Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
History of the United States public debt
 | Possibly settled, but stale in any event. — 21:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Editing conflict. The first issue should be extremely simple -- is it more accurate to attribute the Federal Government's 2009 budget to Bush, or to state that it is a transition budget influenced by both Bush and Obama. I believe the latter is more accurate, because (for example) the stimulus was passed after Obama took office, as well as the omnibus spending bill. I edited the table to point this out, and my edit was promptly reverted as "POV motivated." I will freely state that I do have a conservative point of view. However, it remains a factual statement that the transition budget should be attributed to both Administrations. The second issue is that the article includes what I believe to be POV information from the Obama Administration and the NYT, with no countervailing right-wing point of view. Well, if they want to have their lefty POV stuff that's fine, but they should be willing to admit that it is POV, label it as such, and be equally willing to balance it out with some right wing POV. Then we would have a balanced article that includes both sides. However, when I tried to include some right wing POV, they simply reverted it, stating that it was POV. Apparently they think their POV is fine and mine is not. Users involved
Yes, I notified them both. Achowat and Lawrencekhoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
Yes, I explained that a transitional budget is associated with both Administrations. This is perfectly consistent with the prior version of the article explaining its ostensible reasons for putting a transitional budget into one Administration. I also raised the issue of the lack of neutrality on the article's talk page. I notice there that I am not the first reader to have the same issue.
I don't know, I'm new here, but it seems just plain wrong that others are insisting on keeping a table that associates one President with transition budgets, even though the new Administration always makes changes. William Jockusch (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC) History of the United States public debt discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
In the sense of full disclosure, my role in this 'dispute' was merely in the removal of unsourced POV opining from the page, here, and discussing the issues of WP:V and WP:NPOV on various talk pages. That being said, (and I wish these issues were dealt with on Talk Pages instead of here), could I inquire as to the usefulness of citing a 'President' and having these tables based on percentages done by Republican/Democratic presidents? It seems to me that not only is the flavor of the Oval Office poorly indicative of the Budget process (since Budgets originate in the House, not the Executive Branch) and just ripe for these variety of POV disputes. Why not simply state the year, the Congress that passed the budget (101st versus 102nd, etc) without worrying about Red and Blue or Carter/Reagan? -Achowat (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Clerk's request to William Jockusch: As listing editor, please answer the questions in the "Resolving the dispute" section above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I don't see how this is an actionable dispute. The government's budget is listed under the fiscal year (even if it were the calendar year it wouldn't matter that much) so 81 is Carter, 93 Bush, 2001 Clinton, etc. Marking budgets as transitional appears to be an attempt to associate Obama with the 2009 budget. The "second problem" listed in the dispute lends credence to this theory. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
So, the only question the remains, Billy Jock, if this is an amicable solution to both of us (again, I have no dog in this fight except the Five Pillars) who is actually going to go and synthesize the information on the page? -Achowat (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Clerk's note: It appears to me on a quick look that this dispute has moved on or been settled in whole or in part. If no one expresses a desire to keep this open, I'm going to close this in a day or two. — TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Stallion
| Nonproductive and repetitive; primarily conduct, not content dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I added some additions to the "Stallion" article. Among them two resources on a site which was categorized as an unreliable source. As a consequence, my changes were repeatedly removed. After starting a discussion, it came out, after a very long discussion, why my contributions were deemed as unreliable. After having understood how important and seriously reliability is treated on Wikipedia, I found one of the major editors of the stallion article come from the same geographic area as a resource which already existed in the article. When reviewing that resource, I found no information about the author or publisher of that resource and raised the question about the reliability of that resource as well. I also indicated that one of the major editors happened to come from the same geographic area as that resource, which that editor had revealed herself. Upon this, my post was deleted, claiming that I had tried to "out" one of the editors. All subsequent posts inquiring about the reliability of that resource were also deleted. It was never my intention to "out" an editor, however, I would like to discuss the reliability of that other resource and whether or not it is a problem that one of the major editors happens to come from the same geographic area. I feel this should be possible without making false and abusive claims that I am trying to out that editor and subsequently delete all such posts. This is currently impossible as all my posts are deleted by other editors and I am told to handle it via Wikipedia Dispute Resolution which I am hereby doing. EDIT (IP): I just realized what the cause of the false and unjustified accusations of several administrators such as Tom Morris must be: I stated that one editor comes from the same geographic location as one of the sources of the stallion article. This caused Tom Morris and other administrators to delete my posts without a trace and publicly accuse me of having tried to "out" an editor. Apparently Tom Morris has not read the whole discussion and thus has missed, that said editor has publicly stated herself to come from that same geographic location. As such, I have not revealed *ANY* information about said editor whatsoever, other than repeating information which she herself has previously given in that discussion. As such, I ask all steps of deleting my posts be reversed, and all insinuations, that I had tried to "out" someone be removed and corrected. 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved
EDIT: I (IP) Forgot: 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Tried to discuss this on the talk page and on my personal page (IP User talk:83.78.3.62 - my posts were deleted even there with fails claims that I am trying to out someone).
