Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73#Algeria

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Rahuljain2307|04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=560175549&oldid=560130097 Withdrawn] by listing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Chanakya}}

Users involved

• {{User|Rahuljain2307}}
• {{User| Neo.}}

Dispute overview

The dispute is regarding religion of Chanakya. Reliable sources claims he was a Jain. However, other editor is citing web-pages of dubious reliability to claim that Chanakya was a Hindu. Even those web-pages do not directly support his claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking to the editor, apart from that, I have placed a request on Wikipedia Reliable Source Noticeboard. However, I am pretty sure that none of the sources he quote is even remotely reliable for his claim.

How do you think we can help?

If possible, please tell 'User:Neo.' that his sources are not reliable and to re-read the wikipedia policy regarding it. If they are actually reliable (I really doubt), provide guidelines as to how to give them their due weight as there are contradictory claims.

(1) Sources are from websites owned by the Government of India, India Today, Outlook (magazine), Chanakya National Law University etc. Chanakya himself has written in his work 'Niti-Shastra' that he was devotee of Hindu God Vishnu. User is saying that Chanakya himself is not reliable source. That's weird.

(2) User is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=558789527 saying] that "Being Brahming, reading/preaching Hindu religius text like Vedas, praying before Hindu deities like Vishnu does not mean being a Hindu". User want specific sentence like "Chanakya was Hindu or follower of Hinduism". The term 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' came into existence only after 15th century, so sources aren't mentioning it for technical correctness. If we go by the logic of the user, no person on Indian sub-continent was Hindu before 15th century because term 'Hindu' came into existence only after 15th century. neo (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold notice: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here, but I am neither "taking" this case or opening it for discussion at this time. To avoid the necessity of relisting this, I've reopened this listing pending the resolution of the ANI discussion but this listing is on hold until that happens. Please do not make further edits here (either below or above) until a volunteer opens this for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|WhisperToMe|19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. You've made a good attempt to get him to respond. At this point I would recommend either filing a request for comments on the point in question or report him to administrator's noticeboard/incidents for tendentious failure to discuss. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Algeria}}

Users involved

• {{User|WhisperToMe}}
• {{User| TonyStarks}}

Dispute overview

On the NPOV noticeboard and WikiProject Algeria pages a consensus (based on NPOV) had been established that the French language name be included in Algeria

• On 24 May User:TonyStarks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&diff=556612024&oldid=556339204 removed French with the edit summary]: "Arabic and Berber are official langauges of Algeria, French is not. We are on English Wikipedia. As such, there is no justification to include the French name of Algeria in intro or infobox." - There was no indication that he read the discussion
• On [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&diff=prev&oldid=558403103 5 June I reverted his edit], and I left a talk page message pointing out the previous discussions.
• On [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&diff=next&oldid=558405103 5 June he reverted] with the edit summary: "(when you add "Estados Unidos" to the USA article feel free to add French to Algeria. Again French is not an official language and the government has moved away from using it in official capacity. Arabic is the official language, Berber is the national one)" - No indication that he read the discussions
• I responded, addressing his argument, and asked him to make a post on the NPOV noticeboard reconciling his position with the NPOV policy and the arguments made about inclusion of languages - Also I brought up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which says "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

I asked him to re-read Archive 39 and to explain how excluding French would satisfy the NPOV requirement. I would like for him to come on here and try to reconcile his position with the NPOV requirement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a new NPOV noticeboard at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Languages_of_Algeria_and_point_of_view_.28part_2.29 where I wanted to get Tony Starks to explain his point of view. So far no editors have responded there.

I asked him to clarify his response on his talk page but he said "I just don't have time for bureaucratic nonsense and discussions."

How do you think we can help?

Ask TonyStarks to participate and explain why he believes his position complies with NPOV, because the NPOV noticeboard thread at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Listing_languages_of_a_country_and_NPOV:_Algeria_and_the_French_language established that inclusion of French is NPOV (based on the principles at the page)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|close}}

{{drn filing editor|Catprog|12:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Technical close, subject to resubmission. Please refile listing all other persons involved in the dispute in the proper place in the listing form so that the bot will notify them of this filing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:2014 FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#.22On_the_next_matchday.22
• Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_%E2%80%93_AFC_Fourth_Round
• Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)

Users involved

• {{User|Catprog}}

Dispute overview

Their is a previous dispute resolution regarding this topic but only 1 person now appears to be against it regarding "On the next matchday" scenarios.

Dr Vicodine is against it but Nitroxium, asimperson ,Fomalhaut76 and Avenger42 are in favor of it.

I don't know what to do about changing a previous discussion and decision.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't know what to do.

How do you think we can help?

Reopen the discussion perhaps?

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Deadbeef|04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Futile. Failure of one primary party to participate in relationship to content, rather than conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler}}

Users involved

• {{User|Deadbeef}}
• {{User| Greengrounds}}
• {{User| Ozhistory}}
• {{User| Hcc01}}
• {{User| IronMaidenRocks}}

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over the validity of the sources used in the article, as well as the content therein. This dispute is between Greengrounds and (primarily) Ozhistory, who is joined by IronMaidenRocks, with Hcc01 getting tangled in the dispute as well. Greengrounds favors precedence to be given to Albert Speer, Richard Carrier and John Toland as sources, each supporting that Adolf Hitler held Catholic beliefs in his adult life. Ozhistory prefers to lend precedence to Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, who suggest that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This has been continuing for over a month now, and as is noted in the most recent talk page section, the article has suffered as a result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the start of this dispute, I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft of the introductory paragraph (where the dispute was contained at the time, and primarily is now) that would attempt to placate both sides. However, it was never fully agreed upon, and eventually slipped back into a battleground.

How do you think we can help?

Independent third parties are needed to evaluate the sources and decide what gets into the article as fact and what gets in as an aside. This may simply become a matter of consensus, where more editors become involved and weigh into the issue until it becomes clear how each side of the coin will be presented. If that fails, or becomes eroded again, this will likely head to RfM.

==== Opening comments by Greengrounds ====

I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozhistory&oldid=551249789 HERE] and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war.

Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opportunity to discuss. I would summarise the current crux of dispute a little differently to Deadbeef. Following his initial involvement, I went to the original sources proposed for citation in our lead. I found that the proposed text did not match the authors' works closely enough. Speer for example, could almost have been read in our lead as having believed that Hitler did not have disputes with the churches, when a full reading of his text indicates quite the contrary - similarly Toland, was not as clear cut as our lead wanted to imply. I also gathered further sources. For the information of reviewing editors:

:This was the "work in progress" intro text that stood around 22 May:

:This was the text Greengrounds reverted to on 23 May:

:Following the above reversion, and after a series of consultations on talk page, this was the last revision of an introductory paragraph proposal by me in (it is still too long, and in need of more work, but conduct issues have slowed progress on collaboration):

:Elements of the above have already been incorporated into current article lead, and I am not entirely sure what Greengrounds current objections to further inclusions may be. His only consistent objection has been that he wants the lead structured so as to give weight to a view that Hitler was either "a devout Catholic" or a "believing Christian" and statements of that sort. Such statements are not widely found in sources, though there are some who go some way to making the claim - as my text confirms above (see Toland statement). If I understand him correctly, Greengrounds believes that the Catholic Church (in particular) was essentially hand in glove with National Socialism in almost every respect; and he wants wikipedia articles on related topics to present this unhistorical view as the current and actual historical consensus.

:My preference at this point is to shorten the above - so any advice from qualified editors would be gladly received. The sourcing attached to it is wide-ranging and useful - it would be a pity to lose it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk|close=1}}

The article is certainly currently a shambles after the recent disputes, as noted on its talk page, and Greengrounds has been referred as a cause for concern as a result of some of his behaviour. The current situation is that I have offered to rewrite it from scratch and a neutral observer - Taigei - has created a sandbox page for me and/or other editors to do so without further damaging the article. I haven't yet responded to this opportunity because I am very busy at the moment, but I am willing to do so. As noted above, I have suggested that everyone take a break from editing it for a while afterwards to allow feelings on all sides to cool down, but as Ozhistory has pointed out, on Wikipedia such a request is unenforceable. If it could be temporarily protected after a rewrite, that might help.

In one sense I think this is less about the content of the article than about the context of Ratzinger's/Dawkins' spat on the subject a couple of years ago. Since then the historical debate about whether or not, and to what extent, the Third Reich was 'Christian' in any meaningful sense of the word has been more or less a public slanging match, and this article appears to be collateral damage. Of course, I may be underplaying the public impact of Steigmann-Gall's research on the subject, which certainly provoked quite a heated debate among historians. However, current historical research seldom filters through to public debate, and as the more sensible reviewers noted, all RSG really did was move the start of the secular phase of Nazism by five years, whereas the New Atheist movement now needs for ideological reasons to expunge it altogether. It's unfortunate, but there we are. Hcc01 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel that both users Greengrounds and Ozhistory are applying some level of bias to the article that does not belong. Both users are lobbying based on their personal beliefs, and it has tainted the talk page. For the most part, the article well reflects the contradictory nature of Hitler's personal beliefs. There's no reason to interject a one-sided viewpoint. Greengrounds has a history of belligerence in the talk page, along with plying his POV to the article. I've seen Ozhistory make at least one recommendation which appeared to be in line with his own POV.

I would recommend the article for peer review. I don't think there's any reason to favor either user here, as they both seem to have a personal interest in the article and how its presented. Users are drawing battle lines, which is worrying, and perhaps a good sign that frequent editors need to take a break or get off the project. But there is an influx of users trying to promote an agenda for either 'atheism on the march' or deflection of blame toward religion. Users such as Greengrounds and some of the sources they've added to the article imply there's an active conspiracy to disassociate Hitler's religious views with Christianity. On the other hand, I have noted a worrying amount of users going in the opposite direction to imply that Hitler was wholly motivated by religion; a view not supported by several of the sources mentioned in the article.

User:HectorMoffet suggested splitting the article between Hitler's 'views' and 'policies', which may helpful. It could be that some users are trying to wind Hitler's political actions into his personal beliefs, or vice verse. For example, I believe that the extensive discussion of Nazi reaction to the political activities of churches, like the Confessing church, has little to do with the personal beliefs of Adolf Hitler, and could be construed as apologist deflection. Of course, Hitler's struggles with such groups does have to do with his lifetime of activity with religions, etc.

Users should be more inclined to work together without agenda, though for some agenda is the whole reason why they're editing the article. I do have a concern that the article may become a matter of 'read between the lines to see a debate which is not actually mentioned herein'. A debate which has no place in the article, because both sides are politically constructed and opposed to historical truth.

