Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 16
 | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
British Ceylon or Ceylon
 | Closed by request of initiating party, and referred to RfC. Participants should feel free to use my boilerplate RfC template to help structure the discussion. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
A dispute has arisen as to whether the subjects' birthplace should be given as British Ceylon or Ceylon. Cossde believes it should be Ceylon and is demanding that sources are provided for the usage of British Ceylon. Everyone else believes it should be British Ceylon. All the subjects were born when Sri Lanka was ruled by the British. There is an article covering this period - British Ceylon. The term British Ceylon is rarely used outside Wikipedia. Generally Sri Lanka prior to 1972 is known simply as Ceylon. But the problem is that Ceylon was ruled by different countries and there are different articles for each period (Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch Ceylon, British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon). My main concern is that when the reader clicks on the wiki link to the subjects' birthplace they are directed to the correct article. If they were to click on Ceylon they would be redirected to Sri Lanka. The subjects were not born in Sri Lanka. If we were to look at their birth certificate it would say they were born in Ceylon, not Sri Lanka. As a compromise I have suggested using Ceylon (note the piped link). Cossde has rejected this. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
The dispute has been discussed at the talk page.
Decide if we should use British Ceylon or Ceylon (with piped link) or Ceylon obi2canibetalk contr 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC) British Ceylon or Ceylon discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
A comment which may not directly help the dispute. It doesn't seem that there is any article on Wikipedia that gives any explanation as to when the island has been called Ceylon, when it has been called Sri Lanka, what the difference is and why it matters. There also seems to be a confusing interchangeability of use in different articles, so that, for example, the island is referred to as Sri Lanka in relation to a time when it would have been know as Ceylon. I don't know whether this is pure anachronism or what, but the difficulty is that WP isn't doing anything to help me understand. I would suggest that (a) there should be some section of some article about the name-change and that (b) having Ceylon simply redirect to Sri Lanka is not very helpful. Maybe there could actually be an article with the title "Ceylon" or else a disambiguation page. --FormerIP (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the disambiguation page for Ceylon, the name "Ceylon" is, itself, a British creation. The disambiguation page says, "Ceylon is the former English name given to Sri Lanka, by the British, under their occupation of the island nation in South Asia." While it's true that Sri Lanka did not exist as a political entity until later, the island itself has been Sri Lanka since at least colonial times (all of this is referenced in other WP articles about Sri Lanka; I can provide examples if anyone questions it). Before the island was inhabited by Europeans, it was divided into seven kingdoms (specifics of which would, of course, be rather impractical in the lead section of this article and also anachronistic). If you disagree with redirecting to Sri Lanka, what would you propose instead? (Keep in mind, however, that the Sri Lanka article does not refer to the political entity, but to the island itself.) To say that a redirect to Sri Lanka is not appropriate essentially means that you're saying the Sri Lanka article itself is in need of major, fundamental reconstruction. If that's the case, then so be it (I'm neutral in this matter, just trying to mediate), but there would have to be a lot of serious discussion on the Sri Lanka talk page before that can happen, and we'd probably need to enlist the help of some copy-editors. A possible third option: it seems like a long way around, but would it possibly be appropriate to create a piped link to the Sri Lanka article that points specifically to the section entitled "Sri Lanka under the British rule" (a link like "Ceylon")? At the top of that section, we could add a see also link that goes to the British Ceylon article. It seems complicated - and, in fact, it is, but if this were a simple matter, we likely wouldn't be here - but it might be the best option for doing a neutral link. What are your opinions? Sleddog116 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is over whether the biographies of various people should say they were born in "Ceylon" or "British Ceylon". I gather they were all born during the British colonial period. "British Ceylon" looks very odd to me in that context (see K. P. Ratnam for an example. I'd say "Ceylon", with a pipe if you like to the article on British-period Ceylon. PiCo (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I've been reading through the discussion, and it doesn't seem like we will reach agreement here. How about taking this to an RfC? You can use my example RfC structure at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Templates/Boilerplate RfC if you want. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Progressivism: 2.6 United States: List of progressive Congress members
