cite her 1978 article published in "New Times", which was a fairly minor publication (I think it is New Times (magazine)). In Google books, I see only 3 references to the 1978 Coleman article: [2]. Google web shows only 3 hits also [3]. Do you have any other evidence of Kate Coleman's reliability? E.g. critics that have commented on or reviewed her work? Has she been published by any major publishers? Does she have any academic credentials? --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, the New Times (magazine) article was particularly important in terms of this article (though this is distinct from the article/publication/author being reliable as a source) because Newton himself publicly attacked the claims made in it (according to Pearson, p.282).
Joe Street, in his article "The Historiography of the Black Panther Party" (the only publication I'm aware of that has looked at the credibility of the various sources) mentions Coleman several times, and while he does say her New Times article "revealed the depths to which the BPP, and Newton in particular, had sunk." which suggests a factual basis, in the very same paragraph he states that she had been provided research material for the article by David Horowitz, who Street also characterizes as a "right-winger" and "antagonistic". Street goes on to say, also in the same paragraph, that another article penned in part by Horowitz was "Less an analysis of the party than a character assassination of Newton..."
I will also note that Coleman's writings (two of her more extensive pieces) have appeared on Horowitz's FrontPageMag website, and that Horowitz and Coleman's writings make up a substantial portion, if not the majority of the published material on salon.com about Newton and the Panthers. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Question #3 for Apostle12: Have Bert Schneider's personal letters been published anywhere? --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am Amadscientist, another volunteer here on DR/N. I am concerned with the addition of material that consensus sppears to have agreed not be used. I am also a little scepitical of the neutrality in the prose as well as the source itself being used to source this information as fact. While the subject has been deceased for about 25 years, I would argue this is still a recent death BLP and should be treated in the same manner as a regular BLP article due to the controversial nature of the figure and the politics surrounding his life etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy applies only to material about persons that are alive. So, strictly speaking, the strict regulations defined by WP:BLP do not apply to this DRN case. On the other hand, you are correct that every WP article needs to be neutral and use reliable sources. So, we need to focus on scrutinizing the Coleman source and deciding if it is acceptable or not. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP does in fact cover recently dead persons - WP:BDP. CarrieVS (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out ... I was not aware of the WP:BDP policy. BDP only applies to "recently dead" persons, so Newton is not an issue here; but Schneider died about one year ago, which I suppose qualifies as "recent", so BDP does apply to him. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Colemesn seems to be rather weak as a source on her own. If I understand it this is all based on the Times article from several decades ago that the author cites in a newer Salon article. I have to call this fringe, without multiple sources from seperate RS authors and publishers. Even without going as far as seeing this as fring it is very much minority viewpoint and I agree it doesn't seem to deserve mention in Wikipedia. Coleman's credentials seems to be somewhat limited to call this RS. Something of a "thruther" I believe. I tend to see this as a somewhat partisan issue from a source that doesn't stand up on its own well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That is my gut feeling also. But let's wait for Apostle12 to reply and provide more information. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Notified Apostle12 about the pending questions here. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If Apostle12 doesn't respond in a timely fashion, how then should we treat Coleman as a source? Mostly, I mean the Salon article, but I think that has connotations for our treatment of her other articles as well. There have been a number of other discussions on the talk page about it. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is (a) she can be used as a source for non-controversial material; (b) when she is used as a source, the text should explicitly identify her as the origin of the claim (not just in a footnote); (c) she should not be used as a source for the alleged homosexual relationship, which may mean that that material is omitted from the article. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In case this is of use (on the funeral issue), Fredricka Newton states that Newton's funeral was paid for by lots of small donations from the local community (Hilliard and Zimmerman/Zimmerman, Huey p. 282). Given that FN was Huey Newton's wife and has an interest in the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation, she can't be considered wholly neutral but the information about funding might be useful in providing a counterpoint to Coleman's assertion. Jswba (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I am of the opinion right now that, in the absence of compelling evidence other than Coleman, the information about how his funeral was funded does not need to be in there. Including Coleman's accusations without substantial evidence makes WP a platform for that unsubstantiated claim. Since Apostle12 has stated that it is currently inconvenient for him/her to respond here, I wonder how other folks feel about that position, and if it is justifiable. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
to be clear, the position I am referring to is excluding the reference or discussion about funeral funding entirely. Too many competing interests without any sort of corroboration, in my view. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Medical uses_of_silver
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Ryanspir on 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim.
2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing on the talk page
How do you think we can help?
By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs.
Opening comments by Zad68
1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Doc James
A great deal has been written on Wikipedia about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk [4] and there is definitely some of that.
I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review [5] which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Alexbrn
I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed.
However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion
not relevant to discussion
user:Zad does not appear to exist. Certainly, that user has no contributions so can't be involved in this dispute. There is a Zad68 who appears to have been involved, and I've changed 'users involved' appropriately. Zad68 has been notified. CarrieVS (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, all of you.
As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right?
I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources.
What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source.
It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Secondary reasoning
According to:
"It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" (From the relevant RSN discussion)
Quackwatch is considered as provocative and containing of self-published articles. Here I'll provide reliable primary and secondary available sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209 - However the third article PMID18854209 is a recent review article in a MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. In my opinion, that article is worth looking into and possibly using in this article. (By Zad)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163208 - Synergy between novel antimicrobials and conventional antibiotics or bacteriocins. Secondary source. "..examines the enhancement of antibiotic efficacy by their combination with new antimicrobials, such as plant-derived compounds, metal ions and nanoparticles and bacteriophage lytic enzymes
It would be very highly doubtful and very unusual to have many scientists investigating a quackery substance. Not to mention the positive results all of the articles demonstrate. Ryanspir (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here's my thoughts on that.
Are any of these about ingesting colloidal silver, as treatments for any disease? If not, I don't think they apply to this situation, nor would they be evidence that that use of colloidal silver is not 'quackery'.
Would you agree that if better sources can't be found (and agreed to be appropriate), one of the Quackwatch sources could be used, with an in-text attribution such as "Quackwatch says..."? If not, could you give reasons why. CarrieVS (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Per "Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles." I would highlight the word "always".
I wouldn't like Quackwatch to be used in this article because it makes the article speculative. I have further established that higher quality, peer-reviewed research is present, current, in abundance and with positive results.
In relation to ingestion, I'm currently satisfied with the FDA advisory regarding that, the link is here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm. I have no problem of the FDA advisory to be used in the article. In fact, I have proposed also to remove all NCCAM refereed context and only use the current FDA's one as it outlines the current situations, in which some of the silver containing preparations has been approved by the FDA for external use, and none were approved for ingestion.
I'll also bring to your attention, that the updated quackwatch article says: "(or anything else)". That contradicts the FDA advisory which separates ingestion (which is still in the field of alternative medicine) with external application. A quote from the FDA advisory: "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth."