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-opening observations and requests: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. The guidelines for this noticeboard make it clear that this venue is for content, not conduct disputes, and it is well established here that we will not deal with conduct disputes or allow discussion of conduct to interfere with discussion of content. As framed by the listing editor this is indeed a content dispute, but a great deal of what is said in the opening statements, especially those of Greengrounds and Ozhistory, is conduct-related. With that understanding:

• @Greengrounds: Your opening statement, above, is nothing more than conduct allegations. If you wish to participate in this process, I would ask that you strike out or remove what you have said there and replace it with an opening statement substantially setting out your positions about the content which is at issue. Until you choose to make an opening statement which substantially addresses content, rather than conduct, the discussion of this request is not really going to be ripe to be opened.
• @Ozhistory: The volunteers here are not, with a few exceptions, administrators and we will not address the conduct issues mentioned in your opening statement, such as your suggestion of a topic ban. I would ask that you, too, strike out or remove the portions of your opening statement which have to do with conduct.
• @Other involved editors: Conduct is much less a part of your opening statements, but in keeping with the foregoing I would ask that you also review your statements and strike out or remove comments about conduct. Also to everyone, it would help to encourage a DRN volunteer to take this case if the content issues could be illustrated (and preferably circumscribed) by diffs.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:24 hour closing notice: In light of Greengrounds' failure to address content issues here and in light of his heavy participation in the disputes at the article talk page, I or another volunteer will close this listing as futile at or after 15:00 UTC on June 18 unless matters change before that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|JamesLappeman|18:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Resolved. Feel free to refile if the discussion about how the source is to be used stalls out. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|International Churches of Christ}}

Users involved

• {{User| JamesLappeman}}
• {{User| Nietzsche123}}
• {{User| JamieBrown2011}}
• {{User| TheRedPenOfDoom}}

Dispute overview

There is a source Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. {{ISBN|0892253118}} that has been used to reference the ICOC. It is the foundational source for the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). Lengthy debate on the reliability has dead ended without resolution. Both those in favor of the source and those against it have strong opinions on its reliability hence the deadlock.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After a lengthy debate on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_Personality_Changes It was posted on the Reliable Source Noticeboard but there was no success. "TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom", who is a more experienced editor than myself, suggested that we put it forward for dispute resolution given the circles that we have talked.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the source and our cases in order to help us resolve the issue as to whether this is a reliable source.

Flavil Yeakley's CV may be found here: [http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf CV]. He has a BA in psychology, an MA in speech communication, and a PhD in speech communication. Yeakley was an associate professor at the University of Tulsa from 1974-1984 and a professor and researcher at Harding University since 1984. Amongst other things, he has published three books and nine journal articles, all of which concern psychological matters and are published in scholarly journals. In 1988 the ICOC asked Yeakley to administer the MBTI to its members in order to clear its name from criticism it was then receiving. The hope was that the testing would reveal that its church members showed no personality change. But when Yeakley's research showed the opposite--that over 900 of its church members changed their MBTI type--the ICOC distanced itself from Yeakley, leaving Yeakley to publish his research using the COC's own publishing house. While there is some controversy over the use of the MBTI as a reliable indicator of personality change, it's still the most widely used tool available{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Psychology, entry on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator|publisher=Oxford}}. The MBTI is used in church and other circles{{cite book|title=Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, entry on Carl Jung|publisher=Oxford}}. Moreover, recent scholarly research vindicates the use of the MBTI as a reliable measurement of personality change{{cite journal|last=Capraro|first=Robert|author2=Margaret Capraro|title=MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR SCORE RELIABILITY ACROSS STUDIES: A META-ANALYTIC RELIABILITY GENERALIZATION STUDY|journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement|year=2002|volume=62|issue=4|pages=590-602}}. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley:

• Is unqualified for publishing research on the complex issue of personality change. He has a bachelors degree in Psychology. His advanced degrees have nothing to do with this subject matter, but are in the area of communications.
• Consequently the methodology used in his book is faulty. Meyers-Briggs is a popular personality test, but is HIGHLY unreliable in the test-retest area, with between 39% and 71% of people having different personality profiles upon retesting. No professional psychologist would use MBTI tests to research personality change.
• In Fortune Magazine, May 15th, 2013, an article on the test entitled "Have we all been duped by the Meyers-Briggs Test", had this to say: {{Quotation|"The interesting -- and somewhat alarming -- fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test."|}} The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introvert" and "extrovert" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/myers-briggs-problems/

Yeakley's Publisher, "Gospel Advocate":

• Is unqualified to publish books of this nature. They are essentially a husband and wife publisher for the Churches of Christ, producing predominantly Sunday School curriculums, along with a religious periodical and some christian books. They have no visible editorial board (according to their website) and no experience in publishing Psychological research.

Despite these glaring problems, Yeakley research features prominently on the ICOC page.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away.

I do not particularly care one way or the other how this specific content inclusion discussion washes out and I am willing to follow the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

25 years ago, before the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) was formally recognized as a completely separate new church (from the Churches of Christ), a minister from the mainline Churches of Christ (Flavil Yeakley) conducted a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality profile on members of the Boston Church of Christ. His tests weren't externally verified, nor have they been redone or used in the study of psychology. His findings showed that the ICOC was changing the personalities of its members. This research alone is unreliable to substantiate such a major claim (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Reliability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_changes#Inconsistency_as_a_trait). The results were only published by a mainline Church of Christ family business publishing house (Gospel Advocate see http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about ) with no apparent editorial board and no authority or experience in the field of psychology or personality change. This research is being used in two sections of the ICOC page as encyclopedic quality information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Discipling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Members.27_personality_changes). Is this regarded as a reliable source on the ICOC considering Wiki Rules (WP:RS, WP:QS, WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:SPS etc..) and the weight of the claims being made?

{{reflist-talk|close=1}}

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. It appears to me that the ultimate question here is whether Discipling Dilemma by Yeakley is or is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and that what you're really looking for is an opinion on that point. I'm of the opinion that it is not, due to the fact that its publisher, Gospel Advocate Company, does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia policy, at least in connection with the type of psychological material for which the source is being used. Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Wikipedia-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks. It does make sense that "Gospel Advocate" would not be regarded as a reliable source/publisher for such material.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::TransporterMan, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least three high-quality sources: (1) Michael Langone's (1994) article "The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse" (published in the Cultic Studies Journal, volume 11, pp. 88-117), (2) Langone's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Helping Cult Victims: A Historical Background" (published by WW Norton pp. 22-50), and (3) Paul Martin's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment and Rehabilitation" (pp. 203-231). While I agree the mere fact that "The Discipling Dilemma's" is published by Gospel Advocate is worrisome, I believe that we must also keep in mind the fact that the ICOC asked Yeakley to conduct the study. Shouldn't Yeakley's research be included based on this fact alone? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::@Nietzche123: To answer your last question, no it should not. Nothing can go into a Wikipedia article merely because of its significance or importance to the topic; it must be verifiable via a reliable source. (You may be thinking of the concept of notability, which determines whether or not a subject is significant enough to have its own article but, as the notability policy says, not only does notability not have anything to do with article content but is itself determined by looking at whether or not there is sufficient coverage of the topic in reliable sources.) @Everyone: While the direct answer to Nietzsche123's question is no, if the Yeakley study can be reliably sourced — and the sources he's cited above may or may not be enough to do that (and I'd like your comments on that subject) — it certainly seems to me on first blush (and thus subject to additional consideration and discussion) to be significant enough to the topic of the article to be included if, again, it can be reliably sourced. Please understand that its significance cannot be attacked through your analysis of the study's accuracy or reliability. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to analyze or interpret what's said in reliable sources, but only to summarize it. In order to include in an article criticism of what is said in a reliable source, another reliable source must be found which makes that criticism. It is true that verifiability through reliable sources is only a threshold for the includability of relevant material, but once material has been shown to be relevant and verifiable then the question becomes only whether the material is so weakly relevant, so trivial, or so much outside of the mainstream academic view that it would give it undue weight to include it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

::::User:JamesLappeman seems to know more about the Anti-cult movement than I do, but I know they have been thrown out of court cases because of how FRINGE they are. The new references Nietzche123 is providing don't seem to be much better than "Gospel Advocate". See below: {{Quotation|In their 2009 book, Cults and New Religions: A Brief History, sociologists Douglas Cowan and David Bromley describe ICSA (Same organisation as "Cultic Studies Journal" mentioned above). They point out that the ICSA provides no indication of how many of their so-called characteristics are necessary for a group to be considered "cultic." The checklist creators do not adequately define how much of certain practices or behaviors would constitute "excessive," nor do they provide evidence that any of the practices listed are innately harmful. Finally, Cowan and Bromley criticize the ICSA list as being so broad that even mainstream organizations such as Evangelical Protestantism, the Roman Catholic Church, Buddhism and Hinduism fall within the criteria.[2] |}}JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::TransporterMan – thanks for the help, as I see Wikipedia policy – the problem with using anti-cult publications would be the following:

:::*The basis of Yeakley’s research is the supposed psychological personality changes that he apparently observed. WP:USEBYOTHERS would require his findings to be published in notable psychology journals (like Journal Of Applied Psychology and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and not just in the anti-cult publications Nietzsche123 mentioned.

:::* The anti-cult institution has been heavily criticized by mainstream sociologists of new religions and is WP:FRINGE theory which does not make their journals reliable in such a weighty claim. This is discussed in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement#Controversies and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement#Responses_of_targeted_groups_and_scholars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cultic_Studies_Association#Criticism.

:::The fact that the mentioned anti-cult publications would themselves use Gospel Advocate as a primary source sheds light on the above points.JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Let's not get sidetracked. The three sources I cited meet Wikipedia's criteria of high quality sources: their publishers have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". While a minority of sociologists, sometimes referred to as 'sociologists of religion', do criticize ICSA and the Cultic Studies Journal, that's besides the point. (Sociologists of religion get their fare share of criticism from other scholars, too.) Let's also not refer to scholarly works as 'anti-cult movement', or 'cult apologists', for that matter. Using such language does nothing but cause animosity. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all. Someone might, however, want to also consider the "methodological cavats" discussed by Langone in regards to research in this area, specifically including Yeakley, at pp. 35-36 of that book. As for the Cultic Studies Journal, this discussion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about that Journal's successor would seem to say that it is probably reliable, but must be carefully used. While I believe those may provide reliable sources for this material, I'm less certain that the references to the Yeakley book in them are sufficient to allow that book to be used directly. That's because all of those references come from or through the work of one person, Langone. Before I'd be willing to unreservedly bless Yeakley's work in his own book on the basis of the "multiple references in high-quality reliable sources" test, I'd like to see at least one, and preferably a couple of additional references, which do not involve Langone as the author or editor. If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Wikipedia principles to begin with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::: TransporterMan (TALK) Help me understand your point on the "methodological caveats"? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I read the page. I agree.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::In addition to the Langone and Martin sources mentioned previously, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least two other high quality sources: (1) Lewis Rambo's (1995) article "Congregational care and discipline in the San Francisco Church of Christ: A case study" (published in Pastoral Psychology 43:4, pp. 283-298) and (2) Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) "Cult Experience: Psychological abuse, distress, personality characteristics, and changes in personal relationships reported by former members of Church Universal and Triumphant" (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::I go on leave for 10 days beginning tomorrow and won't be able to comment on this board during this time. However it would seem, given the very low quality of the source document (Yeakley's research having no peer review and his publisher having no editorial board), we would be looking for multiple endorsements of his research rather than just mentions of it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent|9}}

@JamieBrown2011: About the caveats: Langone expresses some reservations about the research he and others use in that book, including (but not soloing out) Yeakley. I'm not saying that those reservations do or do not bear on the way in which Yeakley is to be used in the article, but if they do bear on it then some brief, proportionate mention of them might be apropos in the article as well. Care must be exercised, however, not to engage in original research or synthesis.