Ask existing editors to stop deleting my posts and allow discussion about reliability of said resource, also in connection with the coincidence of same geographic location of resource as one of the major editors of the stallion article. Indicating that an editor comes from the same geographic location and might even have ties to a resource, is not in itself an attempt to "out" someone. It can also merely be an attempt to discuss the consequences of an editor being related or linked to a resource, without thereby "outing" the editor in his identity, or trying to do so as was falsely claimed. 83.78.3.62 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Stallion discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Thank you AndyTheGrump for your help. I think it is direly needed here. This dispute resolution is not about me having wanted to cite any material. This dispute resolution is about false accusations, by numerous Wikipedia administrators, such as Tom Morris, that I had repeatedly tried to "out" someone, as well as about consequent deletion of my posts. The fact is, that an editor revealed information about her geographic location being the same as that of a resource which she had probably added herself. I questioned the reliability of that resource, and wanted to discuss the fact that said editor is from the same geographic location. Apparently Tom Morris (and others) has not read the entire discussion, or missed that said editor had posted the information about her geographic location herself, and thus, I had not done anything than to repeat information which she herself had given previously in the discussion. As a consequence, I am now being accused of trying to "out" someone, numerous of my posts were deleted because of this, some of them without leaving any trace, apparently by Tom Morris and also by others. I am extremely angry and unhappy with the repeated, unjust and public false accusations and insinuations that I had supposedly tried to "out" someone on Wikipedia and ask that this situation is resolved immediately and all such accusations are removed from the discussion page on stallions. Having hereby stated clearly what the cause of this dispute resolution was for me, I will answer your initial question:
None of the material contained in the source that I added can be cited elsewhere. The source that I added contains relevant, valuable and in-depth information which no other source contains. I think this is undisputed up until now. The reason for deleting the source I tried to add is not that the same information can be sourced elsewhere, but only that the source were "unreliable" and "self-published", or "fringe". As such, it was deleted, despite containing valuable and in my eyes relevant information for the topic at hand: Stallions. No other source contains as much in-depth information as the two I tried to add about keeping stallions naturally in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. What am I talking about: The sources that I tried to add contain the following: The first source contained an in-depth description of keeping 4 stallions in a group. This source is, in PDF form, a 37-page document and represents a very elaborate and detailed report on keeping 4 stallions in a stallions-only "bachelor" group over several years in Switzerland and adjoining Germany. The report comes from a Ferdi Wirth, Switzerland and was both authored and published by Mark Schmid and his publishing organ, the animaldignity.org website. The other source I tried to add is, in its PDF form, a 12-page detailed general instruction and background on how to keep stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups, with very specific and relevant information to do so, even in close proximity. As stated, I felt that both resources contain extremely valuable and relevant information about keeping stallions in groups, as both give relevant information on the topic which no other source gives. However, I was not aware of the apparently very strict conditions under which Wikipedia deems a resource as "reliable" or "fringe". I do understand that a majority of the other editors, while not disputing the quality of the content of said resources (that was never discussed, and probably not even reviewed by any editors other than myself), simply stated that the animaldignity.org website in general is either not a "reliable source" (other than for showing that there are people who believe castration were a mutilation) or that giving additional information about keeping stallions in groups were "fringe", because that form of keeping indeed is still very rare (probably far below 0.00001% or whatever). As such, I was under the assumption, that the discussion about the resources I had tried to add had come to an end and was resolved, with the outcome, that the resources I tried to add were deemed "fringe" or "not a reliable source". Montanabw in my eyes falsely reasoned and justified the animaldignity.org website were not a "reliable source" for information on keeping stallions in groups because the animaldignity.org website had non-mainstream views on other topics, such as castration, and others, that are not related in any way to the subject matter at hand: Keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. Montanabw felt that, simply because the animaldignity.org website held views on other, non-related topics that are not main-stream, it were an unreliable source in general, even for the topic at hand. I disagreed, but dropped the discussion on that, as apparently I was the only one who felt that way. Many non-mainstream opinions are still noteworthy and bear mentioning on Wikipedia. This is demonstrated by the same group of editors who voluntarily added / left the resource to the animaldignity.org website about Mark Schmid's view on castration. In the same context I felt, Mark Schmid's view, or rather the report from Ferdi Wirth which Mark Schmid published and authored, on keeping stallions in groups, could also be added. Especially considering that was the topic at hand, not castration. Anyways: To make a long story short: This dispute resolution is about false accusations that I supposedly had tried to "out" someone here on Wikipedia. Not about my disagreement with the existing editors of the stallion article on the value and reliability of the sources I wanted to add. Acroterion: Please stop immediately from making false accusations and publicly insinuating that I had tried to "out" someone. I regard this as abusive and perhaps even slander! Apparently you and others have not read the entire discussion. Otherwise you would (and should) be well aware, that Pesky herself has stated publicly that she comes from the same geographic area as one of the resources which possibly she herself had added. As such, me repeating this information can in no way be seen as an effort to "out" someone. Please do take credit of this fact and STOP making false accusations about me trying to "out" Pesky!! As such, all warnings given to me in context with this by numerous administrators, who apparently were *all* not aware of the fact that Pesky had made this information public herself, that it was *not* me who made this public (I wouldn't have known if Pesky wouldn't have made that information public herself), are not only moot, but disruptive and false. I ask that all such public accusations be removed immediately or corrected everywhere. "Uninvolved" administrator's opinion by Acroterion: > Dreadstar has removed the IP's speculation about Pesky. The animaldignity.org site is not a "single-purpose fringe advocacy site" in my eyes at all. It is also untrue that I have, qoute: "chosen to try to discredit Pesky". I see your posts as extremely abusive Acroterion and perhaps even as willful slander and direly ask you to stop doing that. I feel you should or are well-aware that I am in no way trying to discredit Pesky, who indeed, as you correctly stated, has at times, but by far not always, been very patiently and calmly elaborating Wikipedia policies. There was never *any* speculation about Pesky, not by me or anyone else. Nor an effort to discredit her. Pesky herself has publicly stated that she comes from the same geographic location as one of the resources which perhaps she has added herself to the stallion article. There is *no* speculation about the identity of Pesky on my part, only the fact which Pesky herself has made public in the long discussion on stallions. See so for yourself: (First) Arbitrary Break, quote: Pesky: > Where I live, in the New Forest (UK), it's standard practice for our Forest-running breeding stallions to be kept together in bachelor herds once they are taken off the Forest (they only run out for a few months each year with the mares to avoid early-born and late-born foals, which may have trouble surviving). Obviously, this is the same geographic location as the resource: "New Forest Pony Stallions". There was no speculation on my part at all, on the geographic location of Pesky, nor on her identity, as Acroterion and others are repeatedly and falsely insinuating. I do admit that in one of my posts I asked, whether or not Pesky might be related to the publisher of the resource on the "New Forest Pony Stallions" in any way, be that by family, employment, friends or whatever. However, that is *not* a speculation about the identity of Pesky, but a speculation about the connection between her and the "New Forest Pony Stallions" resource, irrelevant of Pesky's identity. Pesky's identity need not be known, nor outed, nor is it relevant, nor did I try to find it out or "out" it, to speculate or inquire about her connection with the "New Forest Pony Stallions" resource. My speculation was, and continues to be, despite false accusations that I had tried to "out" Pesky, which is simply not the case, that I found it peculiar, that the "New Forst Pony Stallions" resource, which is located geographically in the same area as one of the major editors of the stallion article, was, unlike the resource which I tried to add, not deemed "fringe" or "unreliable resource", despite the facts that it contained A:) Far less relevant information on the topic matter at hand and B:) No public indication on who the author and publisher was. Obviously, a resource that does not even give the identity of its publisher and author, can in no way be more "reliable" than a resource which does so. Even if it was added by a long-time editor of Wikipedia. I agree that, as I wished to know, if it is true that the New Forest Pony Stallions resource was added not because of its quality, but because of its geographic location which might or might not be in connection with the geographic location of Pesky, that that would then possibly put a negative light on Pesky and even discredit her somewhat. However, that is not my true intention, but only "collateral damage" so to say, in my, what I feel is justified in this case, inquiry, why the "New Forest" resource is deemed more reliable than the one I tried to add, despite the "New Forest" resource not even giving any information about its authors or publishers (for as much as I could find when reviewing it). So yes, perhaps my inquiry and wish to discuss this might cause discredit to Pesky, but in my eyes only if it is true what I wish to discuss: If the "New Forest" link is deemed more "reliable" only because a major editor happens to be located in the same geographic location, despite the fact that it seems to not contain much relevant information, is "fringe" just like the entire subject of keeping stallions in groups (far below 0.0001% or whatever) and does not state publicly who published it or who its author was. This is what I wanted to discuss, which resulted in immediate censorship on the false accusations that I had thereby tried to "out" the identity of Pesky, which in no way is true. I am not interested in the identity of Pesky in the least, nor in making her identity public in any way. Far from it. The problem at hand here is an entirely different one. Namely, no matter what the identity of Pesky is, that she lives in the exact same geographic location of a resource, which I see as no more reliable than the resources which I tried to add and which were deleted by her and other major editors of the stallion article with various reasoning with which I agree with only in part. -- Regards 83.77.224.215 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Comment from PeskyThe "outing" borderline-transgression arises from the IP editor claiming that sources mentioned were "Pesky's own site" (which was actually an entirely false accusation in any event). The source for the fact that, in this area, breeding stallions are kept in groups together (refers to "22 stallions are in the grazing at Cadland") comes from the New Forest Verderers' Court which has legal powers for the area. My concern was that this IP editor might - deliberately or otherwise - actually hunt down my genuine own site, at which point it's easy to find my real-life details. The IP editor was getting so extremely aggressive, making false claims that I was attempting to censor the article "in order to promote my own horses" (which I would think was abundantly clear to almost anyone as an attempt to discredit me, by stating that I was using, and censoring, Wikipedia in order to promote my own horses) and suggesting that the sites cited may be run / owned by connections (friends, family, employers) of mine (also not true), and stating as an almost-certainty that one of the sites was "Pesky's own site" (also untrue), that I had to give serious consideration to the possibility that their next step might be to dig up information on me in order to "out" me, as they had already come close to a real attempt to do so, with their speculations on site ownership. Giving the benefit of any doubt, and to be entirely and scrupulously fair to the IP editor, they may not have realised that speculating on the identities of another editor's website ownership, real-life friends, family or employers amounts to "attempted outing". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Repeat of original Request by IPWith this ordeal here, it has become clear to me that the abuse of power unfortunately is indeed very possible and perhaps frequent on Wikipedia (much like in other places I guess). And it saddens me tremendously to have to see and experience this. I had much, much better expectations about Wikipedia, to which I am new. But I guess it's "human". All the same, no reason to tolerate it in my eyes. I can only repeat: I am being slandered here by several editors and administrators, even after it has become clear that these are entirely false and totally groundless claims, that I had supposedly tried to out someone (Pesky) which is not true in any way at all. I feel this has been and continues to be done with ill or even criminal intent by several editors here, Acroterion, as seen above and Montanbw being two of them. If a supposed "victim" herself states that her alarm was a false alarm, caused by her own, unfounded and irrational anxieties alone, and such editors continue to state that it was not so, that I indeed had done something incorrect or not allowed on Wikipedia, and continue to accuse me of it, delete my posts, threaten me with banning me, etc, that is a clear case of slander and abuse of administrator and editor powers which the people in question wield. I ask that the editors in question be warned and stopped from doing so. Especially Acroterion has clearly shown that, even after it has become obvious that his claims that I had tried to out someone were false and unfounded, continues to make such claims and accusations, which comes down to being plain and pure slander. I ask that Acroterion at least be stopped and warned about slandering other people here on Wikipedia. Pesky herself admits clearly that it was not in any way the case that I had tried to "out" her. Pesky now claims she was supposedly "afraid", because of my "extreme aggression" (as she describes my inquiry to the validity or her sources). She can not show any evidence of any kind of "extreme aggression" on my part though. She merely perceived an inquiry about her sources as "extreme aggression", obviously not being used to someone questioning her sources as other sources, such as mine, are questioned. In her surprise of having her own sources examined, and her unfounded anxiety of being "outed", these emotions supposedly had caused her to raise and make the false and abusive claim that I was trying to "out" her. And this claim was believed by numerous administrators and editors, who immediately, and without further questions or examinations deleted several posts of mine and uttered very dire threats about being banned. Yes, I might have speculated out loud if Pesky's source is connected to her, directly or indirectly, which seems a justified question to ask when one examines the reliability of a source. The exact same thing was done with me and my sources and appears to be standard procedure when examining the reliability of a source. I find it grotesque and revolting to discover what is being done here: Because I dare question the validity of a resource that was added by a long-time editor with many friends here (obviously), and subsequently she raises false claims I were trying to "out" her thereby, I am being threatened, repeatedly, by numerous people, that I had overstepped acceptable lines, would be banned and am being slandered repeatedly in public as trying to "out" her, all my posts in this regard are deleted, some without leaving a trace in the history of the discussion page. With the statement of Pesky herself above, it becomes clear that the claim of trying to "out" her was a false alarm and a false claim, caused by an overreacting and in my eyes irrational and unfounded attack of anxiety that was caused by her surprise of having her own sources being examined. Next thing, I am being accused publicly and repeatedly of trying to rape someone, simply because some people here perhaps happen to be afraid of being raped and I question a resource added by them. Please do consider, if you publicly accuse someone of a crime, even someone as me who you might not happen to agree with, with things such as trying to "out" someone, and I think that is a "crime", repeatedly delete his posts, repeatedly threaten to ban him, just because he is making perfectly justified inquiries about the validity and reliability of a resource, you are seriously overstepping your boundaries and abusing the rights and privileges which Wikipedia has granted to you. If you do so without purpose and being aware of it, that is one thing. But if you continue to do so even after you have been told that you are in mistake, that is another thing. The resources which I tried to add were repeatedly deleted by Pesky, Montanbw and others in their group of friends, but when I question the validity of one single source which they have added, I get accused of trying to "out" Pesky, threatened with being banned permanently, my posts are censored, even arguments that are not in connection with that, etc. The people who have done so should be ashamed of their behavior and step down now. Say you are sorry for your mistake(s), apologize and correct what you have done wrong. Do