As such, I agree that this quote from FDA can be used specifically in relation to ingestion: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of standards than those that apply to drugs. For example, FDA does not approve dietary supplements or their labels before they are sold. It is unlawful for a manufacturer to represent a dietary supplement containing silver as able to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure any disease."
If that is ok with you, there is no need to use quackwatch (or NCCAM for this matter). Ryanspir (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, there's no need to keep adding to the thread on your talk page. I'm watching this page so I'll know when you reply. I only posted my last reply there so that the others would see it.
Firstly, which of the sources you've found pertain to ingestion of colloidal silver to treat diseases? Please bear in mind that I am very far from an expert on this topic or on medical Wikipedia articles in general.
Secondly, can I repeat my question from above, if - this is a hypothetical situation - better sources can't be found and agreed to be appropriate, would you then - in that hypothetical situation - agree to use the Quackwatch source?
Thirdly, as I understood the sentence, the phrase "or anything else" referred to treating diseases by ingestion of colloidal silver.
Fourthly, I'm not sure whether the FDA quote is applicable either. Precisely what content would you be using it to source? CarrieVS (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Another aside: from some of the things you've said, I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that I have a position of authority or would be able to overrule the other editors. That is not the case: volunteers have no special powers or privileges, and we can only try to help you come to an agreement with the other editors. If you're hoping for me to issue some sort of ruling in the face of consensus, we might as well close this now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing.
1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old.
- "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1.
2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead.
(Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC))
Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The relevant quote
The relevant quote is: "Colloidal Silver
Many colloidal silver and silver salt preparations have been touted as cures for AIDS, chronic fatigue, herpes, TB, syphilis, lupus, malaria, plague, acne, impetigo, and many other diseases. Lyme disease is just the latest target. A 1996 Federal Register notice stated the "FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of . . . colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions." The same notice stated that "human consumption of silver may result in argyria—a permanent ashen-gray or blue discoloration of the skin, conjunctiva, and internal organs" [17]. Despite these warnings, some websites devoted to Lyme disease or colloidal silver products display misleading reports about laboratory experiments in which colloidal silver killed spirochetes. One such report is a letter from Dr. Burgdorfer, the discoverer of the Lyme spirochete. The letter merely reports on a pilot study using colloidal silver to kill spirochetes in a test tube and states that additional laboratory and human studies are underway. Many silver and Lyme advocates have used the letter to suggest that colloidal silver has been proven effective against Lyme disease. However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." It referenced to [17] which is Federal Register 61:53685-53688, 1996.
The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as).
I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok.
"Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion.
I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion.
If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus.
Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything.
Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic
I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations:
"This question [of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source] has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit."
"I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit."
"On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source."
From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics."
From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Wikipedia articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does
This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources"
This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use.
I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion.
Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments.
I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN.
I think with that we may close the current RSN.
p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach.
The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here?
If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same.
That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify:
There is absolutely no consensus to remove all references/uses of Quackwatch in the article and leave it like that. It was very disappointing to see Ryan jump the gun and remove it while this DRN conversation over exactly that is still active and unresolved.
To try to better respect the WP:MEDRS timeframe, there is a proposal to replace the existing article content "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as 'risk without benefit'." sourced to the Quackwatch Colloidal silver article last updated 20085 with something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." sourced to the Quackwatch Lyme disease article. Note this is just a proposal, we haven't worked out an exact agreement on it.
If we can't come to an agreement on this replacement proposal, there is no agreement or consensus to remove the existing Quackwatch-sourced content, for the reasons Doc James and others have already stated.
Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus. Zad68 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be going over old ground a bit.
This is what we have consensus on:
We are going to include one of the Quackwatch articles.
Ingesting colloidal silver is an alternative treatment without scientific evidence of benefit.
The main thing we have to decide on is whether or not to replace the existing content sourced to the older Colloidal Silver Quackwatch article with something sourced to the newer Lyme Disease one. Now,
without editing the article until and unless we've finished discussing and explicitly agreed to do so,
without making interpretations of anyone else's comments or claiming we've reached consensus on things other than those listed above,
can you say whether you agree to make the change, or disagree and want to keep the current content and source. Keep arguments and explanations very brief for now; when we have an idea who objects to what, then we can start trying to persuade each other, if we need to. CarrieVS (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree to the change, although I would not mind if the existing content were to stay as-is either. Zad68 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree using wording: "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (would also be happy with the status quo) Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both. Zad68 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Good points. Agree it is useful for the reader to know this is on QW's radar. Strongly agree with suggestion to use both QW sources. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Alex Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Not relevant to discussion.
I see that Ryan's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry -doesn't come as a surprise, but it is a shame as we finally seemed to be making some progress. I assume the rest of you can all agree on what to say and cite and we can wrap this thread up? CarrieVS (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think with that, there is no more impediment to agreement and consensus and this can be closed. Zad68 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems it was a misunderstanding. CarrieVS (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There has been some discussion - mainly going over old ground - on my talk page following tha last comment on this thread. No new conclusions were reached. Can we continue the discussion here, please. CarrieVS (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Medical uses of silver and Quackwatch -- are we done?
Are we done? Can this be closed? Zad68 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Ryan hasn't responded, or indeed made any contributions, since Wednesday. I'm not going to close it just because one side of the dispute has been away from Wikipedia for two days, since he might just not be able to get online, but I would suggest that, since the rest of you are in agreement, you go on with editing as if it was done. If Ryan has any more to say on the matter I'll either let you guys know or I'll archive this as failed, depending on whether I think there's any point continuing to discuss it - if Ryan's still going over the same ground that's he's already failed to change consensus on for the umpteenth time, there won't be. If it gets to two weeks since it was filed and no-one has said anything for (I think it's 24 hours), it'll be automatically archived. CarrieVS (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
A little late but open.Go ahead and close it after two weeks but shouldn't it be opened?24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone mentioned that indiscriminate use of colloidal silver causes human being's skin to turn blue? If the previously mentioned Quackwatch article does include that warning, I think that it would be a good source.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'shouldn't it be opened?' I had intended to close the thread several days ago, unless Ryanspir had replied again in that time, but I've since heard from him (on my talk page) that he does intend to continue the discussion so I was leaving it until either he returned or the case is archived. Regarding silver turning you blue, there is a section about it in the article already. CarrieVS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me but I was attempting to jiggle the pink statement at the top of this DRN. I was under the impression that a volunteer could open a discussion by posting but it is still pink-my bad.Yes I did see that under side-effects ty.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Real Housewives of XYZ
Consensus and policy are established on the matter. Only proponent of inclusion is moving quotes off-site. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 19:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 24.0.133.234 on 23:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Tried to discuss but talk page has been vandalized and subjected-to off-topic bureaucratic nonsense and back-slapping behavior. Tried to inform those who do not understand the topic. It is being called "quotes" but really it is reference material of signature-statements that happens to have been spoken.
How do you think we can help?