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks for your help TransporterMan, we really have struggled here and needed your assistance. Due to the nature of the discussion leading up to this point I think we are going to need help reaching a compromise on the nature and weight of the section as you mentioned above.

::Before closing, please could you give a thought to two points:

:*The current wording in the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). You’ve kindly reflected on the material already and I would like to request your input on possible rewording in light of this discussion (baring in mind the weight of the claim to source-strength ratio as well as the fact that the research was done in 1985 which was before the Boston Church of Christ became independent from the Churches of Christ and was a single congregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ#Separation_of_the_International_Churches_of_Christ).

:*Would it make sense to remove the quotes from Yeakley’s book that don't have anything to do with the reliably published sourced material (e.g the article quotes Yeakleys later edition "editors update" saying: {{Quotation|“Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult"}}

::This is not referenced elsewhere other than in the Gospel Advocate version.

::The Gasde journal says:

{{Quotation| Yeakley (1988) gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the BCC. He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.}}

::Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)

::This doesn't include Gospel Advocate only published material and doesn't project the actual findings beyond the borders of the articles limits. Would you suggest we just quote this as is? JamesLappeman (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Since only one editor appears to wish to keep this open, doing so would be fruitless. I or some other volunteer will close this after 13:00 UTC on June 19 unless further interest in keeping it open appears before that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|64.45.224.215|03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing due to in progress discussions involving the MOS which could directly affect the outcome of this case. If required, this case may be refiled after discussions have completed. Nbound (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|deadmaus}}
• {{pagelinks| deadmau5}}

Users involved

• {{User|Wetdogmeat}}
• {{User| Dicklyon}}
• {{User| filelakeshoe}}
• {{User| Powers}}
• {{User| Epicgenius}}
• {{User| Lientinge}}
• {{User| Insulam Simia}}
• {{User| MidnightRequestLine}}
• {{User| bobrayner}}
• {{User| Moxy}}
• {{User| Andy Dingley}}
• {{User| Capscap}}
• {{User| Obi-Wan Kenobi}}
• {{User|BDD }}

Dispute overview

The title for the wiki page is SUPPOSED to be the proper artist name of "Deadmau5." Some editor in charge however (who openly admits to not knowing anything about the artist and has never even heard of him) has changed the title of the page to "Deadmaus," because there is a source that has made a typo and incorrectly named him "Deadmaus." The official artist website, twitter, facebook, mysapce, grammy award page, juno award page, youtube, Rolling Stone articles, iTunes, Record label page and various other official and reliable sites have the correct spelling of "Deadmau5." Whoever the editor is that changed the name is going off of a typo on one site and that is incorrect. "Deadmau5," the correct spelling, has 29 million Google hits, while the incorrectly spelled "deadmaus" has a measly 297k. I should also point out that since the name is trademarked, it can be considered vandalism to intentionally and repeatedly use incorrect spelling. The debate about the name change on the "talk" page was 11 to 3 in favor of returning the article back to its original and correct spelling of "deadmau5" however the page is now locked with the incorrect spelling. This has become a big issue with the fans of this artist and word of this issue will undoubtedly reach the artist himself relatively soon if it's not fixed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been various discussions to try and get the name changed to the correct title, but for some reason whoever is in charge won't fix the typo. There have been more people who side with the name being changed back to the original and correct "deadmau5" which has been that way for 5 years mind you. But whoever is in charge won't put the correct spelling back and now the page is locked.

How do you think we can help?

Simply change the name back to the correct title of "Deadmau5." I made a good argument of how that one time Fox News accidentally made a typo and spelled the Presidents name "Barack Osama." That was a typo and the Presidents page should not be renamed because of a typo. This case is exactly the same. The artists trademark and correct name is "deadmau5," not "deadmaus." Let's have some respect and call people their actual names. Like "Rick" instead of "Dick."

This is just part of the continued forum-shopping adventures of MidnightRequestLine. I may come back tomorrow and address (for the umpteenth time) the various fabrications and inaccuracies in his overview, but it really depends on whether this even gets off the ground. I'm off to bed for now though. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Deadmau5" is just a stylization of "Deadmaus". "Dead-mouse" is how it's supposed to be pronounced, not "dead-mow-five", so if you called Deadmau[s/5] by his actual name, then it would be "Deadmaus". The 5 is really another stylization of the "s" and so it should be "Deadmaus". We don't call the pi article "π" just because that's how it's stylized, or the Kesha article Ke$ha.
Well, I don't really know if this dispute is even going to be resolved, because now we have a never-ending dispute. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, from the looks of it, the current RM will likely result in a move of the article to Deadmau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to rephrase the opening statement. By definition, issues that get brought to DRN are usually contentious and people are keen to get the right result (as with many requested moves), but we should really try to open DRN threads with a relatively neutral description of the problem. I sympathise with the concerns, but it's difficult to get everyone to sit round the table whilst saying "You're wrong!". Anyway, just as "better" is the enemy of "good enough", sometimes aiming for the right result can be a wild goose chase - better to aim for a result which most people are comfortable with, or at least a compromise which stops most people shouting. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

what is this doing here? And who opened it? Is the IP one of the participants? There's a current move discussion (that I disagreed with even starting, but whatever) happening now, so I see no reason to open a new forum here. suggest speedy close. Proper forum is RM, then move review, then ANI, but dispute resolution? THis issue is not framed in a way that this forum can handle. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This one looks like heading to the dogs. The central tenet polarises the dispute, situating the requester on the "righteous" side, and everyone opposed to them on the "malevolent" side. The opening request therefore does not seem to be a good faith attempt to submit to DR. I'd recognise this as displays of WP:SPIDER, WP:POINT or WP:SOAP. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|68.118.224.252|10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Close on technicality: The parties have not yet discussed the issue on the article talk page.
Please note that editors are limited by policy as to what should be included into articles. You may be able to help them find sources to back your claims :). Case can be refiled in future if required after talk page discussion with involved editors has occured and stalled. -- Nbound (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|First Battle of Fallujah}}

Users involved

• {{User|68.118.224.252}}

Dispute overview

I Am a veteran of the Iraq war. I was trying to look up my page in history to find that the facts are very wrong for a well known source . I would love to point out that out initial objective was to find and bring to justice the guilty that desecrated the black water americans. They were told to give them to us or we will come in. We went in as history showed. Your site states it was a fail..... We were ordered by presidential decree to halt our advances in the city. In retrospect if we were allowed to fully go through the city as planned the future would be different. Do not state it was a fail attempt! We were ordered to stop. Many men and friends died there and would turn in their grave with the statement that it " was a failed attempt". we did not fail at anything! we were given orders to halt the assault and let the Iraqi civil defense corps do their thing. Don't you down graid my legacy ,don't you down grade the deads legacy to a , " failed attempt" that is utter bull shit. re write that entry please ty,

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My first time responding to you.

How do you think we can help?

Ask military men what was going on there. Better yet find people that were actually there to say THIER STORY, not some journalist with a pin pointed view on things whos never set foot on that soil!

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|ChrisGualtieri|01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closed by request. Resolution being attempted elsewhere. -- Nbound (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of disputeThe parties have not yet discussed the issue in the article talk page

• {{pagelinks|Dragon Ball}}
• {{pagelinks| Dragon Ball Z}}

Users involved

• {{User|ChrisGualtieri}}
• {{User| Ryulong}}
• {{User| Lucia Black}}

Dispute overview

Long ago in 2008, a hastily and improper merge of the flawed Dragon Ball Z article was done citing "per WP:MOS-AM" which tried to supersede N and GNG by establishing a single page for any anime or manga topic. This was overturned pending an RFC and a concurrent RFC on Dragon Ball which has over 10 supporters and over a dozen more in the past. The opposition consists of Ryulong and Lucia Black who have established personal grudges and object to policy arguments and cite a host of non-issues to prevent the page's existence. The massive amount of circular discussion and WP:IDHT from these two editors are an attempt to keep an overturned decision in effect and locally overrule Wikipedia policy.

The editors have admitted it meets N and GNG on the talk page; that is not in dispute, but rather then address issues themselves. Ryulong persists reject any discussion for consensus building and edit war even in my own sandbox.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AChrisGualtieri%2Fsandbox&diff=560704594&oldid=560704481] Lucia Black has consistently and frequently espoused her hatred of me on her talk page. The issue here is two editors persisting a grudge to limit and prevent valid content on Wikipedia. The behavior element is secondary; but seems to be the only reason for their continued objections in stark contrast to editing policies and guidelines.

They claim "consensus" is against recreation. In the RFC, re-creation was supported by 8 people to a mere 3, the archives show over a dozen more supporters. But since it not a vote; the policy argument runs and this seems to be a case of WP:JDLI.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussions rooted in policy with discussion on relevant material spanning two RFCs, a 3O and talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Policy trumps petty personal grudges and vague baseless rhetoric; this article would survive any test at AFD and that is why its proper to include it. Editors cannot and should not obstruct Wikipedia to further their grudges as they have done here. WP:N and WP:GNG are major reasons to allow this page to exist.

ChrisGualtieri, where is this RFC where there's an 8-to-3 majority in recreating the article? Lucia and I have been raising our concerns with your proposed version at Talk:Dragon Ball but you have been dismissing them because of your insistence that passing WP:N and WP:GNG is all that is necessary. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=560824913&oldid=560813429 created the article] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=560825406&oldid=556844872 announcing it on its talk page] rather than posting it on the Dragon Ball talk page where everyone was discussing it after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisGualtieri&diff=560798270&oldid=560795637 another editor basically told you to ignore me and Lucia Black]. You won't let anyone touch your sandbox version, even after I clearly made it my intention to fix things. This article you made is not about "Dragon Ball Z" as a general topic. It puts undue weight on the American dubs and franchise which you cannot seem to address. And we should not be basing our decision on recreating the article just because you successfully overthrew a 5 year old addition to one of the manuals of style.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to be part of this, mainly because others have already made it clear of consensus.Ai couldnt have summarized it better than ryulong. That is exactly what the issue is. But thats all im saying. Im done arguing with this editor, theres no consensus, so he shouldnt push an edit just because he wants to. I honestly dont know what this editor was thinking when he made that edit because he knows its going to get reverted.Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-opening notes and inquiries: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here I am not opening this for discussion at this time or "taking" this case. (Indeed, I cannot take this case as a volunteer because I have had previous dealings with several of the editors involved here which might be seen as biasing my responses.) However, I would like to ask whether or not this listing is still needed. It appears that the furor has settled down and editors have, since this request and responses were made, begun to work cooperatively together. Moreover, Tokyogirl79 seems to be doing great work at providing a calm, neutral voice at the article talk page and elsewhere. Could we close this listing without prejudice to refiling it, perhaps on a very narrow or focused point or two, as needed? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:Close; if Lucia Black doesn't want to be involved or discuss it at DRN anymore and Ryulong is now open to discussion on the talk page. Also, because other editors are active and attempting resolution as 3O's then this DRN is not necessary for the reason that a DR process has begun on the page there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|IO Device|05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Sunifiram}}

Users involved

• {{User|IO Device}}
• {{User| 2.30.51.94}}

Dispute overview

Sunifiram is an experimental neurological drug. It is not a recreational drug. It has an article on the English Wikipedia. As of now, it has never been formally tested on humans. Nevertheless, people have recently been trying this drug. Some of these people, myself included, have experienced long-lasting side effects. Others have used it without experiencing side effects.