so now. Remove all slander and accusations that I were trying to out someone, or had done so. Montanabw: You have expressed extreme disagreement with the animaldignity.org website in the discussion, based entirely on reasons that are in no way relevant for the topic matter at hand here (site supposedly would promote "bestiality", author thinks "castration is a mutilation", etc.!). If you have a personal problem with the author, or the other, non-related subjects discussed on the animaldignity.org website, I think that is your personal problem. Even if said views on the animaldignity.org site are indeed not mainstream. Please don't abuse that as a ground to disqualify otherwise valuable and relevant resources. I feel the animaldignity.org website delivers very valuable, objective, "scientific" and relevant information about horses, namely, about keeping stallions in groups, regardless what you, Montanabw may think about the animaldignity site, its owner or about his opinion on other, non-related subjects. And for the other non-horse people here: It's not like what Montanabw is trying to make it look like here: The dispute about the resources which I tried to add is not about the terminology that is used as a name for keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. Whether it's called "Stallion Group Keeping" as the animaldignity.org website does, or "natural management" or "herd management" as Montanabw calls it, is irrelevant. Obviously, the same thing is meant, so it is irrelevant which exact terminology is used. The relevant thing should be the content, the quality and the relevance about the topic, not the wording of a title. I can't help but notice, that Montanabw is continually gripping for straws here, to justify her, in my eyes, unfounded rejection of the two valuable and relevant resources which I tried to add. Obviously, if all she can complain about in a resource as she does here, is the particular terminology used to describe something, i.e. "group-keeping" instead of "natural management" as she or others may call it, it becomes obvious just how few valid arguments Montanabw has against said resource and thus how unfounded, arbitrary and thus non-relevant Montanbw's opinion is in this subject. I think Montanabw is not capable of judging the resources I tried to add on a neutral, objective and scientific base, as she should as an editor of a Wikipedia article. This has become clear in several posts of her on the discussion page, where she tries to discredit said resources, always with reasons which are in no way connected with the validity, value, relevance or quality of the material at hand. In short: Mantanabw obviously has very different and conflicting opinions about the castration of horses and other things which are informed about on the animaldignity.org website, and therefore wishes to discredit that resource as a valid, relevant and in my eyes reliable resource (even if admittedly, it is not perfect or ideal as to Wikipedia's guidelines - but which site is?). But as said, all this dispute about the content of the stallion article is not the original and primary reason why I called this dispute resolution. Even if I do disagree with the opinion that the resources which I tried to add were not valuable or relevant, the reason for this dispute is that I am being falsely accused and slandered as trying to "out" someone. As the supposed "victim", Pesky, admitted herself, her claim that I was doing so was based on unfounded anxieties on her part, not on any actions on my part. Except if you consider an inquiry about the reliability of her sources as a form of "extreme aggression" as she supposedly perceived it. The only thing I did, or tried to do, was to question the reliability of the resource which probably Pesky added, because it happens to be from the exact same geographic area as she comes from. I have the opinion, that if the resources I wanted to add are taken under scrutiny and examined closely, that I too may take resources from others under scrutiny and examine them closely. Such as those added by existing editors. Obviously so far, this is not the case. Because I am not a long-time editor here, with many friendship and sympathy ties to other editors and administrators such as my opponents without any doubt have, I am *not* allowed to question the reliability of resources added by them. If I do so, I am falsely accused of trying to "out" them, am repeatedly threatened with being banned and have numerous posts, including arguments about other topics, be deleted without a trace. That is a mistake. I ask Wikipedia people in power to correct the mistake(s) that were made here. Obviously, my opponents, the editors and administrators which I am obviously at odds with, are incapable of this. Some even continue to slander me, despite Pesky's public admittance, that her claims against me were raised on false grounds (her unfounded anxiety). While I am all for a lively debate and discussion, about all topics and without censorship, this which is being displayed and done here, false accusations of trying to "out" someone, and subsequent deletion of posts and threats of banning should not be ignored in an discussion that should be open and equal. It's enough already that I am not an administrator or an editor here on Wikipedia, nor have their powers, nor their friends. I don't need the added hurdle of slander and abuse of powers by existing editors and admins to deal with. Please: Do correct this mistake / these people. Apparently they are incapable of doing so themselves, but instead continue to slander me. I can only repeat what I have already said. Especially with Pesky's own admittance that her claims that I were trying to "out" her were false, you, the other admins of Wikipedia have all information and all means in your hands to right at least this wrong. Please do so as soon as possible. Other than that, I don't see anything else I could say or do. 83.77.192.207 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC) ResponseDear IP, please understand! Even speculation on someone's real-life friends, family, connections, employers, and website ownership is enough to violate the "outing" policy. It's that simple. The reason the comments were removed was, pure and simple, to remove this speculation. You may not personally have meant anything bad by it, but do bear in mind that there are some very odd sorts in the world, and using the internet, and those odd sorts could use that kind of information to stalk someone in real life and possibly cause them harm. That's why material like that gets removed. There's no conspiracy against you. I'm sure that if someone were to start posting speculation about where you live, where you go to university or technical college, and so on, combined with accusations about your motives, for everyone in the world to read, it might worry you. Please understand that the reason the nfstallions site is OK is, pure and simple, that it has photographs and video of stallions kept in a group. Clearly, without ridiculous amounts of highly-expert input, it's very hard for a video to be inaccurate as to its own content. Video is "self-reliable", regardless of where it is hosted, or who owns the hosting site, or the affiliations of anyone connected with the hosting site. It's a clear visual record of an actual situation. There's no conspiracy. I never said anything about "unfounded" anxiety or anything similar - please don't distort my words. And I never said that the "outing" concern was false, either - just that it probably wasn't intentional, and resulted from ignorance of our policies. And, yes, you showed aggression - in your words, in your accusations against myself and other editors. Your writing shows you are overwrought - and overwrought people who are frustrated and angry about what they see as conspiracies can do some very strange things. That's not to say that you would (for example) recruit someone in another country to attack a person in real life - but some people do go that far, and we have no way of knowing who those people are. What we - and many other people - do know is that animal rights activists can be extremely violent people. That doesn't mean that you are. But one of the really violent, arsonist, bomb-using activists, reading what you wrote, could act without your knowledge or consent or even desire, and cause a catastrophe which you more than anyone would then be unable to live with. You must not speculate about the real-life circumstances of other Wikipedians. It may compromise their safety. It might compromise the safety of people who are not Wikipedians - for example, the actual owners, friends, family, colleagues or employees of owners of other sites. People do some really, really bizarre things, and there is no way you could control the activities of someone unknown to you who chooses to go amateur-detecting around your speculations for nefarious purposes. Please, calm down. There is no conspiracy. You did violate the outing policy with your speculations. Those speculations were removed for the safety of myself and others. Simples. At some point, you must start to ask yourself why it seems that "everyone is out of step apart from you". It seems, to the rest of us, that the only thing which you want to do is to promote the views of animaldignity, and to promote that particular website over and above any and all other sources of information, and to verbally attack other editors and accuse them of all sorts of things. Nothing else will satisfy you other than to have links, wherever possible in that article, to the animaldignity website. Absolutely nothing else seems to be acceptable to you. That website has already been cited as an example of its own views. I appreciate that the page accusing horse-women of being man-hating oppressive criminals who like to mutilate stallions in order to assert their own feminine superiority has been taken down from the site, as has the page advocating sexual interaction between humans and non-human animals. I also note your comment in relation to this of "I informed Mark Schmid about this debate and he has indeed removed most of the content which some people here did not agree with." However, they or similar pages could be restored at any time. And the site is not a reliable source, by Wikipedia's definition, for anything other than the existence of its own views. This is very, very simple. Sufficient information already exists, in the stallion article, about natural management of stallions, and it's supported by genuinely reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many accusations you hurl around, or how strongly-worded you make those accusations, this is not going to change. Posting a nearly 2000-word rant on this page, in response to other editors attempting to reason with you in response to your previous rants, is not going to help. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a neutral mediator/clerk here at DRN. IP editor, I'm afraid that I agree with everything that Pesky has said in the last two posts above and, more or less in general, with what has been said by the other experienced editors with whom you have been dealing on this matter. The positions that you are taking are simply out of sync with the way Wikipedia works. (You might want to read my Advice to New Users essay. If you do, please be sure to click through and read all the linked material.) In addition to the problems that you have had with the outing policy — which I also believe that you have violated — by making the statements you have made above about illegality and libel, you have also violated the policy against implied legal threats, which can also cause you to be blocked or banned. If you believe that you have legal claims against Wikipedia or against another user, then hire a lawyer and pursue them, make a complaint to law enforcement, or make a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, but raising them as part of discussion is strictly forbidden and you are warned against making any additional comments which refer to anything you might raise as a legal claim against Wikipedia or against any other user. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Response from IPPesky: Please calm down yourself. You know I have never given any information about you other than what you have given about yourself. Nor that I had supposedly ever "speculated about your identity". That is simply not true at all and you know it. While I have speculated about your connection, irrelevant of your identity, with a resource apparently added by you, because of its reliability, that in no way is against any Wikipedia rule. If it were, then why have you or other long-time editors which you are apparently befriended with, done that exact same thing you accuse me of, notably falsely, with me? The fact is, I have not made speculations about your identity, but only about the connection between resources apparently added by you, and you. You and your group of editors on the other hand have expressly made, very obvious public speculations about my identity. This is not just an "accusation" which I am "hurling around". This is fact and I can prove it. Let me quote from the Stallion discussion page: First off, WP:CENSORED is not the end of the discussion, but WP:FRINGE is. Here, both IP addresses posting here geolocate to Switzerland, and Mr. Schmid's organization is also located in Switzerland, so these two IP users may have a WP:COI problem, as Animal Dignity is Mr. Schmid's two member organization. One of these two IP addresses could also be Mr. Schmid himself, the other could be the other member of the organization. (Montanabw) Tell me, is this not exactly what you accuse me of, but what I am innocent of? Is this not exactly speculation about my identity? Is this, and the fact that you falsely accuse me of trying to "out" you, not a slap in the face of Wikipedia and all those good people, editors and administrators who commit countless and endless free time to this great project? Despite your accusation Pesky, that I were here only to "hurl around accusations", the fact is the exact opposite. You have falsely accused me of trying to "out" you. Flat and simple. And, you and others have seemingly missed my intention for being here: I wished to add valuable and relevant information to Wikipedia which was and is not contained yet, but is relevant, in my eyes, for an existing article. This information was not accepted due to rules of Wikipedia which I found were applied rather strictly or even with bias, while not being applied equally strictly to sources apparently added by you. This I wished to discuss, at which point I was promptly and falsely accused by you, Pesky, of trying to "out" you. Stating that it was my intention to "out" you, Pesky is untrue. Stating so when you know that it is not the case is slander. Flat and simple. No arguing and bringing up of other topics on your part is going to change that. I did not and continue to think the stallion article has not enough relevant information and I think I made at least that clear, if nothing else, in the discussion we had, which you are now trying to put down as mere "rants" from me. I say this, even if it is not of any relevance to you or the rest of the editors involved in this topic. If you view all well-meant contributions to a discussion from others which you happen to not agree with (perhaps even on other non-related subjects) as rants, perhaps you lack the ability to discuss a topic on equal grounds. If it's not your opinion, then it is a "rant". Correct? Your suggesting that all my efforts and writing here were not to improve on the stallion article, but simply to "hurl around accusations" is untrue and a twisting of what has provably happened. It is you who has hurled around accusations. Very very mean ones and untrue ones at that. Namely, that I had tried to "out" you, which is not the case at all, which you admitted later. It is not me who has falsely accused others of trying to out them, just as one example of your very mean and very unfair accusations, in a justified discussion about the validity of sources, but you. Nothing you say will change that fact. It is not me therefore who used unfair and inadequate measures in a discussion which should have been on fair and on equal grounds and with respect for one another. It is you. You can claim all you want that there are violent people etc., more accusations, but even just bringing that up also in connection with my person, without any reason to speculate on such given by myself, I deem as slanderous and unfair. I agree there are violent people. But just because that is true does not give you the right to silence everyone who questions your sources, claiming you need protection from their violence. Which is what you have done here in effect. I give it to you, at least you had the conscience and backbone to admit that your accusations were not true after all, or perhaps you were forced to do so, but you should also accept the consequences. That you made a mistake, should apologize and all indications therefore that I had tried to "out" you are wrong and need to be either removed, or corrected. I would view that much higher, than any of your, either false or honest, offerings of "taking me by the hand" to "show me" your view of things or "the true light", or how Wikipedia works when you're "on the inside", etc. It is the responsibility of those who have done a wrong, to right it. Not of those who this wrong has been done upon, me. You have accused me falsely of trying to "out" you, while it was your group of editors who very openly speculated about my identity . When I said this is untrue, you first admitted that. Now you claim that while perhaps I may not have tried to "out" you, still, I had according to Wikipedia rules "speculated about your identity". This is also provably false. I have in no time speculated about your identity, or about the identity of anyone else on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the exact opposite is true. Your group of editors has very openly speculated about my identity, without the slightest notice that this were outside Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, Wikipedia guidelines are applied very, very differently to its long time editors, than to people like me. What I have done, namely, repeating the exact information about you, which you have given in the discussion yourself, and then speculating about why you come from the same area as one of the resources you have added, were, by the standards of Wikipedia, as you claim, a speculation about your identity (flat and simple). That is not correct. I never speculated about your identity, only about your connection with the resource which you seemingly added yourself. More so, long-time editors which apparently hold the same views as you, have indeed and provably not only speculated about my connection with the animaldignity.org website, as I did with your resource, but even and provably speculated about my identity. I repeat my quote from the stallion discussion page again: First off, WP:CENSORED is not the end of the discussion, but WP:FRINGE is. Here, both IP addresses posting here geolocate to Switzerland, and Mr. Schmid's organization is also located in Switzerland, so