We need a safe place to discuss the issue without heavy-handed war-type behavior.
Opening comments by Jac16888
Content like ""I give people enough rope to hang themselves, and the smart people don't." (Season 1)" and ""People have a hard time saying no to me, and that's just been my blessing." (Season 1)" as the opener to each character/cast members description section, over half a dozen or so different articles. Do I really need to explain why this is bad?--Jac16888Talk 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record I made this change to this DRN, for the sake of clarity, I do not believe this to be inappropriate--Jac16888Talk 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by 24.0.133.234
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
To respond to the content: the content of the so-called "quotes" cannot be debated because it is factual. What I am hoping that people/editors will understand is that yes, the material is correctly surrounded by quotation marks, and could be called, "quotes", but for the purpose of what it was being used-for on Wikipedia, it is only a reference of signature-statements, "siggys", which are verbalized by each character in the opening sequence of each individual show. Usually, the "siggys"/"quotes", are changed each season to reflect changes in attitudes and circumstances of each character.
Since there are a few different shows, and umpteen different characters, deleting each "quote"/"siggy"-is deleting a vast amount of painstaking editor-added material. And once-again I will mention that this issue has been debated before and the outcome was to continue to allow the material.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
IN THE INTEREST OF CLARIFICATION HERE IS A SHORT CLIP ON YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSGa30PcDPE . That is what we are discussing. The part where each character makes a statement. To further explain, the content of statements is changed every season usually, the content of the openers is anticipated, and commented-on in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Wikipedia provided access to the openers without a person having to hunt and find each season/and or character's video clip, OR, (prevented) having-to wait 'till a particular episode was/is re-broadcasted.
There's nothing to discuss here. These are pull quotes. We are an encyclopedia--not a TV show, not a fan site, not a "tell all" book, and we don't do pull quotes. If any one or more of these "signatures" have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, then we need to hear what the secondary sources have to say, and we need to put the info in running text. But our primary purpose is not primary source material information. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Mike Rosoft
Originally, I wasn't really involved in this dispute - I just removed 24.0.133.234's text dump of old discussions (which he has acknowledged was "ill-formatted and messy" [11]) and refactored the other comments in accordance with the normal Wikipedia practices - the most recent discussion goes to the bottom of the talk page, not to the top; likewise, the most recent comment goes to the bottom of the discussion or under the post it responds to. (See the talk page guidelines.)
But I agree that the situation is clear - the quotes have been rejected by at least two users (three, if I am to be included), and 24.0.133.234 is revert warring to keep them in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Post additional comments here please:
Perhaps you should remove your name from the Volunteer list[12] so that other volunteers can see that no one is addressing this dispute. You should also allow some time for uninvolved editors to analyze the problem. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Note I have removed the IP. Only registered users can volunteer. — ΛΧΣ21 05:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No they are not pull-quotes. Pull-quotes are quotes that are set-apart in a different typography usually, but are always repeated in the article that they are pulled-from24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case-why does this section say that it is being attended-to by a volunteer? I am registered, I am not logged in if that makes any difference.But I'd like to see where it says that only registered editors may volunteer?24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC) And the topic has attracted another look on its talk page btw with additional requests. The reason why I did not delete my own name from the list of volunteers is because I was considering working on another dispute AND I did not know what would happen to this dispute if I did that before someone else volunteered to do it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Dayewalker
Agree as above, there's nothing to be gained from adding these pull quotes to the articles. They are not notable in any way, they're just promotional material for the show. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You are agreeing with a statement that is incorrect FYI. The person who stated that above, the one that you agree-with has previously been notified that they are also incorrectly using the term "pull-quotes". Please make yourself familiar with what a pull-quote is if you are going to use that in a dispute. Pull-quotes, are always repeated in the main article. That is how you can differentiate.24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Pinkadelica
I opened an RfC on the matter without realizing this discussion was taking place (I've since closed it). Just to reiterate what I said on the article talk page and in the RfC, this information is trivial at best and runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no valid reason to keep this information and I haven't seen 24.0.133.234 actually give a valid, policy based reason to retain the content (sorry, but WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE applies to reasonable content, not trivia). Pinkadelica♣ 12:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Real Housewives of XYZ discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Does anyone know how to request an additional volunteer to help with this dispute?
NOW that opening statements have been made and some of the participants are at risk of posting over 2000 char. here is a spot for them to post more info.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I see there isn't actually an impartial DRN volunteer taking this discussion yet despite it being tagged as having one. I'm happy to open this up for discussion. I'd like all participants to direct discussion below this comment and not in the Opening Comments statements by users above from this point forward. Just from reading what's on this page it seems to me like a consensus exists against the IP editor. I have not had a chance to watch the video that individual linked yet (network restrictions) but I will endevour to do so later. I'd like to direct a question towards IP24.0, the inclusion of this information seems like it may be WP:FANCRUFT rather than encyclopaedic content, what is your argument against this? My reasons for this conclusion are that it is in-universe character information which would better suit a character article on a subject wikia. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for volunteering. I would almost have to agree with you as far as the stuff being "in universe", except for the fact that since the genre is reality, to agree with that as far as this, or Wikipedia is concerned, and in this specific instance, would go against the precedent on Wikipedia of treating certain reality shows as "reality". The statements could be considered "lines" as-in a script, but no one has ever admitted to The Real Housewives of... being scripted, especially when it comes to words that are spoken. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Also in the 1st paragraph describing FANCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATEis brought-up. The material is a "discriminate" collection of info. "A "discriminate collection of information" does not violate the policy." Thus, the hoarding of information WP:DISCRIMINATEdoes not apply. It qualifies precisely as a discriminate collection of information. More like an almanac, mentioned under WP:FIVEPILLARS1)-"It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias almanacs, and gazetteers"24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
To respond that the deleted items are "trivia". Some of the statements are well-known enough on their own that they could correctly be used-as, or called, "trivia". But, in this case, due to the way that the material was assembled, (chronologically by season, correctly quoted, with a convention added that current/or most recent introductory statement be shown in "bold"), AND because not ALL of the statements are well-known enough to be considered trivia-the global list is not trivia. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Also-yes there has been behavior concerning this that has been directed at myself personally as an editor. My main mission on Wikipedia is to protect the destruction of information by vandals and those with an agenda. I also have a problem with editors who abuse admin. status to bully editors and promote their agenda(s) and promote themselves on Wikipedia with little concern for content.