Among other mechanisms of action, the drug is effectively an NMDA receptor agonist. The drug also works via an enzyme called PKCa. Knowing these two points is essential to the dispute. These points are explained in the article.

These two mechanisms of action of the drug present some potentially serious safety concerns. These concerns were noted in the Safety section in the article, with adequate references. The accuracy of the section was never in question, as it was well sourced. This section was written by three Wikipedia users, namely myself (IO_Device), GKantaris, and 3AlarmLampscooter.

2.30.51.94 removed the safety concerns from the article, stating that these concerns have never been proven directly for sunifiram. 2.30.51.94 has refused to allow the concerns to be added back to the article, pending Wikipedia Administrator guidance.

I believe it is important that these concerns remain mentioned in the article, because sunifiram works via certain modes of action, and these safety concerns apply specifically to these modes of action. As of oldid=560750554, the section never claimed anything that is not properly referenced.

As with any drug, readers are very interested in knowing any possible safety concerns. The removal of these concerns by 2.30.51.94 potentially places the readers in jeopardy if they, in their ignorance, choose to use the drug.

2.30.51.94 had argued that the added statements were speculative. This is something I greatly disagree with, for the statements were 100% sourced. As I understand, it is acceptable for a Wikipedia article to contain statements related to the article's topic. The interpretations assumed by 2.30.51.94 are his alone.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The dispute has been briefly discussed on the article's Talk page. It has also been extensively discussed with 2.30.51.94 on a non-Wikipedia (Longecity) forum. There has been no consensus between 2.30.51.94 and me.

How do you think we can help?

At this point, I believe it basically comes down to Wikipedia policies. Simply put, does Wikipedia permit the Safety section as written in oldid=560750554?

My point with this is rather simple - if a particular effect of a compound on the body has not been demonstrated then it is speculation to imply that it has said effect. The fact of the matter is that the body is a complex system and that novel compounds like these may have mechanisms which we are not yet aware of. Therefore, given a very limited set of information, one may loosely tie together several facts and infer that said compound has effect X but given a more complete picture, one may reach the conclusion that effect X does not happen because effect Y does something to prevent or otherwise modify effect X. I.E. there is no concrete science demonstrating the claims which I removed - just an interpretation of several loosely connected facts. Not to mention that there is a requirement for reliable sources in wikipedia's guidelines - an interpretation pieced together by some internet randoms most certainly does not qualify as a reliable source.

Speculation on novel compounds is fine - it's a good thing to consider possibilities and try to understand the underlying mechanisms and their potential implications. My only argument is that wikipedia is simply not the place for this given that the whole point of an encylopedia is to be factually correct. Speculation is far from fact and does not belong here.

In regard to the argument that this putting users in danger - it quite clearly stated that there are no human studies on this compound. That alone should deter people and stays in line with the article being factually correct.

2.30.51.94 (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|needassist}}

{{drn filing editor|Ykantor|13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|1948 Arab–Israeli War}}

Users involved

• {{User|Ykantor}}
• {{User|pluto2012}}
• {{User|Nishidani}}

Dispute overview

I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if Wikipedia rules are offended. The section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&oldid=557224782#British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs] was deleted by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pluto2012#a_notification_of_vandalism user:pluto2012]. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.]

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPoV#Achieving_neutrality do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.]

I have complained at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#a_section_was_deleted.2C_which_is_Vandalism_and_offending_NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard] but no one is taking care. The offender does not find errors in the removed section, but claims for a lack of other views. In my opinion there is no other view, but even if it would exist, it should be added to the section rather than deleting it.

What can be done in order to enforce the Wikipedia rule?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked him to add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

How do you think we can help?

to convince user: pluto2012 to obey Wikipedia rules, and add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

• Regarding the dispute, I find that the best answer is the one of user Nableezy : "As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"
• Regarding the content, everything has been said on the talk page of the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

::Answer to smileguy91 :

::To write this section, it must be agreed what to write in. A discussion has started : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=559204973&oldid=559068817 on the talk page] and it is clear that it will take some time because it is a complex topic but it is not possible to discuss with Ykantor : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=559207768&oldid=559204973 who refuses any discussion]. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Several editors objected to kantor's insistance on reinserting a dubious blob of text, tagged as unsatisfactory 2 years ago, into this article. He has singled out here one editor. The judgement of that editor, a wiki expert on the period, was supported by several other editors (Federico,Itsmejudith, Zero, myself ). Kantor is supporting WP:OR, violating WP:NPOV, ignoring WP:Undue, and not listening.

• Kantor's text has taken one source, notable but notably partisan, and used it to promote a minority thesis, involving highly contentious conclusions, in wikipedia's neutral voice. At glance at what is going is will reveal the problems. I.e.

• (a)Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs. (source:Karsh)

• (b)it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists (source:Karsh)

• (c)the British in the months before May 1948 did their best to encumber and block partition (source:Karsh)

• (d)It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine

• (e)British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size". (source:Karsh)

• (f)British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised (source:Karsh)

• (g)In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) (source:Karsh)

• (h)The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine (source:Karsh)

• (i)Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis (source:Karsh)

• (j)The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs (source:Karsh)Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these procedures, but I think that is where I should be posting my comments here. If I am not, mea culpa and please remove to a better spot. As the author of the content that is in dispute, I suppose that makes me a participant. If I understand the rules of Wikipedia correctly, Wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus viewpoint of the majority of the relevant savants in one field the article is about. Thus, the article on Earth should say that the Earth is the round, not flat. It is common in the field of history for historians to be in dispute in their interpretations of various events, and thus in many areas of historiography there is no consensus viewpoint to summarize. The historiography of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is an area where there are starkly differing and incompatible viewpoints by various historians. I do admit that writing an entire section using one historian might had made things a bit slanted, but the same can be said about countless other articles in Wikipedia, so I see no reason why my work should be singled out in this fashion. I propose as a solution that the content in question be restored to the article, but then expanded by taking into account the views of different historians and explain where their interpretations differ. It is rather awkward and cumbersome to do things that way, but it seems the most fair solution. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer Smileguy91's question: the section hasn't been rewritten yet because it's a complex topic and needs time. Also, some of the possible writers, such as myself, dislike writing under fire. To reply to A.S. Brown, nobody is arguing against the inclusion of Karsh's opinions. However Karsh is on the edge of the debate and is widely regarded as an activist; moreover his 2002 book is not a scholarly text but a popular book of a polemic nature, full of black and white statements about grey events. (That is, I do not agree that the section was well sourced.) Karsh's place in the section should be a few sentences that are sourced to his scholarly works, and most of the space should be given to mainstream historians. So I do not think that restoring the section first is on the path towards a good section. Zero^talk 02:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. I have pored over the old revisions, and, though the section was well sourced, it did seem biased. But, as already stated in WP:NPOV, the section should be rewritten to reduce bias. I would like an explanation of why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet. Regards, smileguy91^talk 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your question "why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet" my reply is that unfortunately the section is kept deleted and there is no access to it. Anyway, I would like to summarize some points:

• None of the offenders have provided an error or biased point of Karsh. Thus, Karsh is not the issue. The issue is whether to add more views to the section.
• The offenders claim that they are exempted from Wikipedia rules (do not delete but re-write, majority of the talk page participants are not necessarily right). Unbelievable.
• It is better to avoid lies, half truth and misleading information, like the writing here of the main offender. ( a lot of such cases can be highlighted if asked for)
• I suggest to add a different section: "British policy within Palestine" to the current section: "British Diplomacy in support of the Arabs". May I explain why? Ykantor (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::You're evidently unfamiliar with some simple procedures. The section is 'accessible'. Go to the history page, click on a version in the past containing the section, copy it, and either remove it thus, repasting, to the talk page or work on it downloaded at home.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::I provided several 'biased points' above. Karsh's position is a minority view. You have summarized his minority position as though it were a fact. The section, on a minority view, would occupy at a minimum 8% of the article's length (WP:Undue). It might warrant two or three lines at most. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::"lies, half truth and misleading information" — this is a fine illustration of Ykantor's way of writing about other editors, from his/her own mouth. Zero^talk 03:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::: If you are interested, I will write a list of those "lies, half truth and misleading information". Since it is preferred not to over write here, will you accept this writing in your user talk page? Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Ykantor,

::::All these contributors know me and know that I don't say "lies, half truth" or provide "misleading information".

::::On your side, you have been warned on your talk page to stop making insinuation on others : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYkantor&diff=559288631&oldid=559161853] but you deleted it : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYkantor&diff=559348911&oldid=559288631] and reiterated your accusations : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYkantor&diff=559354462&oldid=559348911].

::::You was also already informed of the principle of WP:AGF : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=559275057&oldid=559207768].

::::Pluto2012 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The editor who offered his opinion at NPOV/N stated that he agreed with talk page comments: "The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002.", "The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored." - I will not be getting involved beyond this post at this stage. -- Nbound (talk)

: It is a strange situation. On one hand, "The reliability of that source has been questioned. On the other hand, the section is kept deleted so there is no way to add more sources. However, before it was deleted (against Wikipedia rules)I have already added 6 parallel sources to the 15 initial Karsh based citations, and more parallel sources are queuing in the talk page. Anyway, no one has found any Karsh error. Ykantor (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::To repeat, there is a way to add more sources. Make a copy from the earlier version available on the history archive page, and work on it. You really should listen more closely. No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative. Karsh's generalizations are his opinions, to which he is entitled. Whether or not they deserve a full section, being eccentric to the mainstream, is another matter.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::The book in question The Palestine War 1948 is strictly speaking not a scholarly work, but it is meant to be a summary of the subject written by a prominent historian in less than 100 pages. The section is based upon the records of the British Foreign Office. If material from works by other historians supporting the same conclusions were brought in such as books, articles, etc were brought in, might that improve the section. I not believe that it is the case that viewpoint expressed by Karsh, namely that British supported Jordan against Israel in 1948 (anybody heard of Glubb Pasha commanding the Arab Legion?) is an "eccentric" thesis outside of the mainstream. This debate might be helped by more specifics of what is alleged to be wrong with this section. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: In response to mine: "no one has found any Karsh error", Nishidani wrote: "No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative". This is not correct. e.g. :

::::* Karsh has 7 quotations (British staff memo, Troutbeck, Trygve Lie, Alan Cunningham, Burrows, Bevin, Campbell) in this page. No one claims that something is wrong here.