| Stale. If any party desires that this be reopened, please leave a note on my talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Editor 'TFD' (The Four Deuces) with a history of NPOV complaints continues an edit-war to remove three politicians I added over a year ago to the listing titled "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..." I initially added Maxine waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama to this existing, un-cited list, thinking that the progressive self-identification of these individuals was common knowledge, as the rest of the names on the list were already un-cited. The initial removal happened during a flurry of edits that TFD did against several of my articles at the time, showing that he simply searched for my edits and removed all of them from every article. after a couple edit wars, I brought it to the talk page, continually asking why TFD was only removing the three names I added to the list. He stated it was because they weren't cited. I repeatedly asked why he didn't remove the other uncited names from the list, and again reverted my edits. Every time I have checked the page over the past few months, I have seen that TFD has again removed the three names I added to the list, but left the other un-cited names on the list. Today, I provided fully cited references from the NY Times and from transcriptions of debates, where the people I was trying to add to the list *self-identified* themselves as progressives. TFD now states that they really aren't progressives regardless of what they were recorded on tape saying about *themselves*. TFD's profile shows a history of issues regarding left-leaning political advocacy on WP. For some reason, it appears he doesn't want Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters on the list of notable progressives in Congress (current and former) for political reasons. Perhaps because the label 'progressive' has had an increasing level of public negativity in recent years, but I can only guess. My point here is there has to be a reason he is only removing these three fully-cited names, but leaves the uncited ones in the list. Any suggested solutions of "removing the list entirely" is not addressing the issue, so it is not the right way to go on this. Users involved
See TFD's history of sanctions.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
talk page, third opinions
identify if the removal from the list of these three cited names, while leaving the rest of the uncited names intact is acceptable. Identify if TFD is continuing a history of NPOV issues that may warrant escalation. 216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Progressivism: 2.6 United States: List of progressive Congress members discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As the article correctly points out, there is a Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the more conservative democrats are in the Blue Dog Coalition. In between are the New Democrats, the group to which Clinton belonged. Obama has never belonged to any group. While individuals may be associated with the views of any of these groups without being members, Clinton and Obama are more likely to be associated with the center of the party. In any case, isolated comments by them that they are progressive are insufficient sources that they are associated with the progressive wing. The inclusion of Waters, while accurate, is questionable since she is one of the lesser known representatives, although she made news because of an ethics investigation which is ongoing. TFD (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC) As was discussed in the Talk page, this is NOT a list of active members of the Progressive caucus. There is another page for that. This is a list of "notable current and former progressives in the US Senate". Just because a politician isn't active in the progressive caucus doesn't mean they aren't progressive. Nancy Pelosi, and early founding member of the Progressive Caucus is a good example of this - she left when she pursued Democratic party leadership. I enjoy hamburgers, but I don't belong to a hamburger fanpage. Waters is not a "minor" member. She was a founder of the Progressive caucus, and is a high-ranking, influential, and well-known long-term Congresswoman. That comment about Waters is going down the road of hair-splitting --216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. Just off the top of my head, and without much research, here's what I think:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Northern Football League (Australia)
| Settled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a content dispute on this page that has got to the point of a violation of WP:HEAR, and has already resulted in one block for a violation of WP:3RR. It involves whether or not the Parkside Football Club's premiership in 2009 was a proper premiership or not, and involves a clash of verifiable evidence combined with attempts at WP:OR on the interpretation of the league's by laws governing promotion and relegation of teams from higher or lower divisions. It's a very complex issue involving the by laws of the competition concerned and a lack of verifiable evidence for the claims being made by one editor in particular. Users involved
It should be noted that an SPI was done on the 60 IP and he has a sock account in Hornberger1. Or vice versa maybe. The 60 IP has been baiting Footy Freak7 on both this entry's discussion and subsequently the article's talk page with leading statements. This tactic could also be described as an act of gaming the system.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
This matter has been discussed on the talk page, but it has become clear to me that IP 60 just won't listen anymore. He insists that his verifiable evidence is true and correct and won't accept that the by laws are an issue.