My original involvement in this dispute was when I undid the deletion of the material. At that point I requested a discussion and consensus before deleting the material again. This was ignored, edit-warred, comments of, "rubbish" etc. with no attempt despite repeatedly asking that a consensus be discussed. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'm a drive by editor, just offering some input as a neutral editor (I'm also a DRN volunteer, but I'm not offering to act as a mediator in this DRN case). I concur with Dayewalker, Pinkadelic and Rosoft above: These quotes should not be included in the articles unless there is a compelling reason. An example of when quotes might be appropriate would be if some secondary source (e.g. a major critic writing a major article about the TV show) identified the quotes as important. Absent such a secondary source, the quotes should not be in the articles. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that like Noleander, I've also said (either here, my talk page, or the article talk page, I don't recall which) several times that if specific quotations are the subject of critical commentary, then we could consider inserting those (and only those)...but we would focus on what the secondary source says, not the quote itself. As for the discriminate/indiscriminate distinction, simply because a list of info is discriminate does not mean it necessarily has a place here on Wikipedia. One of the common examples is that we could in some countries reliably source all of the people living in a specific city, and write up that list on Wikipedia. However, such a list would clearly not be allowed (WP:NOT would be the place to start for policies). The lot of us are arguing that the same thing is true here: these "signature lines", as you've called them, are of in-universe interest, but not out-of-universe. Furthermore, they have no lasting value in and of themselves--only secondary source commentary would. Finally, I would like the IP editor to please stop calling the growing number of editors who support removal as "vandals" or "abusers"; it's often considered a personal attack (see WP:VANDAL) to label good faith edits to improve the encyclopedia as vandalism. And I very much feel that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove this excessive amount of in-universe info. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is about the content not editor conduct. Would all sides please refrain from finger pointing and name calling. Going forward, I think disallowing WP:FANCRUFT because it is a reality show and not (believed to be) scripted is an invalid argument as the quotes, as far as I can see, have little critical commentary outside a fanlike position. IP24.0, can you link some critical commentary for the quotes? One last point, be aware WP:OTHERSTUFF: just because one thing exists on Wikipedia doesn't make that the rule. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
For the millionth time, how you want to define them is completely irrelevant. Whatever they are, they are not encyclopedic, they do not belong on Wikipedia, and you have have not given a single convincing statement to the contrary. These so-called sources you're coming up with just show that you still are refusing to listen to what multiple editors have tried to explain to you. It is not enough to show that these "quotes" were actually said, what is required is that they be discussed, that they are shown have actual relevance and importance.--Jac16888Talk 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you would call the archived New York Times a "so-called" secondary source. I have also requested that if there is some problem or acceptable source/secondary that would do the trick, that someone request that source because there is a vast amount of sources available. If I have been mistaken in listing the NYT(archives), as a secondary source, then I'm going to need some more clues here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this statement but it is an analogy to the problem here. I have a collection-a set of brightly-colored ceramic retro pottery. It is TRUE, that the pottery set includes bowls. Because the paint that was used at that time contained a lot of lead, (for the color), using the items as dishes for eating purposes is an unhealthy option. Occasionally someone will mistakenly use one of the items as a "dish", and put it into circulation with the regular household dishes. At that point, I must inform that person that although the item is indeed a "dish", that is not why I have it, AND using it as a "dish", is not its purpose-it is collectible pottery.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2013 (U 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The mistake of classifying the statements as "quotes" was/were cited as the reason(s) for deletion. That again is the most important reason that they not be referred-to as "quotes". The fact that they are quotes is not relevant and actually detracts from the significance of the "keep"-argument. They are introductory statements, for each character, used in the opening-sequence of each episode of The Real Housewives of....The opening of the show usually stays the same for each season, and also usually the tag-line/introductory statements are changed for each new season. I don't have a problem calling them "title-cards", or anything that would not have the word quote in it to avoid confusion. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as the statement that the not-quotes are not encyclopaedic. I disagree. Personally, I think that they are more almanac-like, since they are changed seasonally, but once again if I have to spend much more time with this I am just going to take them and put them somewhere else.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You continue to ignore everything you are told and go off on irrelevant nonsensical rants, made all the more annoying by your inability to format your conversations properly - the ny times link could be useful for actual content in the article but in no way does support/discuss/analyse/give context to the content you want restoring, and as for the rest, youtube, myspace and a blatant promo piece - did you bother to read the policies about references you were pointed to? Please take a hint from the complete lack of support for your argument that these (for sake of argument lets call them) pieces of shit belong on Wikipedia and do what you've promised to do repeatedly - take them somewhere else--Jac16888Talk 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
don't worry I already did:)!24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
And when I am finished with my new site, hint, "real housewivesQUOTES" I better not see anybody COPYVIO ta ta24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I am with Jac16888 here. What we call them is irrelevant. They are units of text taken from the show. Are they prominent in the show? Maybe. Are they relevant outside of the show? I don't know, it hasn't been established. If you can establish that they are relevant outside of the show, add what those secondary sources say, and not the "items" (whatever you call them). So, unless you can overcome the WP:NOT argument...well, I don't think there's anything more to say here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I did that already.(secondary resources. including mentioning that there is an over-abundance of sources). I really do not want to waste much more of my time repeating the same thing over and over and either not being understood, or being jerked-around not really sure but I find it hard to believe that people could be so dense. The editor who started this was wrong in the first place and nasty about it and abused Wikipedia and anyone who doesn't get that, well I guess I have to feel sorry for you too. And just to respond to the point that
we are talking (not)about units of text taken from the show-whatever that means, they were in the opening sequence, so not really "in" the show. Just for the record. Almost everyone who has responded has proven that they are not at all familiar with the show/ignorant, which would not be a problem if you had bothered to familiarize yourselves with what was being discussed before taking actions and getting involved. I would just have to say that seeing how bent out of shape some editors get here over a stupid television show when they do not even know what they are talking-about, and constantly acting paranoid that someone is promoting or advertising something, it doesn't show Wikipedia in a good light in general and I'm glad that I can avoid the SEO of Wikipedia by purposely excluding it from my search-engine results, and always hoping that Google will Panda or whatever it down a few pages based-on myself and other people who don't want this kind-of garbage served-up with our research. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
If the words occur within the space of time from when the show begins to when it ends (excluding commercials), they are part of the show. Also, by definition, if the words are someone else's words and copied verbatim with attribution, they are "quotations". And yes, you provided a source. Now, let's take that source, add that source to the article, along with a short summary (a sentence or two) of what it says. Not the original lines/title cards/signatures/quotes/signature phrases. There literally are not any sources you could provide that would support including those words from the show itself. To others: have the "lines" been removed from all of the articles, or just the New Jersey one? I don't see any benefit to continuing to talk to 24 when he won't listen to a clear, policy based consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this going much further other than in an argument. IP24.0, you are attempting to redefine the dictionary definition of a quote in your arguments, unfortunately you will not be able to do this as that is why we have dictionaries. Secondly, please review the policies on sourcing. It is not enough to link to videos or sites where the quotes are mentioned, they must have critical commentary. Furthermore, if you are to go away and create a website, populate it with quotes and then someone was to take the quotes and place them on wikipedia there would be no COPYVIO as the quotes are not your IP. If you were to write critical commentary on the quotes and that was copied verbatim then you could call COPYVIO. However, it'd probably be removed because your site would, likely, fail WP:RS. If no one has much more to say other than arguments I'll close this case in 48 hours. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we're done with this discussion. Consensus clearly indicates these quotes don't belong on the Real Housewives pages, and whatever the IP wants to do with them outside of Wikipedia is his business. Seems settled to me. Dayewalker (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I just tallied-up each individual items. It comes-to 128 separate, annotated, documented, sourced, referenced, re-referenced, legitimate,"quotations", which were assembled and posted on Wikipedia by probably hundreds of editors on all of the The Real Housewives television show topic pages. I would post a link to where i have relocated the not-really -quotes, but that could cause a problem so I'll leave it at that for now.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where you've posted them, that's your hobby, and no one on Wikipedia will fault you for it. Good luck. That pretty much closes the discussion about these items on Wikipedia, I would think. Dayewalker (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Triggerhippie4 on 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
Fist of all the template is mis-titled, there was an editor who didn't like the praise "Palestinian territories" and tried to remove the phrase throughout Wikipedia. At the time the title was given that title the template only contained what is now the "Governance (since 1948)" section, it didn't contain the "Sub-topics" section. As the creator and primary editor I assure you, from the very beginning the template was intended to be a country/territory history template for the Palestinian territories, not a specialized "Governance" template. The post-1948 part definitely needs some work to turn it into that.