::::* Karsh has plenty of factual sentences, but no one have challenged them. for instance:

::::#...British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists

::::#Ernest Bevin assured the Jordanian Prime Minister Tawfiz Abu al-Huda of British support for a Jordanian invasion

::::#In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs,

::::*It is not easy to understand how come that Karsh is so bad, when there is not even one problem with his writing. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::The problems of Karsh are even explained in wikipedia : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism Praise and Criticism] : he focuses on minor points and disregards main evidences and he is biaised (a revisionnist zionist, read : right-wing). In wikipedia there is a policy to take care of this : WP:WEIGHT and the problem of giving 'undue weight' to some points is critical. That's why contributors must be opened to gather different points of views on a topic and introduce all them (whatever their own opinion) and not to come and defend one precisely. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::: It seems that indirectly you agree that Karsh is accurate , but is missing some points. Is it possible for you to be specific about those supposedly missing points? (note that the issue is "British diplomay" and not "British policy inside Palestine") Ykantor (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::It's hard not to be accurate if you quote sources. That is not in dispute. What mainstream historians criticize is Karsh's interpretation, which highlights the cherrypicked quotes, and ignores everything that counters them, the 'everything' that mainstream historians use to contextualize these same comments, and to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to Karsh. This is an elementary principle in evaluating historical books. We simply accept the mainstream scholarly judgement on Karsh, and on his theory. It is marginal, and cannot be exploited, per WP:Undue, to tilt the article with an additonal ballast of 8% devoted to a pet theory. You consistently fail to see this, and you wish to make a potentially huge thread discussing this pet theory. Editors aren't obliged to engage in this if the opposing editor signals that she is not au fait with key policies like WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::: But what is so difficult to show at least 1 occurrence of Karsh supposedly missing view?

:::* yours: "mainstream historians use to contextualize these same comments, and to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to Karsh." Who are these historians? what are their diametrically opposed conclusions? I do not remember that they were mentioned at all. (again-note that the issue is "British diplomay" and not "British policy inside Palestine").

:::* The situation starts to remind a Kafkaesque situation, where there is no way to know what is supposedly wrong. Ykantor (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::::That was already done on the talk page on the article several times. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::::: It seems that reasons for rejecting Karsh are a matter of top secret, and I am not eligible to know it. I have just read the talk page again, but I have not found the reasons you claimed. I am not sure whether the situation is a farce or a Kafkaesque Ykantor (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::: See Pluto2012's post above from 09:33, 16 June 2013 for example. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::: I apologize for lack of participation in this dispute so far, since I opened it... It is correct that undue weight should not be given to opinions, and opinions found in only one source may not be prevalent enough per WP:WEIGHT... smileguy91^talk 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Welcome back. Hopefully Pluto will expose now the still top secret Karsh's errors / mistakes. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Doniago|13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=There has been no further input since one of the DRN volunteers suggested the case was closed. Ratings information has been removed. -- Nbound (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:American Dad!}}

Users involved

• {{User|Doniago}}
• {{User| AmericanDad86}}
• {{User| DarthBotto}}
• {{User| Darkwarriorblake}}
• {{User| CTF83! Alt}}
• {{User| Kww}}

Dispute overview

A discussion regarding whether it's appropriate to include the parental rating for the show is being complicated by an editor's frequent reliance on arguments not pertinent to the dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened an ANI case that was closed with a recommendation to bring the matter here as a content dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I believe the editor making the non-relevant arguments should be advised to focus on content, not their fellow editors.

I personally do not see much merit in indulging the subject of this complaint, so much as I would like to remind the two central parties to settle their differences, as the unclean resolution approach on both sides have not benefited the article. I only wish to see more civil discourse, but the content of the article is of no consequential significance to me. DarthBotto _talk•cont 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:Aye carrumba, what a mess O_o. Something as simple as whether or not to include the rating in the page of a TV show definitely should not spawn a heated conflict such as this. But hey, that's what DRN is for, so I'm glad to try and assess this situation. My approach for debates on whether or not to include certain content is whether or not it will help the article conform to the standard of how similar articles are structured. I'm looking at the pages for Family Guy, and other shows associated with American Dad and I do not see any obvious references to the rating. It is, therefore in my opinion, that we do not need to include it in the American Dad article. As an experiment, I'm entrusting all users involved in this to refrain from focus on personal differences in discussing this. What in your opinion, should be done with the rating system info? Please make your argument without any references to any grievances you have with other editors. Let's keep this a dispute about content. Thanks; I'm looking forward to hear everyone's arguments.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::My argument remains essentially the same as it's been throughout the course of the discussion. If this were a film article, WP:FILMRATING would apply. While it's obviously not a film article, I believe the same principles should apply. I don't believe a compelling case has been made for why this article should be treated differently, and it's my opinion that the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should we be including parental guidelines info? has supported minimizing the ratings information if not eliminating it entirely. Doniago (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::It's a trivial point. The rating of a particular episode of a particular show in a particular country doesn't merit discussion.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Comment: Im another DRN editor, and I am amazed this discussion has gotten this far. A television show's parental guideline rating in one country (or even multiple countries) is in no way notable content, every episode of every tv show has a rating of some kind and wikipedia , and unless there is or was controversy around it, theres no reason to include it. Look at the pages for other tv shows. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate assortment of facts. I may comment on this case further as it progresses but it will be lead by User:EnglishEfternamn -- Nbound (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::I second Nbound's opinion. Film articles may include the ratings, but they are films, and thus, a whole other ball game. Saying that the article should include rating info on the basis that film articles include it is not a compelling argument, in my opinion. Unless you can cite a realiable source that has discussed this information at length and how the rating relates to the show as a phenomenon, I am leaning towards its omission. Cheers.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:::WP:FILMRATING actually argues against the inclusion of ratings in most cases. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my earlier comments. In other words, I'm arguing that both film and tv articles should have minimal ratings coverage. While there's a guideline for films, there isn't one for tv articles at this time (though I've asked for one per the conversation I linked above. Doniago (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::::I misunderstood what you were saying, I'm sorry. I agree though, I don't see any reason why the article needs this reference as it is a trivial one indeed. And per Nbound's statement that WIkipedia should not be treated as some indiscriminate aggregation of facts, I would say that the solution to this problem is rather simple: omit omit omit. In all honesty I think we're close to done here. I am a little confused, though, on whether this debate, or the one regarding personal attacks, most compelled you to file this claim. If the incivility persists, I would encourage you to take it up with WP:ANI. As for here, I think consensus is leaning towards omission. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::He did take it to AN/I and nothing came about from it. I do think the incivility is what was the driving force behind this, but I think there has not been enough focus, which is why this situation makes me scratch my head. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::Before we get to that, Darth, where do you stand on the issue of including or not including the rating?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I don't see much merit in including excessive rating information, to be honest. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}Indeed, the good folks at ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Repeated_Incivility.2FPersonal_Attacks_by_User:AmericanDad86 directed me to DRN], stating that this should be handled as a content dispute. Personally I agree that the consensus seems to be towards omission, but I also think AD86's conduct during the discussion has been non-productive, and I'm extremely concerned that handling the removal of material myself at this point will only invite more of the same. If it's pertinent, I did speak with the closing admin about this as well and they elaborated on their reasoning. Doniago (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm going to call consensus in favour of omitting the info at this point, unless significant opposition with good reason arises, and thus far, I've seen no such thing. The incivility issue should be treated an an altogether different issue. And to be honest, I'm a little confused as to what to do about that, as Doniago started this with primary focus on content. Doniago, I think you may have to start a new claim here, focusing on that aspect, or again take it to WP:AN/I. The fact the issue has been discussed here may get someone to actually listen.

As for the page, I'm going to mention on its talk section the goings on here and instruct editors not to re-incorporate a reference that consensus has decided against.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:Honestly, I had hoped/expected the ANI filing would go in a different direction and never expected the matter to be considered a content dispute. I only came here because that seemed to be the consensus as to what I should do if I felt the matter wasn't being handled well. I'm willing to take the initiate in removing the appropriate material once the Talk page has been updated accordingly, and I guess I'll go back to ANI if problems persist. I hope you can understand that this has all been rather frustrating for me. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback here for thir time. Doniago (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::I just updated the talk page. I would go and make the appropriate edits. You have my support, and if you take the issue back to AN/I i'll vouch for you. I'm not sure how much that will help, but I and the other editors who have commented on this thread are convinced you're in the right.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::Essentially, what is normally done unless there is a very severe breach of civility, is that once a consensus or policy/guidlines are established which deal with the content issue, if any editor does not go with the flow, and continues back to performing reversions or whatever. They can then be mentioned in regards to WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR at AP:ANEW, or for other breaches at WP:ANI, or even WP:SPI in the case of sockpuppetry [they can even without even without the extended discussions, but they usually help :) ]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbound (talk • contribs)

:::Thanks again to everyone who participated in the discussion. I've removed the appropriate material; I guess we'll see what happens from here (hopefully not much). Doniago (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::::I feel obligated to ask whether anyone here really feels that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Dad!&diff=560525946&oldid=560516968 this] is an appropriate contribution to the discussion. Seriously, if everyone feels the best course of action is to simply let this slide, then I won't take further action, but I very much believe that all that's really occurring here is that an editor's pattern of violating WP:NPA and misrepresenting the situation after being blocked for such previously and being asked repeatedly in the conversation to knock it off is ultimately being permitted. And I apologize if I'm being less than objective here, but I don't imagine that anyone who'd been attacked in this manner multiple times would be feeling especially objective either. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Probably not, but I'd let it slide at this point -- Nbound (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::Well AmericanDad86 has agreed to leave the ratings information out and no edit war has ensued. There is still the issue of the incivility, which I'm sorry to say, Doniago, I will not take sides in. I know I said I would before, but whatever dispute you have with A.D.86 is an extensive one and I can't get caught up in that. All the same, though, I think we can call the situtaion resolved as far as the content dispute is concerned. Thanks for your cooperation everybody!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 05:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|71.228.233.195|20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Stale, no sign dispute has continued, listing editor may no longer be editing. May be refiled if dispute continues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes}}

Users involved

• {{User|Friginator}}

Dispute overview

I see the value in the "Home Video Availability" column in the episode guide. I expanded it by adding home video availability of online digital episodes for sale through the 2 vendors that offer them. The updated information has been removed numerous times, and now the entire "Home Video Availability" column.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking on the user's page.

How do you think we can help?

Please restore the removed information.

While I appreciate that 71.228.233.195 has decided to try other means of resolving this issue, I feel like I've said all I can say about this relatively minor subject here, on my talk page.

Basically, 71.228.233.195 recently began listing video streaming services that the show is made available through on top of the preexisting (and bloated) list of various DVD and VHS releases. I've pointed out on multiple occasions that the only episodes of the show available through "Instant Video" services have already been released on DVD by the same distributor (Shout! Factory). The episodes being streamed even use the same cover artwork as the DVDs. I see no reason to add the words "Amazon Instant Video" over and over again next to every episode available online. Especially considering the fact that as of now, 71.228.233.195 hasn't provided a single source.