these two IP users may have a WP:COI problem, as Animal Dignity is Mr. Schmid's two member organization. One of these two IP addresses could also be Mr. Schmid himself, the other could be the other member of the organization. (Montanabw) Now, either the same rules simply don't apply to everyone on Wikipedia, or you and others are just playing for time here, trying to drag out this resolution indefinitely by refusing to admit the obvious. Instead of trying to put me and my efforts to improve Wikipedia down now, as you are, you should instead help me to right the wrong that was done by you and other long-time editors of the Stallion article. Namely, that I was falsely accused of trying to "out" you, or "speculate about your identity", which is how you now rephrased one of your false accusations, while it is provably the other way around. That's what a good Wikipedia editor would do in your situation. Please also stop pretending to "mean well" with me, with posts as you have made in the past, where you offer to "hold my hand", etc., in order to "see the light" or whatever, or become your friend or the "friend of the Wikipedia community", etc. I view that only as a failed attempt to bribe me with a friendship to people I don't know, instead of improving Wikipedia. If you are afraid of being outed Pesky, you should perhaps not give public information about your real life location in a discussion. Especially not in connection with a topic you happen to edit and a resource in your exact area, which seemingly you have added yourself, and which others, such as me, might question. Giving such information, and then accusing others, when they merely repeat this information, as trying to "speculate about your identity" is... – Well, find your own words. Unlike you towards me, obviously, accusing me of being extremely aggressive and potentially violent, without even knowing me, I have never harbored any negative thoughts against you or anyone else on Wikipedia. Assuming such seems simply irrational to me. Why would I or should I harbor any negative thoughts towards you? And I intend on keeping it that way. But if you, in the course of this discussion, which in my eyes should be on equal terms, falsely accuse me of trying to "out" you, or falsely accuse me of "speculating about your identity", while your group of editors was the one who has provably done this, accuse me of being extremely aggressive, or even violent and all the other things you falsely, and without any reason whatsoever bring up in connection with my person, then I must say, you really do not seem to be valuable editor. And no, Pesky, your efforts in trying to out me, as you now have now repeatedly done together with other long-time editors of the stallion article, do not scare me. It becomes obvious to me now, that abusive and extremely unfair and biased behavior of long-time editors of Wikipedia, even if it very obviously goes against the rules of Wikipedia is tolerated, without any reprimands, while it is not at all tolerated and severely punished in non-long time editors. Apparently, only to keep free working "volunteers" such as you, working on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this really is good. This seems to be a general and very fundamental problem which surfaces in such extreme and obvious cases such as this one. Not mine to solve, but certainly one that bears mentioning is such extreme and obvious cases of … what shall we call it? Abuse of powers, or just simply "failings" of editors and / or administrators? Is the behavior you and others have shown here not a slap in the face of Wikipedia? Is your twisting of the truth, that supposedly I had tried to "out" you, or as you now corrected, "speculated about your identity", is that, considering that you and your fellow editors did exactly that to me, and provably so, is that not just a really big slap in the face of Wikipedia? Is that not a slap in the face of all people who take time read this dispute? Is it not a slap in the face of Wikipedia's valid rules and guidelines which you feel you may apply so arbitrarily to suit your needs and those of the editors you happen to agree with on other, non-related subjects? And all those good people, editors and administrators who commit countless and endless free time to this great project? All the efforts to establish such rules and guidelines? Are you and the other editors guilty here not slapping those efforts and all those people in the face with your proven twisting of the truth, your complete ignorance and / or arbitrary application of rules and guidelines, not due to not knowing them, that would be excusable, but only to meet your own personal needs and goals? Excuse me if I must elaborate so lengthily, but I feel this case is extreme enough to warrant such a detailed pointing out of the facts. 83.77.229.225 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Jerusalem: Abode of Peace
| Closed - this dispute doesn't look like it will be resolved at this noticeboard. If parties wish to pursue this further, then I recommend taking it to an RfC. I'll be happy to answer any questions about possible further dispute resolution on my talk page. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There exists a dispute between myself and two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic, "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" from the article lede. The case they make is based on the linguistic etymology of the names already covered in the Etymology section of the article, which suggests other meanings as well. They say that it's not NPOV to only have these two. I have argued and showed that these English meanings are the most commonly known for the name of the city in the two languages that are the most pertinent to its modern manifestation, and that they are there on that basis, not on the basis of the name's historical etymology which is covered in its own section. The dispute mostly centered on the English meaning of Jerusalem 'Adobe of Peace'. I posted 14 sources to support that this is the widely held meaning of the name Jerusalem today. They dispute a few of the sources, but even if their assertion is accepted, there are more than enough reliable sources, 5 of which are from publishers of academic scholarly books, that support my position. A third editor stepped into the discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to strike a compromise, which culminated in the motion remove also the widely held English meaning of the Arabic name of the city "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]". I have tried to point out that the Arabic name is also not an exact translation of the English meaning and that it's there because it's the most commonly known meaning of the name in Arabic. Jerusalem is a unique city with a burgeoning history of conflict, culture, theology and spirituality, recognized throughout the world. These meanings which reflect the modern day recognition of the city are there rightfully in the lede. Removing them compromises an important element of the city's identification in the article. Users involved
Though I believe I tried extensively to argue my position in good faith and with due respect, I found little such consideration from editors Nishidani and Zero000. They have both distorted my words repeatedly, focusing only on the etymology of the name and ignoring most of my comments regarding the reliably sourced validity of keeping these meanings in the introduction to the article. Their discourse towards me has been often derogatory and uncivil. Nishidani does not reply to the content of my comments on the widely held popular meanings of the name, but hurls repeated personal insults about my understanding of linguistics, when the inclusion I'm insisting that should remain is not based on the etymology issues they raise. I have ceased to try reasoning with them, though I would certainly make an effort if they'd display a change of tone and ability to discuss things civilly.
Resolving the dispute
We've discussed it extensively on the article's talk page.
I believe we need an outside look into the discussion on the talk page and some advice on whether the inclusion of these meanings must truly be based on etymology alone, which would necessitate including other meanings or removing them all. My position is that these most widely held English meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names, both of which might not be etymologically or linguistically correct translations of the names, are nonetheless the most widely recognized and the only relevant ones to the city's modern manifestation, and should thus be maintained as they are in the lede. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Jerusalem: Abode of Peace discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Opinion of Zero0000A big part of the problem can be seen at the start of this submission. MichaelNetzer wrote about "two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic". In fact, removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise when MichaelNetzer insisted on including, without even noting there is a dispute (i.e., in violation of WP:NPOV), a "meaning" for the Hebrew name that the scholarly consensus believes to be incorrect. This type of misrepresentation of the views of other editors, together for a penchant for not addressing any substantive points that others make, is characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that. I have to go to work now, but I'll come back later to make a brief summary of the real issues. Zerotalk 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the issue in a nutshell.