Now that that's out of the way, my understanding is that Triggerhippie wants the template to only cover Arab history. This goes against the precedent of every other Arab country/territory history template, they all cover pre-Arab history ({{History of Syria}}, {{History of Iraq}}, {{History of Egypt}}, {{History of Algeria}}, {{History of Libya}}), and country/territory history templates in general which usually don't have any problem covering periods from before the president day inhabitants (Arabs in this case) arrived.
Almost all those articles are about the area which today is roughly the southern West Bank (AKA Judea). The template was in them for about ten days, until Triggerhippie removed them a few days ago (aside from two IP's with almost no edits, and one person who said "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. "Palestine" is not a country"). His reason is that the template is just for Arab History. There was no consensus to remove the template, or to narrow the template's scope to just Arab history.
In sort, I see nothing wrong with the template covering the ancient/pre-arab West Bank and Gaza Strip, just as the other Arab templates cover the pre-arab and ancient history. Triggerhippie does.
Hi, I'm Theopolisme, a DRN volunteer. Triggerhippie, it would be fantastic if you expanded your statement a bit: mediation is not possible without compromise, and it will help tremendously if you could clearly express your viewpoint. Thanks. [note: thread not at the moment open for comments, still awaiting other participant] —Theopolisme(talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a point to remember, most of these articles are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, see WP:ARBPIA for more details. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I partly disagree, but I don't think we're supposed to be discussing this here before Theopolisme opens this for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
On second thought he ask you to expanded your statement which I interpreted to mean modify your original opining comments, but I suppose it doesn't really matter which section you expanded your statement on. Still, this isn't open for general comments until Theopolisme says it is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Triggerhippie, it will make this dispute resolution much easier if you state, rather than just that "Emmette is wrong", why he is wrong. I'm currently familiarizing myself with all material related to this request. —Theopolisme(talk) 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm incorrect, but if I'm not mistake, the issue here is the inclusion of {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} in articles that deal with the history of Judea. A few notes:
As this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 1RR sanction (through WP:ARBPIA) has been violated multiple times: by Triggerhippie, again by Triggerhippie, and then by Emmette.My mistake, dreadfully sorry.
I advise both of you to make no further edits related to this issue (addition/removal of this template and its ilk to any articles), until after the dispute resolution has been completed.
Triggerhippie, while I'd still very much appreciate it if you could expand upon your thoughts, I think it would be better if we moved on in the process, as your points are made clear in posts on your talk page. With that said, do either of you have any thoughts on how we could begin to resolve this issue? —Theopolisme(talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how I violated 1RR, that revert was five days after my previous revert, well over 24 hours.
I'm in two thirds agreement with Triggerhippie's statement. {{History of Palestine}} is not a country/territory history template per se, but is for the history of the geographic region of Palestine. {{History of Israel}} is not a regular county/territory history template, it deals with Jewish history in Palestine the history of the modern stare of Israel. Israel's territory consists of most of Palestine, so it simply didn't make sense for the Israel template to cover the whole history of Palestine (unlike {{History of Iraq}} which covers Iraq/Mesopotamia in general), because it would have been a duplicate of the Palestine template.
Here's the disagreement. Triggerhippie's entire reason for removing {{History of the Palestinian territories}} (mislabeled {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}}), if I understand him correctly, is that is that the template is for Arab history in Palestine. This is clearly not the case, I've put the territories template up on the side so we can all clearly see it. It is clearly for the history of the Palestinian territories, not for the whole region of Palestine, but just the territories. It clearly covers ancient/pre-Arab history, just like every other Arab country/territory history template.
Palestine is a much larger area then the Palestinian territories, and until the mid 20th century the Arab Palestinians have inhabited Palestine, not just the territories, so to simply say that Arabs are dealt with under the territories doesn't work. The Arab period of Palestine is dealt with under the "Islamic rule" section of {{History of Palestine}}.
Triggerhippie may disagree with the scope, and may which to treat the territories template differently from all the other Arab history templates, but his wish does not give him the right to act as if the template's scope really were limited to just Arab history when it clearly isn't. I could wish that the Jordan template were limited to Arab history, but that wouldn't give me the right to act as if it really were limited to Arab history by removing it from articles about pre-Arab Jordanian history.
The relationship between this template and the Palestine template is rather like the relationship between the Palestine/Syria/Jordan templates and the Levant template. One deals with a narrower area then the other. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Palestine is very small and borders within it changed constantly. Templates should be separated by nation not geography. In other Arab countries, there is no intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's sort of my point. A country/territory history template is usually about that country/territory (Palestinian territories in this case), not a much broader geographic region (Palestine in this case). I don't know what you mean by "intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates" but the other Arab templates cover non-Arab peoples. Look at {{History of Jordan}} for example, it has Israelites, Ammonites, Moab people, Edomites, etc; because Arab or not they all lived in what is today Jordan. The Jordan template "intersects" with {{History of the Levant}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I help edit Kingdom of Judah, and ancient kingdom which terminated with the invasion of Alexander the Great in 333 BCE. Without getting too far into the dispute, I was surprised to receive an invitation to this dispute on the KofJ discussion page. The template is "Governance of Palestine from 1948." IMO, this template does not belong on this article's page. I've have read some of the prior discussion between (I think) these parties before, and did not know enough to contribute. So the rest of the dispute is in your capable hands. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
(Here is a better link to the discussion within the article talk page. Due possibly to the "funny characters" in the section head the anchor link doesn't show up above --jeh)
User Reisio (talk·contribs) objects to my application of a CN tag on a claim in the article. Reisio notes that, two years ago, he conducted a survey of product offerings from one distributor and his results support the claim. I maintain that, besides being two years old, this is blatant OR and as it is limited to just one distributor that is primarily in one market segment it is inconclusive anyway.