At this point, I have informed the user (who did not respond on my talk page before opening this discussion) that I have removed the "Home Video Availability" Column from the article altogether. This is something that, in my opinion, has been needed for a while. First of all, because every single home video release of the series is listed on a separate article dedicated to that subject specifically. This means that any information listed in the column could already be found in its own article. My second reason for the removal was that for years it seemed to attract violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Every time an episode was scheduled for a future release, someone would almost immediately list that release next to its respective episode. There is also the issue of this becoming a case of WP:FANCRUFT. Who besides diehard fans of the show is going to care whether or not the episode featuring Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues was released on a VHS tape or not?

And I can't say I appreciate the fact that this user has begun reverting all of my edits to the page, even if they have nothing to do with home video availability.

I would strongly recommend refering the edit warring behaviour to WP:ANEW -- Nbound

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jghapher|18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No issue re linkspam, insufficient talk page discussion in regard to benefit of link apart from linkspam issue. See complete explanation in discussion section below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

See [Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fat%26Happy]

Users involved

• {{User|Jghapher}}
• {{User| Orangemike}}
• {{User| Fat%26Happy}}

Dispute overview

On June 11th, user:Jghapher added external links to 22 entries. Links were to to specific political cartoons from the online Sykes collection (http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/syk). User:Fat%26Happy flagged these as linkspam. User:Orangemike argued that that there was value in the Ernest Lundeen and Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party additions. Upon further discussion User:Fat%26Happy also cited that the external links in addition to being linkspam did not add significantly to the understanding of the subject, especially as cartoons. Simultaneously, other users restored the cartoon links on two articles (Walter Johnson and John Nance Garner). The articles in question are Ernest Lundeen, Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party, James Farley, 1940 World Series, Hiram Johnson, Harold L. Ickes, Uncle Sam, Francis Townsend, Earl Browder, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Joseph F. Guffey, Fulgencio Batista, Martin Dies, Jr., Yosuke Matsuoka, Joseph Taussig, 1941 World Series, Pierre Laval, Adolf Hitler, Army–Navy Game, Walter Johnson, John Nance Garner, John L. Lewis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Some courteous discussion on talk page referenced above.

How do you think we can help?

Help determine if these edits were linkspam and if they should be reinstated as external links.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but want to ask the involved editors to clarify the dispute. I'm not sure whether this a dispute over whether or not the links are linkspam or whether is it a discussion over whether or not they are proper external links independent of the linkspam question, or both. It seems to me that they are pretty clearly linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." My opinion is that rule isn't really open to appeal. It exists so that we don't have to continually get in difficult-to-resolve fights over the quality of the links and the motivations of the introducing editor every time this happens. To allow an appeal in the form of discussion of whether or not the links really are or are not linkspam would defeat the purpose of the rule, which is to avoid that very discussion. However, once the links are removed it doesn't seem to me that the fact that they were once procedurally linkspam doesn't forever brand the links as linkspam, nor does it settle the question of whether or not they are appropriate for the article. Just because the motive of the original introducer was spammy (and I do not mean to imply that was or was not the case here), doesn't mean that the link is not appropriate for the article (as is clearly implied by WP:EL#ADV; third party editors can decide whether it is or is not. So it appears to me that there are only two possible issues here:

• Are the links linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."?
• Are the links appropriate for the article, as decided by the consensus of parties other than the original introducer?

As to the first question, I don't believe that there's really any room for discussion, but I could be wrong; please clarify if I am wrong. As to the second question, the discussion appears to have raised that issue in reference to one particular link in one particular article, but that the question has not been discussed at any length at the venue listed above. This noticeboard is, per its guidelines, only for content issues which have received extensive discussion at a talk page. Unless someone either (a) can give some particularly good reason that the rule in the first question should not apply or (b) can point to a place where extensive discussion of the second question has taken place between editors other than Jghapher it is my intent to close this request after 20:00 UTC on June 25. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|ÓCorcráin|17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Futile due to lack of participation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Michael Gambon}}

Users involved

• {{User|ÓCorcráin}}
• {{User| MarnetteD}}
• {{User| Jon C. }}
• {{User| 93.107.203.0}}
• {{User| Allthestrongbowintheworld}}
• {{User| 109.76.180.162}}
• {{User| Gareth Griffith-Jones}}
• {{User| Ukexpat }}
• {{User| Dmcq}}
• {{User| Scolaire }}
• {{User| Τασουλα }}
• {{User| JAJ }}
• {{User| Billtheking }}
• {{User| Filastin }}
• {{User| Blue-Haired Lawyer }}
• {{User| Noleander }}
• {{User| FormerIP }}
• {{User| Spanglej }}

Dispute overview

Unfortunately like so many disputes that occur on Wikipedia, this one revolves around the nationality of a notable actor, specifically his Irish nationality.

The original stable version of the lede backed up with references contained mention of his Irish nationality. However, recently within the last few months, the article was hijacked by an influx of editors who have been involved in many content disputes surrounding nationality, but not all of them, due to nationality disputes it is the nature of nationalistic editors to become entrenched and apathetic towards compromise, this obviously causes problems. Though I am sure some of them will accuse of me being the same. Anyway the lede was changed without consensus, his Irish nationality was removed just to say English instead.

The reason for this was because of an interview nearly two years ago where it was claimed the figure in question explicity renounced his Irish identity and heritage. However this is untrue and more recent interviews and news articles contradict this assertion.

In this discussion that took place [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Gambon#13_November_2012_Nationality] these three editors decided to change the lede just to say English without any discussion or consensus. Now they will not revert or compromise claiming that there is 'no consensus' despite the latter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Some of us tried and wanted to reach a compromise which included both his Irish and English nationality and heritage. However it was met with hostility and incivility and so I regret to say I lost my cool. I then opened an RfC but that went nowhere either just more incivility. There is no sign of this abating so I am asking for outside help to resolve this.

How do you think we can help?

By being an unbiased and impartial party who resolve this in a rational and neutral manner and reach a compromise.

The individual in question strong identifies with being Irish and with being born in Ireland, in interviews he has confirmed this numerous times and may other sources which validate this. The whole edit war originated when an edit without consensus was made just to change his nationality English when attempt to reverse this were made there was entrenched and uncompromising opposition until it was reminded that there was no consensus for their change. The fact is however that Michael Gambon also identifies as English so I think it is only suitable to also make a reference in the lede to that. Irish-English is a possibliyu.

It is frustrating to see editors who were heavily involved in edit-warring not engaging here or participating in any discussion just because things didn't go their way. If they see this I ask you to please show some maturity, be civil and get involved, you know who you are. ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The person was born in Ireland but brought to London when they were five, given British nationality and grew up and learned their craft there. I don't think it is right to just say 'Irish' in the lead with no qualification but then again just saying English or British isn't quite true either. I would go for something like English actor born in Ireland and leaving the rest of the article to say what that means. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I see two problems here. First, as I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Gambon&diff=next&oldid=545387095 my contribution to that discussion], self-identification is one of the the least useful criteria of nationality in most cases, especially with somebody who says "I am Irish" or "I am not Irish" depending on the interview or the time of year. Second is the notion, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Gambon&diff=next&oldid=545019265 one participant put it], that "an interview from 2010 trumps one from 2004." Gambon had said in 2004, "I had a slight Irish accent - because, you know, I am Irish..." but when asked in 2010 did he "feel Irish" he answered, "No, been here too long." I can't see how the idea that the later trumps the earlier meets any Wikipedia policy, or indeed how deciding a person's ethnicity by what the person said about himself meets any Wikipedia policy. WP:V requires only that content be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. WP:UNDUE requires that no view be given undue weight. There are comparable numbers of sources saying that he is Irish, English, British, Irish-English, Irish-born English etc. It seems to me that "Irish-English" or "Irish-born English" is the most balanced under those circumstances. Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Although nationality on bios can be tricky when it comes to the UK and Ireland, there's a well-established principle, set out in WP:LEAD, that we should not confuse nationality with ethnicity. In this case, it appears to be well-sourced that the subject of the article has dual nationality (Irish and British), so this is the information to include in the lead. We should do this using a full clause, not a hyphen, since this style may be subject to confusion with a description of ethnicity. Where he lives, how he feels, what his voice sounds like and so on do not change the basic fact regarding his nationality(s). Formerip (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings;

I have self-assigned myself to your case. At this time, I am merely writing this to inform you that I am going to help resolve this dispute. To start with, I would like parties to briefly summarise their arguments, with specific references to the diffs and/or other evidence that they wish to cite in that brief statement. I would prefer that this be done sometime tonight, and I will return to this topic sometime in the morning. Obviously, if you are unable to provide brief summaries by tomorrow morning, please drop me a message on my talkpage, telling me that you have seen this comment, and that you will be posting the requested summary soon - this is just to make sure that I know that you know what's going on. --The Historian (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

:Like Historian, I'm a volunteer here at this noticeboard. Not much can be done here unless all involved editors choose to participate. Therefore, in light of the lack of participation here by most of the listed editors, this listing will be closed after 14:00 UTC on June 28 unless the other listed editors choose to join in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

::In that case since most of the editors who were edit warring refuse to engage, we will be reverting it back to the version it was before the discussion seeing as they are unwilling to cooperate with the project. ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|APerson241|20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Whether or not a particular edit is vandalism is a conduct issue not handled by this noticeboard. Whether or not the material in question is appropriate for the article is within the scope of this noticeboard, but the guidelines of this noticeboard require that issues be extensively discussed on a talk page before coming here and that has not happened. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Coat of arms of Syria}}

Users involved

• {{User|APerson241}}
• Special:Contributions/178.61.44.13

Dispute overview

The conflict is between myself and editor 178.61.44.13, regarding an edit of theirs that I reverted because I believed it to be vandalism. The edit in question removed the portion of the article that dealt with the Syrian National Coalition. The user who made this edit then reverted my revert; when I responded by reverting his revert, he notified me via my talk page that "you are syrian ? , you are welcomed to edit syrian articles , you aren't syrian , so you aren't welcomed".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Deciding whether or not the edit in question is vandalism and whether or not it should be reverted.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Yes Behind The No|01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Resolved, see below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Corina (singer)}}

Users involved

• {{Userlinks|AndyTheGrump}}
• {{Userlinks|Bbb23}}
• {{Userlinks|Amaury}}

Dispute overview

My name is CORINA Katt Ayala. Among other things I have been a recording artist. Someone has created a page about me and the information is not accurate. In the meantime I and my assistant made some changes to help the article along and it was first vetoed by an ANDY THE GRUMP and then after trying to leave messages on the Talk page explaining I was in fact the artist there were violation/copyright infringement notifications posted by other parties.... Amaury and yet another known at Bbb23. I am a bit confused and trying to resolve this issue without offending anyone. I am in fact just trying to help the wonderful work they have already done by adding to it. I am not a WIKI wiz and am just getting acquainted with it. Who can I talk to ASAP so this can be corrected and everyone can stop being so offended. I AM THE ARTIST IN QUESTION. What will you need from me to prove this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mostly messages in the TALK section because I have NO idea how to do anything on here. I can write songs, screenplays and Direct but this has me at a complete loss! This is all vey complicated and full of different procedures for different issues. Im not so sure I am in the right place even now but I'd really like to resolve this.