Basically we need more eyes on this under WP rules. There is a clash of verifiable evidence, and if more people can (if appropriate) point out to IP 60 that he must provide more verifiable evidence and independent at that to support his interpretation of the by laws he might just back off and accept the situation as it stands. It may also be prudent to look at the issue of baiting and gaming and try to settle on the correct wording to the footnote that exists on main article page. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Northern Football League (Australia) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
There is no clash of verifiable evidence. I have evidence that Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009.
If you guys are going to treat this place as a continuation of the Northern Football League talk page (first argument was a copy and paste), then there wasn't really much point coming here. I think you both need to wait for a mediator or clerk to enter into this discussion and go from there. Jevansen (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. It is not uncommon here at Wikipedia, especially in "fannish" areas such as (but not limited to) sports and entertainment, for articles to be created and discussion to go on for a long time on principles which are utterly different from, and often contrary to, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is also not uncommon for disputes in such articles to eventually boil over into other areas, such as dispute resolution, and for the dispute to then be settled in a way which may be unexpected to the participants. In this case, the fact that the NFL identifies Parkside both on its website and in its 2011 annual report as the 2009 premiership holder is clearly an adequate reliable source to include that information in the article. An assertion in the article that its premiership is open to question in some degree or manner can also be included in the article, but only if a reliable source can be found to directly support that assertion by expressly saying that it is questionable. To take bylaw provisions and use them as an argument to make that assertion here at Wikipedia is clearly prohibited synthesis, as prohibited by the original research policy. Since that assertion is improper, attempting to bring it into the article in the manner attempted at Northern_Football_League_(Australia)#Footnote by mentioning the bylaw (actually only part of the bylaw) and the fact that Parkside was not promoted is equally prohibited synthesis and is also a violation of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, especially, the WP:NOTSOAPBOX subparts of the What Wikipedia is Not policy. Unless a reliable source can be provided for the assertion that Parkside's 2009 premiership was somehow not a full premiership, all suggestion of it must be excluded from the article under Wikipedia policy. Parkside's premiership should be included in the Premiership results box and the Northern_Football_League_(Australia)#Footnote must be deleted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Climate of Northern Ireland, Climate of northern ireland
| Premature, no talk page discussion, though some attempts to get discussion started. Also pending in another venue. Feel free to re-list if discussion stalls. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User keeps redirecting to Climate of Ireland when this is not wanted Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Tried reverting changes then to speak with administrators. Tried to raise a dispute resolution but not sure if this had any effect.
Protect the Climate of Northern Ireland page by blocking redirects being applied to it Seamus48 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Climate of Northern Ireland, Climate of northern ireland discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The article should not be overridden because the Met Office serves the United Kingdom and its constituent countries. Readers, such as myself, are interested in comparing climates by political boundaries. For example, to find out which country in the UK is warmer, cooler, windier, etc. Climate by geography is not useful for this purpose. There are many countries on the mainland of Europe that are separated by land borders and equally it would not make sense to discard useful data on a country by country basis, whether or not each country has similar climates. There is perhaps merit in having an additional page with overall averages by geographical region. User(s) repeatedly forced the redirect and made offensive comments like "Northern Ireland is too tiny to have a climate" and "the climate doesn't change as you cross the border" and "why does this page need to exist?" and "this page is political commentary" and repeatedly stating "there is no consensus" for a Climate of Northern Ireland page, which is untrue because Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and is served by the UK Met Office along with Scotland, Wales and England. William M. Connolley deleted UK Met Office weather data for Northern Ireland from the Climate of the United Kingdom page without explanation or any discussion on the talk page. I tried to compromise by providing an 'about' template with a link to the Climate of Ireland page from the Climate of Northern Ireland page, but this was deleted by Asarlai. The Climate of Northern Ireland article should be restored and a redirect block put in place.Seamus48 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Augmentative_and_alternative_communication