Reisio is also claiming "consensus" support for his opinion, which seems to me to be unsupported by any possible interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. I also believe that consensus (even if he had it) is not allowed to override WP:V or other core policies. No verifiability has been established for the claim in question, so I think a CN tag is completely defensible.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive talk page discussion. Reisio is now simply ignoring my cites of WP policy, saying I'm "not remotely interested in reason". Since my core argument is based on WP policies, if he chooses to ignore them, further direct discussion with him seems pointless.
How do you think we can help?
Reisio seemed very convinced that consensus, which he believes is established by a majority, could be a deciding factor. Perhaps if a few experienced editors point out that inclusion of a CN tag is fine and expected for uncited claims (thereby establishing what he thinks of as "consensus" against him), he will relent.
Opening comments by Reisio
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Read the talk page of the article in question, there is a straightforward consensus (and even if there weren’t, suggesting that modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports would be demonstrably incorrect). ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a volunteer here. I've looked at your comments here and the talk page discussion.
As I understand it, the dispute is over whether a "citation needed" tag should be used on the sentence "PS/2 ports are included on most new motherboards."
Question: Is that right?
In regard to consensus, it has been said in the discussion that "that's a numbers game" - I understand this as meaning that [in your opinion] consensus is/can be determined by a majority. That is not in fact correct, according to the policy page, which says "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." Having read the talk page, I do not agree that there is a consensus. (Certainly there is no consensus that there is a consensus!)
Hello Carrie. What you’ve quoted from WP:CONSENSUS is specifically to counteract polls, which is why the word “polls” appears both before and after your quotation in the very same sentence. However, no poll has been taken on this matter. Aside from that, yes, consensus is a general agreement, which all dictionaries have a consensus upon. Whether or not there is a consensus that there is a consensus is irrelevant to whether there is another consensus, unless you were to query every individual involved and await their reply (which would be a sort of a poll). It is true that Wikipedia:Citation needed says that, but even if it weren’t already self-evident (since most anyone can edit most any page), it does not go on to say that the actions of a person questioning a claim are unquestionably correct, and even if it did, Wikipedia:Citation needed is not policy. Jeh questioned, and I answered, a lot (including before he questioned). Despite your acquaintance with Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template, you seem to have skipped entirely the fifth paragraph. No matter how you categorize, for example, my audit of motherboards available at newegg.com, it is indisputable information (that is, common knowledge, which the fifth paragraph refers to). As to your specific question of why I object to the tag, if you had read all of the talk page in question (and I understand somewhat why you might not have), you would know it is because, despite the verbiage at {{citation needed}} saying not to, people do remove information marked with this tag; and in the case of PS/2 connector, the article would then be presenting grossly inaccurate information. The very fact that PS/2 connectors are not yet obsoleted, as in the past certain organizations have stated (in addition to their technical and little known nature), is why you will likely have a great deal of trouble finding what some would call a “reliable” source on the matter (for either side). If these organizations’ assertions had been taken as seriously as they wanted, there would be a lot more information on the matter. All that said, I’m content with Jeh adding his {{citation needed}} tag (even though he has been unable to produce a single source to the contrary), as long as when someone eventually bureaucratically removes the information (shortly preceding my almost certain restoration of it, again), you and he will accept my “I told you so” with grace, and not waste my own time (and to a lesser extent your own) in such a manner again. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"No matter how you categorize, for example, my audit of motherboards available at newegg.com, it is indisputable information (that is, common knowledge, which the fifth paragraph refers to)."
I cannot agree with that. From what I see on the talk page, it appears that it is disagreed about even by people with knowledge of the subject. It is not something that you could reasonably expect most people to know if they are not versed in the subject - I can tell you that before reading that discussion, I had never heard the phrase PS/2 connector and wouldn't have known what it looked like, and now that I do, all I can say on the subject is that my computer doesn't have one - and I don't believe I am much more ignorant than the average person. CarrieVS (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I’m aware, the only person with any citable knowledge on the matter (or half-citable if you prefer) is myself. Your computer doesn’t have one, and my computer does; additionally I’ve completed a comprehensive audit of newegg.com—have you? To me that puts my own position far ahead of any opposing one. The information is indisputable, although it would require someone actually taking as much time as I myself have already to verify it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid that just because you know something does not make it common knowledge. Furthermore, if you only know it through this research you have done, that shows that it is not common knowledge. Finally, it is not indisputable, as evidenced by the fact that it is being disputed (not by myself - I do not know, either way, and am here as an uninvolved, neutral volunteer - but by others in the talk page discussion). CarrieVS (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Re your first question, as far as I am concerned, yes. I just want a CN tag, as the claim is not cited and the "proof" Reisio offered is WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH. Jeh (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
In particular, I am not proposing or supporting that the wording be changed to "modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports" as was implied by Reisio in his opening statement above. This does however suggest to me a compromise wording, which I'll bring up with Reisio on the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Both stating that “modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports” and stating only that PS/2 ports are no longer used have the same (inaccurate) end result, no matter what it is you think I’ve implied. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not proposing and never have proposed either of those statements. I don't know whose position you are arguing against here, but it isn't mine.
Regarding "he has been unable to produce a single source to the contrary", it is not up to the challenger to provide sources to the contrary. From WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
Regarding "someone eventually removes the information" after a CN tag is added, this is one reason that I suggested changing "most" to "some". "Some" would not, in my opinion, require a CN tag at all, as it is self-evident. And "some" does not preclude the possibility of "most", so "some" would not be wrong even if "most" happens to be true. Jeh (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
“I am not…”
The former is what you’ve stated that I’ve implied you wanted, and the latter is what the end result of your actions, if unopposed by myself and others, would be.
“Regarding "he has…”
If that were true (among other things), we would not be here.
“Regarding "someone…”
It is true that “some” does not preclude “most”, but given the entire rest of the article suggests (erroneously) that PS/2 ports barely even exist, it would still be misleading; especially if you consider that it has already been proven “most” is in fact more accurate than “some”. Additionally, if you feel “some” does not preclude “most”, I don’t see why you bother opposing the use of “most”.
Find a reliable source for it as it is now, if one can be found
Leave it as it is, but with the tag
Leave it as it is, with no tag Clarification: as it is, with no tag and no citation CarrieVS (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The fourth option, to leave the sentence without a tag, I don't think is a good idea. The information has been challenged, so it would be misleading to leave it un-cited without indicating this. The third option also isn't ideal: since the purpose of the tag is to request a citation, finding one makes more sense than agreeing to leave the tag on it.