How do you think we can help?

Contact these people and have the contact me. I can be reached at yesebindtheno@gmail.com I would gladly share the information with them, I just need this to be accurate as I'm sick of all the incorrect information on the web about me AND other artists getting credit for my work. There are suddenly tons of Corinas and I have been involved in a legal issue with at least one of them over using my exact font for her name to confuse people into thinking she was me. Please help.

I think I'd better start by apologising on behalf of Wikipedia for making editing and communicating so difficult - it can be daunting for a beginner, especially if things start to go wrong.

Regarding the article itself, it will certainly be useful if you can confirm that you are indeed Corina - I'll check up on exactly the best way to do this. There are however a couple of things that you'll need to understand about the way Wikipedia works, and why there are problems with the article beyond copyright issues. Firstly, this in an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to present a balanced account of the subject matter, rather than being written as promotional material. Secondly, and related to this, articles are intended to be based on published material, and unsourced self-authored content is unlikely to be acceptable. We strongly discourage writing autobiographical articles, and we have a conflict of interest guideline which makes clear the issues that this raises. I can see no reason why the article cannot be expanded upon beyond the state it was in prior to your edits, if suitable sources can be found, but I'm afraid that the content added by you is likely to be seen as far too promotional to be accepted.

Returning to the image copyright issue, we would need to see confirmation that you do indeed own the rights to any images uploaded, and I think I should probably point out that it might possibly not be in your best interests to upload them - the creative commons license allows such images to be reused elsewhere (subject to certain conditions), and you might well find them being used in ways you didn't intend.

I am sure there are other things that will need explaining, but hopefully I've given you some idea of where we stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just two comments. First, the IP has a registered account: User:‎Yes Behind The No. She should be editing from there only and not using an IP address (in other words, always log in to your registered account when accessing Wikipedia). Second, based on the history, she should probably confirm that she is indeed Corina. She should look at the procedure at WP:IDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andy The Grump and no need to apologize. I appreciate you explaining some of the ins and outs of how wiki works. I understand that this platform has its own checks and balances and I appreciate your taking the time out to explain them to me. As for the conflict of interest I completely understand and respect the guidlines. I do have one question however as far as the images go. I have no problems with the use of the images as they are all over the internet and used in varios ways, what I would like to know is how at the very least a photograph of me the Artist can be added to my profile as it is on many entertainers pages without it being a conflict of interest?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Corina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Behind The No (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. It appears to me that this really wasn't a dispute so much as a cry for help and better communication which has largely been solved by the foregoing discussion and the balance of which, which is mainly informational, could be worked out on the article talk page without help from this forum. Unless someone expresses the need to keep this open, I or some other volunteer will close it as resolved after 14:00 UTC on June 28. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Ykantor|22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Though there's a content dispute underlying this, as it is currently stated this request it is either a conduct dispute (over whether or not a certain act is vandalism) or a help request, neither of which is within the purview of this noticeboard. If you want to report vandalism, consider WP:AIV, if you want to request help about someone's conduct, consider WP:ANI, but I suspect that either of those venues will tell you that this is nothing more than a content dispute and kick you back here. If that happens, or if you simply care to try again here, please feel free to refile but only discuss the content issues, not user conduct such as vandalism. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|1948 Arab–Israeli War}}

Users involved

• {{Userlinks|Pluto2012}}
• {{Userlinks|Ykantor}}
• {{Userlinks|Frederico1234}}
• {{Userlinks|ZScarpia}}
• {{Userlinks|Zero0000}}
• {{Userlinks|A.S. Brown}}

Dispute overview

I apologize for the strange appearance of the "location of dispute". The location is: 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if Wikipedia rules are offended. The section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&oldid=557224782#British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs British diplomacy in support of the Arabs] was deleted by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pluto2012#a_notification_of_vandalism user:pluto2012]. In my opinion , this deletion is offending 2 rules:

1. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

2. do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

If my understanding of those rules is wrong, I would like to know why. Otherwise, if this user is offending the rules, he should be notified, and hopefully, stop deleting most of my editions, although he does not find errors in the removed sentences.

please note: I have already opened a dispute, but it was auto-archived while the volunteer was trying to advance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked him to add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

How do you think we can help?

If my understanding of those rules is wrong, I would like to know why. Otherwise, if this user is offending the rules, he should be notified, and hopefully, stop deleting most of my editions (other articles).

Comment: Biased content can an should be removed where it is getting undue attention, and/or the sources are also biased. (I havent read the page or previous discussion), but there are plenty of reasons why blocks of biased content can and should be deleted. Im not making any judgement on this material as I havent seen it, but the premise that it cant be deleted is incorrect.

For volunteer taking case: previous discussion

-- Nbound

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{clear}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Insufficient talk page discussion at the time this request was filed. Discussion has now started at the article talk page. Feel free to refile if it stalls out after a thorough discussion. Moreover, as currently stated, this is more of a conduct dispute than a content dispute. Remember that while articles must have a neutral point of view and achieving that balance is a content matter within the scope of this noticeboard that POV pushing, or editing from such a biased point of view that the best interest of the encyclopedia is not taken into consideration, is a conduct matter not handled by this noticeboard. In discussing NPOV we discuss how particular edits affect the article; in discussing POV pushing we discuss editors and their motivations, and we do not do the latter here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Coppercholride|06:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Tamilakam}}

Users involved

• {{User|Coppercholride}}
• {{User| Blackknight12}}
• {{User| SriSuren}}
• {{User| Avedus}}

Dispute overview

There has been infrequent but repeated cases of removal and infringement of sourced content in this history-related article often by Sri Lankan editors who aim to push their POV and forced removal of cited information that does not entertain their whims or perhaps I feel for their political propaganda of the page.

These users have been involved in radical POV pushing with other editors, and have resisted all attempts for the others to have their say, but they are now currently engaged in systematic edit warring on the article to seek removal of new content that they do not like.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

While the Sri Lankan editors have obviously made a vociferous resistance to the claims of previous editors on a part of Sri Lanka constituting Tamil Eelam with more no of poor refs on their side, now they have started a new dispute over the content I added which basically does not fall short of WP:RS nor does any of their references contradict my point. User SriSuren especially has been using Wiki tools to intentionally remove cited content at the same time while adding his POV.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute is to see through the intentions of the Sri Lankan editors first and have a clear cut stand in what they are trying to prove. Basically they are intentionally engaging repeatedly POV pushing in a civilization article. First they were asserting that Tamil-speaking provinces were not a part of Tamilakam and now, they are suggesting that such provinces never existed. This is a frugal article as it stands, Tamilakam has no broad definition, Sri Lankan editors are using it to their whims.

Firstly as Coppercholride always avoids to do, he has not engaged in discussions on a talk page. Neither with me or as far as I know with any of the other users listed. He is currently involved in 4/5 edit wars with multiple editors, yet the one think he avoids to do is start a discussion instead of reverting ones edits. Although I am somewhat relieved he/she has brought this here, instead of holding the page hostage or edit warring. My role in this article has been making sure it is of neutral point of view and is well sourced with reliable references as the topic is highly controversial and attracts many vandalizes and editors (not just in this article) who edit based on emotion, traditions of myths and legends and war time propaganda (as Sri Lanka has just come out of a war) as opposed to those who edit based on reliable facts and sources. I intentionally have not involved my self more than that with this article.

User SriSuren however has been involved from the very beginning of this dispute, which I have been following closely. SriSuren has literally provided nearly 100 reliable sources, which can be seen here and here. SriSuren has engaged in discussions with multiple editors answering all their questions, seen in Talk:Tamilakam, which prove Sri Lanka was not part of Tamilakam yet all SriSuren's constructive edits have been reverted in favor of the limited sources that claim NE Sri Lanka is part of Tamilakam, (including TamilNet a non NPOV and pro LTTE website for the founding of Tamil Eelam, an aspiration state). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilakam&diff=546244343&oldid=545961459] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilakam&diff=561368544&oldid=561235431] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilakam&diff=561826668&oldid=561718682] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilakam&diff=562072454&oldid=562072294]

Hello!

I am Thehistorian10 (but refer to me as "Historian"). Whilst I am happy to mediate this dispute, I am going to refer it to another volunteer to get a second opinion on whether it should be a "quick close" case. In the meantime, however, I would like Parties to please provide links to the parts of the talkpage where they have - allegedly - discussed this issue before referring it to the noticeboard. I should inform Parties that one of the criteria for a case to be judged a "quick close" is that there has been no detailed discussion on a talkpage. I see no specific discussion of this issue, and would like Parties to provide clarification on where they have actively discussed this matter.

--The Historian (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Rohufish|16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive article talkpage discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|The Hindu}}

Users involved

• {{User|Rohufish}}
• {{User| Jayakrishnan.ks100}}
• {{User| Dawnseeker2000}}
• {{User| Ponyo}}

Dispute overview

Three other editors are repeatedly reverting a well supported change with several citations that I contributed. They are trying to browbeat me, harass me, and threaten me by posting warnings. Instead of selectively improving and changing what they feel can be improved, they are reverting the ENTIRE contribution. The wiki page for The Hindu has already been flagged as not having a neutral point of view. It reads like an advertisement for that organization. Some editors started to address this with a separate "Controversy" section to bring forth multiple perspectives. There are already references to pro-Sinhalese and pro-China bias, with sources such as TamilNet, South Asia Analysis Group, Hoot and self-reference to The Hindu, being considered good enough. My edit could most certainly be improved upon and I am welcoming of that. Perhaps these three editors could suggest better wording or language, but they have chosen to try to completely censor and erase the viewpoint I have given a voice to. At least some of the sources I cite are legitimate: A Youtube interview with the editor of The Hindu, a group discussion with all manner of perspectives in a 12000 member interest group, a reference to Siddhartha Vardarajan's wiki biography, the Haindavakeralam website, among others. Why the different treatment of TamilNet and Haindavakeralam for instance? Both are political websites, with their own perspectives and biases. As per wikipedia's policies, sources need not be unbiased, especially when it is an articulation of alternate viewpoints on a political issue. Once again, if the 3 editors of my contribution want to improve the language or clean up the contribution, they are welcome to do so, but if they just want to muzzle one perspective that they as a gang do not agree with, then that's not right. Blanket reversions to suppress facts and alternate perspectives is not the way to improve Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained that neutral sources are not required to support different perspectives on political topics. Warned them that they are reverting whole contributions without selectively suggesting improvements. Informed them that they are using incorrect reasons to revert edits, like calling an interview with the editor an unreliable source.

How do you think we can help?

I think these guys are convinced of the superiority of their worldview, and only a neutral party can help them appreciate that we all have our perspectives, and are allowed to represent them. I am accepting of whatever neutral arbitration decides. I am open minded and believe in free speech, and the expression of all viewpoints and perspectives. Let the reader decide what they want to believe in.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|198.199.134.100|07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Filed in wrong venue. Requests to ban or block an editor should be filed at ANI. This noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes or have that power or authority. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Morgellons}}

Users involved

• {{User|137.111.13.200}}
• {{User|198.199.134.100}}
• {{User|BullRangifer}}
• {{User|Drgao}}
• {{User|Erythema}}
• {{User|Judgeking}}
• {{User|Sailsbystars}}

Dispute overview

Some editors are strongly supporting the addition of fringe views into the main article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many people have tried to explain to these editors what Wikipedia's policies are. One editor in particular has clearly stated a strong emotional bias on the issue and a refusal to accept "the truth" being suppressed.