Zerotalk 14:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It isn't obligatory or expected to include the literal meaning of a city name in the first sentence of its article. Indeed, flicking through some city articles, it seems to be sometimes done, but not usually. If a reader wants to know the meaning, it seems to me unlikely that they will feel inconvenienced by having to scroll down or text search, or that they will find it odd that they may have to do so. If there is *significant* dispute as to the meaning of "Jerusalem" (or, indeed, al-Quds), then it would seem wrong, per NPOV, to make it seem, in the first sentence of the article, as if there is a definitive meaning. If there is such a dispute, then it would also seem wrong per WEIGHT to incorporate the whole of the dispute into the first sentence of the article. I must stress that this opinion is fairly uninformed as to the substance of the issues, but I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about not mentioning any literal meaning in the first sentence and instead leaving it for a section lower down. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Zero: I've found the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. "The Origin of the name Jerusalem and its meanings". It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Google Translate garbles it up so we can use a good translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The article of Yaakov Klein cited by MichaelNetzer doesn't have anything not appearing in English sources, but seems to be a fair summary. (Incidentally, Google Translate scrambles it because it sees the text in reverse order; it seems very hard to work around this.) The article recounts the various ancient names, supports the derivation from the name of the god Shalim (noting correctly that it can't be proved). Then it describes how the Midrash introduced the idea that it meant "city of peace" or "foundation of peace" and how this became popular. Zerotalk 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Efforts toward a possible resolutionOkay. I think I understand better the issues here. It actually seems to me that there are some significant points of agreement, which may point to some possible ways to resolve this dispute. The editors seem to agree, first, that the ancient name of Jerusalem (Urušalimum) was probably derived from the name of the god Shalim, and second, that the "Abode of Peace" interpretation of Yerushalem is, at the least, popular. It therefore seems to me that one way to go would be to find a good, neutral way to mention both of those facts in the lead. I see that a somewhat similar attempt, above, did not meet with consensus, possibly due to the dispute over giving the derivation of Urušalimum as the derivation of Yerushalem. Michael, if the lead contained something like "ancient name Urušalimum, probably after the god Shalim," but did not say that Yerushalem is related to the god Shalim (and did say that "Abode of Peace" is a current common translation of Yerushalem), would that work for you? How does it sound for the other editors? Does it seem like something of this nature could be feasible? FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
As there is no consensus to give both meanings in the lede, it really looks to me like the best option is to move the whole thing to the etymology section. Michael, I do understand your concerns that this will remove valuable information from the lede. I would only echo FormerIP, above, in noting that having all the information on a city's name in a separate section seems to be fairly normal practice (see Hong Kong, Phnom Penh, Helsinki, etc.). Moving it down would make the article in line with a common practice on Wikipedia, and would therefore not seem to me to be necessarily a statement on whether any of these meanings is primary. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I thank you again for your effort. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
ProposalMy previous concern for introducing 'Foundation of Shalem' in the lede was only in the way it would appear within the Hebrew and Arabic definitions in the first sentence. One way around it is to remove the meanings from the first sentence and introduce them as part of the text flow. Here's a proposal:
Sources are already given in Etymology. If this works, or inspires a better idea, we're likely getting close to a solution. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Having submitted this dispute resolution request, it seems the discussion reveals no plausible grounds for the dispute, nor for the editor's position who initiated the proposal to remove well sourced content from the lede of the article Jerusalem, based on their professed prejudices affecting their editing. For my considerations in making the submission, the request can be closed unless other editors have additional comments. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry, but there is pretty substantial agreement on the edit that Mr Netzer says he intends to revert. That is unacceptable. One editor cannot hold an article hostage. There isnt a dispute here, there is a consensus. And if an editor wants to edit war against that consensus, well, he can try doing that. I wish him the best of luck in doing so. nableezy - 05:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As a bit of friendly advise and direction, I would remind Nableezy and Nishidani of the following discussion in the same article, which both editors participated in, and where a unanimous consensus over a dispute was hammered out through extensive and careful consideration for all concerns voiced there. In that everyone insisted on this level of agreement for the map, it is perfectly proper, just, and pursuant to WP policy on consensus, to expect the same for the meaning of the name in the article lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Clerk's warning: Please stop talking about one another and limit all discussion strictly to edits, content, policy, and what's best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Not talking about one another includes talking about one another's alleged prejudices or POV; we judge NPOV by the content of edits, not by editors' motivations for making those edits. I would note that this discussion is subject to standard discretionary sanctions under the ARBPIA case. If the personal discussion continues this thread will be closed and a report will be made to arbitration enforcement. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an option (d) which I've stood by, and still support, namely leaving the lede as it was before the dispute. No one has to agree to it but it is favored by at least one participant and warrants inclusion. As there are a few scholarly sources that support Abode of Peace already in etymology and about a dozen other supportive sources posted here (relative to popular recognition and not etymology), it seems to qualify as the strongest option for the lede next to the meaning of the Arabic name. If a like amount sources for such popular recognition can be shown, where other meanings are isolated in the same way as AoP in references, then I would certainly have cause to reconsider. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the way I understand Dispute Resolution is that, as an example, one side claims 'A' and another claims 'B'. The dispute can be settled by mediators based on their understanding of the quality of arguments, and they can arrive at support for either 'A', 'B' or, for example, a compromise 'C', depending on their ability to mediate an agreement. Until this is accomplished and the dispute is settled, all three options should remain on the table. Even if the majority might express support for either of the three options. The only relevant examples in WP:POINT that you cite do not support what you say here, unless I missed something please specify it. Wikipedia:Wikifinagling is a "pejorative" term and I ask you kindly to be careful in how you use it. I believe I'm asking for a reasonable inclusion of an option, even if I'm the only one who supports it. I'm curious how a mediator might understand this resistance, especially in that a change has already been forced into the article before the dispute was officially settled. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone, I'm a clerk at this noticeboard, and am not involved in this dispute. I've come in and glimpsed at this thread from time to time as it has progressed, and it has certainly reached quite a size now! In my opinion, it doesn't look as if this dispute is going to be resolved here, and the discussion is really getting too lengthy for this noticeboard. We need to take this to another venue, preferably one where the discussion is more structured. I think an RfC may be best here, if we are careful about how we organize it. How would everyone feel about doing this? If you want, you can use the template I created at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Templates/Boilerplate RfC to help you create the draft RfC text. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Ninjutsu topic area
| This particular issue looks to be resolved. Feel free to come back here if other issues in the topic area come up. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Let's see, background...A while back I started editing the Togakure-ryu article because I had heard about it needing work from somewhere on Wikipedia. I quickly found out that both that style and all Ninjutsu topics are very much disliked within the martial arts world. Running up against Wikiproject Martial Arts users, I made compromises in the article to add qualifying words to point out author's affiliations with ninjutsu and how this and that is a primary source, ect. Since then, i've been doing small work here and there in the topic area, but i'm often appalled by how much effort is put into making sure the topics are described as being not real. For example, this book and the quote "The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja ... No ninja exist today" from pages 130-131 has been added to a vast number of ninjutsu topics to act as a negative comment on whether Togakure-ryu and other styles are real ninjas. However, the full quote adds, "Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on Ninjutsu", with Hatsumi being the leader of Togakure-ryu. So, it's easy to see that the quote is not meant by the author to be negative, but is being used with specific wording as something negative on Wikipedia. There's a bunch of other issues that have occurred that are similar to this. However, the reason that broke the camel's back and spawned this report is because of this sort of edit, which has been done to two articles on the leaders of the Togakure-ryu style (Hatsumi and Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu) and the ninjutsu organization Bujinkan. (Note that the Bujinkan article was tagbombed a month ago by Wikiproject Martial Arts users.) And counter that to the addition of these sources, which don't even mention Hatsumi or Togakure-ryu (And the Iga museum one also being a primary source). I don't know how to deal with this sort of editing. Any attempt to improve any of the articles within the Ninjutsu topic area is met with resistance and continued addition of negative, often unimportant and irrelevant, material. Along with the addition of tags and other things with no attempts at actually fixing the articles in question. SilverserenC 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
There was a past discussion on this noticeboard here, which ended with a compromise on the Togakure-ryu article. In terms of the current issue that spawned this, I reverted the addition of primary source to the sources, but was reverted back by Stv. This report is supposed to be about the overall issue with the topic area, however, not any specific article.