So one of the first two would be best. If a reliable source can be found for this statement, then we can cite it and no "citation needed" tag would be necessary, if we try and we can't find one. If a reliable source can't be found, we will have to conclude that the statement is not verifiable, and so we would have to change it. CarrieVS (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Finding a (more) reliable source (2) does not require the use of {{citation needed}}, and therefore is not mutually exclusive to leaving it as it is with no tag (4). Unfortunately, I feel it is misleading to have the citation at all. Again I must say, if such a citation were easily found, I dare say someone would have already found it; this matter is simply irrelevant to virtually everyone except those who care about accuracy (or lack thereof) wherever they encounter it (namely myself). I have looked, and if either you or Jeh are in earnest, so have you both. But again, such a citation can be sought out without the tag. As to changing it, it is of course your right to attempt that; but seeing as it would make the article clearly misleading, as long as I am within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, I will not ever permit it. And not to put too fine a point on it, but this discussion we are having now has little to do with Wikipedia policy, or indeed much at all (see FAQ). ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, what I meant by the fourth option was to leave the sentence as it is, with no citation and no tag. So the tag is indeed not required, if we look for a source, and if one can't be found, change (or remove) the statement. That is what I meant by saying that the fourth option was not a good idea and third was not ideal. My apologies for the unclear wording. CarrieVS (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean by "I feel it is misleading to have the citation". CarrieVS (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I think he meant that he feels it is misleading to have the "citation needed" tag. I must say that I find his stance "I will not ever permit" changing the text to be a grossly uncooperative one, even when qualified by "within the bounds of Wikipedia policy". He has already tried to claim exceptions to, or clearly wrong interpretations of, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V. It seems he actually means "within the bounds of WP policy, as interpreted by me."
But since he's said he'll accept the CN tag, and I said previously that that's all I wanted, I'm willing to leave it at that while we look for cites, and/or look for alternate wording for which cites can be found. Jeh (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad you've reached an agreement. I'll close this, then. CarrieVS (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
International Organization of Legal Metrology
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
mostly-conduct request under active discussion elsewhere. If that avenue fails a new dispute can be opened focussing on specific issues. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I made some modest changes to the article. Within a short period another editor replaced virtually the entire article with content which I did not agree with. I restored the original article and started a discussion on the article's talkpage to discuss development of the article. The other editor quickly re-applied his changes and refused to discuss them. I restored the content once more and again tried to instigate a talkpage discussion. The other editor again replaced the article with his new content and threatened to report me for vandalism if I restored the original content again.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I reported the threats to W:ANI, where I was directed to try here.
How do you think we can help?
Look at the actions of the editors and help decide how best to develop the article.
Opening comments by Martinvl
On 2 February, when User:Bill le Conquérant registered, the article in question had 1727 bytes. The day after he registered, he extended it to 2577 bytes by re-arranging bits of text and adding one small item. I picked it up at this stage anc converted a stub to a 24731 byte that was at least worthy of being classified as a "start class", if not "class C" article. User:Bill le Conquérant then undid my work (which was 90% of the article) and asked that we start again. According to WP:VANDTYPES subsection "Blanking, illegitimate", vandalism include "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason ... However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal ... is provided."
I regard the reason given by User:Bill le Conquérant as frivilous and as such I request that he be given a formal warning for vandalism.
International Organization of Legal Metrology discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
First of all, this is a voluntary process: we cannot give out warnings, blocks, policies, etc. We can act as mediators and help the two parties come to an agreement. Secondly, User:Martinvl, we always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH so in my view both of you are acting in good faith towards developing the article, you simply have different view points in how that is accomplished. There will be no more accusations of editor conduct by either party in this discussion, instead we will focus purely on content and how to reach a conclusion. I'm currenty reading the content and will post my thoughts soon. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I, like Cabe, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me note that since this request was made that an experienced third-party editor, Jayron32, has weighed in with content suggestions at the article talk page. I'd suggest closing this request as a mostly-conduct request to see if Jayron's intervention at the talk page doesn't bear fruit. If it doesn't then this can be relisted with specific issues relating to content, rather than conduct. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
India
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
No evidence of discussion also filing editor is under an active topic ban on the subject after persistant disruptive editing on this subject Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Billava and Bunts are belongs to same caste and community, still bants site shows warrior class and billava shows lower class. Also billava site shows so many unwanted & baised reference of bants which is not correct.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Above editor never bothered to give proper justification and reply.
How do you think we can help?
Need to delete the information which does not have any reference. Also editor should not hurt anyone by providing such wrong information.
Opening comments by Qwyrxian
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
India discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Catherine of_Alexandria
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Lizbetann on 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
One user continues to re-assert edits that are incomprehensible. When reverted he takes it as a personal attack and replaces the previous edits without reference to the suggestions offered on the talk page
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page, personal email
How do you think we can help?
Please have someone with authority help Kits1972 understand that despite his passion and knowledge on the subject, his language barrier makes his edits useless.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Catherine of_Alexandria discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there! I am not a volunteer here, but allow me to comment. All editors have a right to edit articles, as long as the edits are constructive. I don't think it's correct to ask for help from someone with "authority", which no one editor has over another. There are however experienced editors and admins who are granted certain privileges and responsibilities. If Kits1972's conduct is troubling you may want to open a Request for Comment on User conduct, although you'll need another editor to submit the request. Also be very careful not engage in an edit war by violating WP:3RR. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am a volunteer here at WP:DRN (though I am a nit of a noob at this). I think that this might actually be better handled by WP:AN3, as this seems to me to be an edit war, with additional complications of WP:COMPETENCE. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No recent substantial discussion. Please reopen substantial discussion on the article talk page before bringing this dispute here or to other dispute resolution. If IP editors will not discuss, consider a request for page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The many variations of the school's name used in local news papers have become a source of requests to list all names in the article. To sort this problem a section called College name was created. It has turned into a two line section and suggestions to move the contents to the lead have not met with consensus.
Furthermore the inclusion of the term "Colombo Royalists" based on two news articles [22][23]. As per WP:NEWSORG, these two articles are unclear and ambiguous therefore unfit for use as references in this matter even though they are from a RS. As mentioned by Sitush earlier in the discussion "a journalist first referring to "Manchester United" and thereafter using the "United" short form" as a journalistic device rather than a generally recognized alternate name; which is the same in this case! Both articles refer to students of Royal College Colombo as "Royalists" and thereafter to differentiate between students of Royal College Colombo and Panadura Royal College by naming them as "Colombo Royalists" and "Panadura Royalists". This as Sitush said is a journalistic device of sorts or a term used to differentiate, rather than an actual generally recognized alternate name ! Therefore as an encyclopedic article this could be considered as false/inaccurate information, since further sources can not be found to support this name.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on talk page
How do you think we can help?
Assistance is kindly requested to help sort out this impasse and fix the lead and determined if the sources provided here are accurate to refer to students as "Colombo Royalists" as a recognized alternate name.
Opening comments by obi2canibet
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Sitush
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Qwyrxian
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Royal College, Colombo discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Kendo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kontoreg on 14:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC).