How do you think we can help?

Ban the primary offender. They appear to be a single-purpose account.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{clear}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Filing editor clicked "Yes, it has" when asked "Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page?" There has been no such discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Asheq Siddiquee|19:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Chudurbudur}}

Users involved

• {{User|Asheq Siddiquee}}
• {{User| Darkness Shines}}
• {{User|John of Cromer }}

Dispute overview

I created the article about a recent controversial utterance in Parliament of a rural word of Bangladesh which has stormed over the country media , cyber world and political parties. Being a rural word Chudurbudur has been neglected even as a word. That's why there came requests to even remove the page. Also few edits had come so far on the page which creates obstacle to the integrity of that word and the story of controversy. As I am new in wiki I had no idea about the edit war concept and have talk before edit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No , I am new in wiki. I don't know the formalities.

How do you think we can help?

All the information I have added are authentic with proof. So their is no question of removal of the page. So I seek protection of the article Chudurbudur and from making random removal of the sections.

Chudurbudur Is the article, someone may want to fix the links above. All I did was add a prod per DICDEF, and as the guy who created the article also removed the prod I am now going to AFD it. BTW, I cannot help but notice that the talk page to said DICDEF is a redlink. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another observation, the OP has not made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asheq_Siddiquee single] talk page edit since registering. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{clear}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Extensive discussion on the article talk page is required before opening a dispute resolution case. Guy Macon (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Gobbleygook|03:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Glenn Greenwald}}

Users involved

• {{User|Gobbleygook}}
• {{User| }}

Dispute overview

2 issues: (i) whether shortening the summary of one of Greenwald's works is appropriate; (ii) whether inclusion of reliable secondary sources describing Greenwald's political views is allowed

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

3O

How do you think we can help?

Provide an opinion on the aformentioned two issues. A caveat for potential volunteers: as per [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_28#Problems_with_editing] the editor with whom I engaged in the dispute has serious editing issues.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|JaggerAgain|07:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing as moot. All parties on one side of the dispute have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Legal aid in New Zealand}}

Users involved

• {{User|JaggerAgain}}
• {{User| Mainjane}}
• {{User|Stuartyeates}}
• {{User|Nick-D}}
• {{User|Clarke43}}

Dispute overview

Stuartyeates, Clarke43 and Nick-D appear to be operating as a tag deletion team on this page. The article describes legal aid in New Zealand and recent changes made by the Government. There was a section called 'Concerns of legal profession' which provides balance and insight to the article. The three editors described take turns deleting this section and coming up with spurious reasons for doing so. For some reason, they don't seem to think that what lawyers think about the changes is worth noting. Stuartyeates recently made a concession in this direction writing "No one is doubting that these are valid concerns held by the lawyers. No one is doubting that they can be touched on in the article" but then deleted the entire section anyway. This is entirely illogical.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

What other steps are there other than discussing it on the Talk page. Unfortunately, these three editors seem impervious to logic and reason are clearly editing with some particular POV.

How do you think we can help?

Some perspectives from uninvolved editors might be helpful.

This dispute began when NickD removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_aid_in_New_Zealand&oldid=556826496 this entire section] claiming: “No effort was made to present the government's case for this change”. Nick-D clearly didn’t read the rest of the article - which covers the Availability of legal aid, Government’s concerns about the growing cost, the impact of Waitangi claims, a review of the entire legal aid system by Margaret Bazley (which is mostly about costs but is also critical of the legal profession for rorting the system) and Government’s response to the Bazley review . To suggest that ‘no effort was made to present the government's case for this change’ is ludicrous. The bulk of the article is about the government's case.

The section NickD deleted expressed concerns by the legal profession about the changes. It provided balance to the article by showing that there was more than one perspective. I then substantially shortened it so it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_aid_in_New_Zealand&oldid=561729624 looked like this]. Clarke43 then deleted the new version saying: “removed once before by Nick-D for the same reason.” In other words, Clarke 43 has also not understood that the article mostly contains the government's perspective. I reverted his edit explaining: “A valid reason has not been supplied.”

Half an hour later Stuartyeates came along and deleted it again saying: “POV pushing”. It seems all three editors only want it to present the Government’s perspective. This is a breach of WP: NPOV which says: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. This means an article about legal aid which does not contain any comment or opinion from the legal profession does not meet WP policy.

The problem is these three editors have been canvassing each other which is a breach of WP:CAN and “compromises the normal consensus decision-making process and is generally considered disruptive behavior.”

• In my most recent comment on the talk page I said: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALegal_aid_in_New_Zealand&diff=562509827&oldid=562502212 Legal aid in New Zealand is ~ 80 years old, but 4/5ths of the current article is about the political / lawyers unions games of the last 15 years. This is not a sound approach to building articles, which are meant to be balanced (see Wikipedia:Recentism)...] And proposed a way forward. I stand by that 100%.
• I believe I am editing in consensus with the majority of other editors; I am disappointed this may be perceived as tag teaming, but they're really two views of the same thing.
• In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMainjane&diff=561740204&oldid=561739614 an edit] to User talk:Mainjane I suggested there may be issues there. I'm happy to disclose the identity in confidence as necessary (but I'm not sure of the process for that).

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Offender9000 in connection with User:Mainjane. If the investigation clears User:Mainjane, I will withdraw/cede from this DRN, unwatch the article and move on. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the material as it was blatantly biased and included material not supported by the references provided, or where the reference was to an opinion piece which the article then presented as a fact. I explained this on the talk page, receiving no response from any other editor at the time. I haven't edited the article since. To characterise this as tag team editing is rather silly. I note that there is general support for the removal of the material on the talk page in the subsequent discussion, but JaggerAgain keeps edit warring it back in. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:Mainjane and JaggerAgain have just been blocked as sockpuppet accounts of {{user|Offender9000}}: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Offender9000. As such, I think that this should be closed. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The whole article needs work to get things back into balance and to a NPOV. Unfortunately this article was heavily edited by a now banned user 'Offender9000'. He spent a lot of time editing articles to push a POV that he supported and removed balance. Due to this there are many articles that need major work and only a few editors around who are chipping away at them.
• As a result, adding another large section like this isn't going to help things. Perhaps if someone was to sit down and write up a great couple of paragraphs condensing down the modern material then that would be a sound addition. And yes... a sentence on the fact some lawyers don't agree with the changes should be included.
• This isn't tag teaming to remove material. This is 3 editors who agree and are editing in good faith and trying to do their best to get articles back up to standard so that tags can be removed. We need to ensure that WP's 'voice' isn't being used to push POV's.
• Reverting the same material over and over, not modifying or taking advice on isn't helping - it is trying to start an edit war.
• What I find weird is that this almost identical section was placed on the page originally by Offender9000. It was removed during a clean up, only to be re-instituted by Mainjane, who after it was removed; quickly reverted it; but instead of Mainjane entering into any type of dialogue about the edits JaggerAgain leaps in. Seems kinda strange...

Clarke43 (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI for those involved, I have fixed the template error by the initial poster and notified the editors he indicated are involved manually Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not involved, but thank you Cabe. smileguy91^talk 14:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

::I am the uninvolved admin and CheckUser who dealt with the SPI case. The two contesting accounts, JaggerAgain and Mainjane, are incontrovertibly {{confirmed}} socks of an indefinitely blocked user. This case can be closed immediately. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Digifan23|03:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard as a prerequisite to filing here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|TV Land}}
• {{pagelinks|List of programs broadcast by TV Land}}
• {{pagelinks|Guiding Light}}
• {{pagelinks|As The World Turns}}

Users involved

• {{User|Digifan23}}
• {{User| 76.92.148.191}}

Dispute overview

a user has been added unsoucred info about as the world turns and guiding light coming to TV Land the user added a source but it's not a source it's what the user wants to beleve

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

warned the user on the user page

reported to the administrator

all to no avail

How do you think we can help?

talk to the user

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Mallexikon|02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The parties are discussing further and making progess at the original location. Nbound (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Acupuncture}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mallexikon}}
• {{User| Dominus Vobisdu}}
• {{User| TippyGoomba}}
• {{User| Herbxue}}

Dispute overview

I have proposed to change the first lede sentence to "Acupuncture is a collection of alternative medical procedures". This has been met with multiple ojections, the first one being that this statement has to be backed up by multiple sources meeting the standards of MEDRS. As soon as I have contributed those sources, the objection was changed to the statement being ambiguous, and the term "alternative medical" not literally being found in the sources. After these objections were addressed, the objection changed to the statement being superfluous.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1.) Back the intended statement up with MEDRS

2.) Avoid ambiguity by wikilinking the term in question: alternative medical procedure (as opposed to alternative medical procedure)

How do you think we can help?

Give NPOV on whether the MEDRS' statements of "Acupuncture is one of the oldest, most commonly used medical procedures..." (Clinical guideline source), "Acupuncture is ... a complementary or alternative medicine.." (NHS source) and "Acupuncture is one of the oldest and most commonly used forms of traditional medicine... " (NIH source) are backing up my intended sentence ("Acupuncture is a collection of alternative medical procedures ...")

Like Tippy, still waiting for solid sourcing. Right now, all we have is synthesis based on patching together different sources. Furthermore, the statement is redundant and adds nothing to the article. I see no point in continuing this deadhorse argument here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=562358453 This] pretty much covers it. I'd still be interested to see some sources, I love being surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed edit is justified by common sense alone as it is accurate and reasonable. Beyond that, Mallexikon has worked towards consensus by qualifying the sourced "medical procedure" as "alternative medical procedure" and has provided several reliable sources. Herbxue (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer, that alone confers no special powers and I am another opinion, I cannot make binding decisions. What we strive to do here in most cases is to find an outcome that is acceptable to both parties (assuming their arguments are valid). It may not be an outcome you love, but hopefully we can find one that all involved can live with.

How about we just change the sentence, and we instead state that "Acupunture is a form of alternative medicine that involves penetration of the skin with needles in order to stimulate certain points on the body." (or something similar). The medical procedure part is extraneous, and introduces unneeded ambiguity; just stating what it is (alternative medicine), and what it involves (penetration of skin with needles) gets the same point across. -- Nbound (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks a lot for your time and input, Nbound. I prefer "alternative medical procedure" much over "procedure/form of alternative medicine" because it keeps the whole sentence from sounding clumsy... but this might be a good plan B. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

::There have already been legitimate issues claimed about your "Plan A" by editors in that thread, so excluding any change in opinion on their behalf, its unlikely to used as it currently stands. As I started in my original post, we need to work towards a result all parties can agree with. -- Nbound (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

:::True. I started a new proposal with new sources at the acupuncture talk page. Thanks again. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}