Help explain which method is proper here, what i'm trying to do or what they're trying to do. SilverserenC 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Ninjutsu topic area discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Identifying primary sources in Ninjitsu articlesI think this is the main issue Silver Seren is complaining about here (can't really tell from the above blurb - so please correct me if this is wrong). I've added 'primary source - explanation of where the source came from' to references in various ninjitsu related articles. I'm doing this because the Bujinkan organization is the primary publisher of many articles related to their brand of ninjitsu. They have a vested interest in supporting historical/lineage claims. To the average wikipedian, it looks like there are many neutral references on the following pages: Bujinkan, Masaaki Hatsumi, and Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu when in fact they're largely composed of articles, books, and websites published by Bujinkan members. By adding to these references some context it helps to identify article information sources. Especially in the Bujinkan article which relies heavily on primary sources, this can be used to easily identify sections in better need of references (also helps to keep people from removing the 'primary sources' tag mistakenly). I got the idea from the To-Shin Do page where primary sources are also listed. It seemed like a good way to be able to simplify the writing of the article without putting 'Bujinkan sources say...' everywhere. I checked WP: Reference and didn't find anything that expressly forbids this practice. If an admin deems that this is unacceptable then I'll remove this identification from the sources.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hi there Silver seren, Stvfetterly - thanks for posting here and sharing your concerns. I think I can see where this dispute is stemming from. There seem to be legitimate reasons to doubt the authenticity of the historical lineage of modern ninjutsu, and it is not hard to imagine that the Bujinkan organisation could have a vested interest in making that lineage seem authentic. For this reason I think it would definitely pay to be careful about using primary sources in this article. On the other hand, we should be careful not to go too far in the other direction and treat the subjects in a negative light just because of the ancestry issue - taking Hatsumi as an example, it seems clear that he has made remarkable achievements in his life. We should not let any doubts about ancestry cloud the very real achievements he has made. About Silver seren's initial complaint - it may be that we have systematic negative writing about ninjutsu, I'm not sure; however, I think it would be a mistake to claim that this is due to bias on the part of other editors or on the part of WikiProject Martial Arts. These are subtle editorial decisions, and I think the way to go here would be to take each decision in turn. As to the matter of references - I think it is probably an error to include the text "primary source" in the actual reference. It isn't really necessary for the reader, unless they are doing research (and then they should be able to tell that it's a primary source anyway). I do see how it could be useful for editors, though. As a compromise, how about including it as an HTML comment? (By the way, if you need any help with Japanese-language sources, I may be able to assist - I can't read kanbun though!) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your input. Sounds reasonable to me, adding as HTML comments would still keep the information for anyone who wants to look. Seren? --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Lovely Professional University
| Closed due to lack of discussion on the talk page. Concerns about sock puppetry should go to WP:SPI, and concerns about edit warring should go to WP:AN3. Feel free to bring this back here if talk page discussion reaches a deadlock. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Continuation of WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive174#User:Test.quality3_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:Blocked_48h_for_copyvios_.29 Lovely Professional University is an Indian university. The article has been here some time, but is almost entirely unreferenced by anything other than its own WP:SPS sources. One interesting section, Lovely_Professional_University#Rankings, lists most of the external league table references one might expect in an Indian college article, with the note that the college was not ranked in any of these — an article thus with many references, but still no sourcing! The editor Test.quality3 (talk · contribs) has a long history with this university, and with little else. There are also a number of IPs and SPAs, which I believe to be their sockpuppets. I recently added a section, appropriately sourced, on a highly negative aspect of Lovely Professional University: a student being beaten to death over the summer. This section is just about the only section in the article that has any reasonable sourcing. The wording is also carefully neutral, per WP:NPOV - most of the sources, let alone the 'net comment, are far more critical of the university's management over this matter. However it's worded though, this is never going to be a positive chapter in the university's history and it would be no surprise if the university sought to delete it. The new section has been deleted repeatedly, by Test.quality3 and by the SPA/sock accounts. It has been restored by other editors. When raised at 3RR, the editor was briefly blocked, although no definitive action was taken as to the content. I consider this deletion to be a clear case of repeated POV removals by a COI editor, probably connected with the subject of the article, accordingly I bring it here. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Lovely Professional University discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk Comment: Could you please show where this issue has been discussed? I'm not seeing any kind of posting on the Article talk page. Edit wars conducted with responses in Edit summaries is not really that useful for identifying previous attempts at solving this problem Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
|
List of polyamorists
| This is at WP:BLPN where it belongs |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
You can see the discussion on the talk page. I require clarification on the alleged requirement of the word 'polyamory' be used for all references the article (both historical and living), rather than merely the reference expressing the relationship was consensual and involved three or more persons. My concerns about this are also outlined on the discussion page. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Attempted to discuss the issue. The other user has however jumped to conclusions and made allegations against me, and has conducted themselves in a poor manner that assumed the worst of my intentions to improve the article.
Clarification, and if necessary or possible, providing alternative suggestions to reporting such relationships on wikipedia. Cooltobekind (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC) List of polyamorists discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This doesn't belong here, it's a biographies of living people issue and should be discussed at WP:BLPN. I won't participate here, it's the wrong venue. Yworo (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I disagree. Because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, I feel the dispute board and its participants will be more sensitive to the matter (regardless of the outcome). Cooltobekind (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Paul the Apostle
| No talkpage discussion as required by this noticeboard's guidelines. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
In the "Atonement" section, the statement "By baptism, a Christian shares in Jesus' death and in his victory over death, gaining, as a free gift, a new, justified status of sonship." is not what Paul taught. Salvation is by faith alone as per Romans 3:21 - 31: 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Paul taught that you are justified freely through faith, not works. It is not through Baptism as the article incorrectly states; Baptism is only a step that shows your public profession of faith and is part of what is needed to join a Christian church. Users involved
I do not know of any other users.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
72.48.54.18 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Paul the Apostle discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
- ^ Largest city:
- "… modern Jerusalem, Israel's largest city …" (Erlanger, Steven. Jerusalem, Now, The New York Times, 16 April 2006.)
- "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city." ("Israel (country)[dead link]", Microsoft Encarta, 2006, p. 3. Retrieved 18 October 2006. Archived 31 October 2009.)
- "Since 1975 unified Jerusalem has been the largest city in Israel." ("Jerusalem"[dead link], Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 2006. Retrieved 18 October 2006. Archived 21 June 2008)
- "Jerusalem is the largest city in the State of Israel. It has the largest population, the most Jews and the most non-Jews of all Israeli cities." (Klein, Menachem. Jerusalem: The Future of a Contested City, New York University Press, 1 March 2001, p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-4754-X)
- "In 1967, Tel Aviv was the largest city in Israel. By 1987, more Jews lived in Jerusalem than the total population of Tel Aviv. Jerusalem had become Israel's premier city." (Friedland, Roger and Hecht, Richard. To Rule Jerusalem, University of California Press, 19 September 2000, p. 192. ISBN 0-520-22092-7).
- ^ "Press Release: Jerusalem Day" (PDF). Central Bureau of Statistics. 24 May 2006. Retrieved 10 March 2007.
- ^ "TABLE 3. – POPULATION(1) OF LOCALITIES NUMBERING ABOVE 2,000 RESIDENTS AND OTHER RURAL POPULATION ON 31/12/2008" (PDF). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 26 October 2009.
- ^ "Local Authorities in Israel 2007, Publication #1295 – Municipality Profiles – Jerusalem" (PDF) (in Hebrew). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 31 December 2007.