Procedural close. I'm closing this one for two reasons: First, it was somehow filed in a way that none of the other involved editors was notified by the bot. If it is refiled, please carefully list all other involved editors using the exact spelling and capitalization of their usernames. Second, the filing editor subsequently announced, before anyone else responded, that s/he will not be available for the next twelve days. There is little that can be done here until his/her return and there's no need for this request to just sit here and take up space until then, especially with no notice to the other editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
We are not agree with the definition of Kendo in the article 'Kendo'. Please see the talk page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
All the information is written on the talk page of the article Kendo.
How do you think we can help?
I have suggest what the two definitions shall be mix in order to meet one another and prevent ideological battles.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Hello,
First of all I had to said that I am going on holiday tomorrow and are first back 26th February 2013. In the meantime I will suggest that you explain me the term a) 'modern martial art', and please b) write the kanji for this term.
The definition in the article 'Kendo' is:
"Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning "Way of The Sword", is a modern Japanese martial art of sword-fighting descended from traditional swordsmanship (kenjutsu) which originated with the samurai class of feudal Japan."
For you information I agree with the part: "Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning 'Way of The Sword'". - Kontoreg (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Kendo discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is for disputes on en.wikipedia not for commons. Try hereCabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Aaleksanyants on 13:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have removed links to that fake logo form a plenty of pages, but for some reasons User:Codename-Lisa closed the discussion providing unreliable sources and had undone my editions considering them a vandalism.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Submitted my complains, contacted the authors of the publications on third party resources mentioned as a source.
How do you think we can help?
Reopen the discussion and block User:Codename-Lisa form closing any disputes.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
David Bergman (journalist)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Policy is clear, and alternative sources have been found. CarrieVS 02:07, 18 February 2013
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User:Darkness Shine has challenged some reference and cites WP:BLP as the reason. He first deletes one sentence, I try to approach him on his talk page and ends up deleting another and the whole section "Personal". I agree that the sources are weak and this is a BLP article, but the facts are not contentious and two weak sources support the point, but fully agree that sources could be improved (and I want to improve them). However, DS will not allow the facts to remain up with templates DUBIOUS or FACTS until they are fixed. I further tried to discuss with him on the article page. He shows no sign of allowing for any rational way to improve the article. He reverts more than 3 times. I then try to add sources but he reverts me while I'm looking for more. He's not allowing me to be constructive and to solve the problem and he uses foul language unbecoming of a Wikipedian. He breaks the WP:3R in the process. I don't feel like I can really get anywhere with DS. He sticks to one point and repeats it, is not communicative and foul-mouthed when he does choose to communicate.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Initially, I tried to approach him on his own talk page and then on the article talk page. His editing comments don't seem to be dispassionate.
How do you think we can help?
All I want for him to do is to stop editing on the page so I can actually solve his issues. At this point, I don't think I can edit on this page without continual harassment. I would want a reasonable amount of time to fix a rather "noncontentious" fact without interruption.
Opening comments by Darkness Shines
This is a waste of time, I have remove BLP violations and a few lines which have no place in the article, such as who his wife defended in court. Quite simply I am not about to chane my mind as BLP does not allow for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
David Bergman (journalist) discussion
Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a volunteer here at the DRN. I've read both your opening statements, and the relevant talk page discussions, and I have two questions:
Darkness Shines: Would you object to the material being replaced if better sources are found?
Crtew: You've said you only want time to look for better sources. But if the time and effort spent edit-warring over the past two days had been expended in looking for sources, you might have them already. Would it really be the end of the world to move the material in question to the talk page until better sources are found? CarrieVS (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Carrie, Thank you for getting involved in this, but DS's lack of interest in being civil to others and unwillingness to participate/communicate is apparent from his response to this complaint, and I have lost all of my patience with him. I am going to make a good faith edit in the next few minutes that I believe will solve DS's gripe. These are quality sources. I find it amazing that I almost have to ask for permission in a forum like this -- so as not run into charges from him of 3RR or violation of BLP -- to make such an edit as I have already made many positive, additive contributions to this article, while the only thing he has ever done is to nominate the article for delete, revert other editors, and gone on off on some sock-puppet witch hunt -- and yet he acts as if he owns the content. Carrie, you made some good suggestions above, but I have found the circumstances under which I have had to edit this piece outrageous just because of his inability to wait 24-48 hours. Furthermore, had I bothered to scan his talk page archives before I initiated this dispute (which I should have done), I would have never tried to have engaged him in any rational manner in the first place as he seems to have a history of bad behavior, breaking 3RR and being blocked. No wonder, I have never had so many problems coming to terms with another editor in all of the time I've been on Wikipedia nor have I had to initiate a dispute like this. And I surely never had to suffer his gutter language elsewhere. I actually believed that engaging him at first might bring him around to being more productive and maybe even making some additive edits. Now I just hope this ends our debate as I hope to never cross paths with the likes of him again.Crtew (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit completed. Crtew (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, if DS wants to go through every BLP and take out family connections from articles then I wish him good luck and many man hours of wasted time as WP is full of them. Many of us find this information useful. Crtew (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this noticeboard. It is not a place to 'ask for permission' for anything, nor is it a platform to air your views about another editor's behaviour. It is for discussing content disputes to come to an agreement.
This is (hopefully, was) an extremely simple content dispute: obviously poorly sourced material in a BLP. Darkness Shines was correct to remove it, per WP:BLP. There is no reason at all why material needs to remain, poorly sourced, in an article in order for better sources to be found. In BLP issues we should err on the side of caution, and if another editor, in good faith (which should be assumed unless there's good reason to think otherwise), removes poorly sourced material that (s)he believes is contentious, you need a very solid argument to get it back in without improvements, and you should discuss it rather than simply reverting the change. Removing unsourced or poorly sourced material from BLPs is so important that it is an exception from WP:3RR, and it is the person who replaces it who is in the wrong.
If you don't want to cross paths with other editors who disagree with you, you should consider whether Wikipedia is the right place for you. There are many providers of free or cheap website space, where you would be able to say whatever you like, however poorly sourced.
I am going to close this now. If your changes are reverted again (or you become involved in a similar situation elsewhere), you should first discuss the issue, calmly and civilly, on a talk page, even if that means discussing it with someone with whom you have already argued. You must not edit war, and you must especially not attempt to reinsert material removed per WP:BLP before it has been discussed (NB: while it is being discussed counts as before it has been discussed). If you cannot reach an agreement, either about whether the information should be included at all, or about whether the new sources are good enough, then you may decide to begin dispute resolution. I do not want to see another dispute filing over the inclusion of BLP material that you agree is poorly sourced. CarrieVS (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.-Temple_Mount-Dome_of_the_Rock_(SE_exposure).jpg)
_showing_Israel%27s_1948_and_1967_borders.svg)
_showing_Israel%27s_1948_and_1967_borders.svg)