| Closing this as stale for now. If further dispute resolution becomes necessary please file another request here, or leave a message on my talk page. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Two related issues Two editors might suit some outside opinions with resolving two related issues. Firstly, there is a difference of opinion on the answer to the question of "Are the peer reviewed proceedings from academic conferences considered acceptable sources for wikipedia?" (Two pertinent facts may well be that a: both editors would like the article to go to FAC and have the required high-standard of sourcing and b: the conferences in question are often computer science ones that may be treated differently by some editors). Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about a paragraph being included in a section of the article, when the content is surmised in the History section of the article. The paragraph in question is [4] The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies Users involved
There is a great deal of mutual respect between both editors, the conversation has been measured, sedate and reasonable on both sides thoughtout; however it certainly appears (to me anyway) that this is caused by deep differences in philosophy and I think both of us would welcome editors who might be able to offer some opinions.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies
It is my believe that the dispute is relatively technical in nature and if editors who felt experienced in that particular field where to give us their interpretation of wikipedia's policy on either or both of the issues then I think either or both of us would happily accept the consensus and return to working productively together. Failedwizard (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Augmentative_and_alternative_communication discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi Failedwizard, and thanks for posting here. Sorry that this dispute has been sitting here for so long with no reply - it looks like it slipped through the cracks. Are you still having problems here? Let us know if you are and I'll have a look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Atheism
| Stale. If further dispute resolution is necessary, I recommend mediation. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement on how to best capture and present the weight of RS specifically in the context of a definition in plain English. In my opinion our article is currently not reflecting the weight of the sources, and is employing language which seems open to a wider range of interpretation than seems justified by available sources. My position is that we need to move closer to:
— "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica Concise. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 15 December 2011. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Lots of discussion on the talk-page spanning multiple sections:
We need a mediator who is familiar with philosophy who can help us keep on track and help resolve potential confusion regarding terms of art. un☯mi 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Atheism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am not sure if sources from Talk:Atheism#Sources_re_agnosticism_delineation should be copied here wholesale or whether we should consider them one at a time? un☯mi 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Capitalization: The terms "Atheism" and "Atheist" are normally not capitalized -- except when they begin a sentence -- because they are not proper nouns. On this web site, they are capitalized. This is not ignorance or carelessness on our part. We have intentionally decided to deviate from the usual practice. The authors of the essay are not noted scholars on religion and some of the sources they use are not WP:RS and they have an agenda to change the meaning of the word. For these three reasons I will, as I have before, suggest it be excluded as a reliable source and the lead written from better sources. Alatari (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a clerk at this noticeboard, and I haven't been involved with this article at all before. I'm in two minds about this dispute. On the one hand, the definition in the article seems to me, as someone unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, to be covering all the angles. Also, the note at the top of the talk page was put there for exactly the reason that this particular thing has been debated many times before. On the other hand, it could be that we really can improve the definition in some way, and that it would reflect the literature better if we did. I think this depends on what the other editors of the article think. If people do think this is worth pursuing, it seems like the kind of issue that could benefit from a more structured discussion, either mediation or a structured series of drafts on the talk page. However, if a good percentage of editors think it isn't worth pursuing, then mediation isn't likely to help the situation. I've had a brief look at MedCab and MedCom but I didn't turn anything up - does anyone know if this dispute has been through mediation before? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Occupy Wall Street
| It looks like discussion on this can go back to the talk page. If any further dispute resolution is needed, feel free to post here again. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is about the Occupy Wall Street criticism section (first paragraph only). I wanted to write a paragraph about how OWS had been characterized by opponents. I wanted to use reliable, secondary sources which directly summarized such criticism. I began looking around, and I found some. They all said the same thing, in much the same words- whether they were conservative or liberal-leaning sources. I took those words and wrote a couple of sentences about how conservatives et al had characterized the Occupy protesters. Unfortunately for my ability to get it into the article, not only did all the sources say about the same thing, they said it in words which sounded hyperbolic and extreme. It would have been impossible to summarize accurately and faithfully what the sources said, without sounding the same way. However, this certainly didn't sound like normal encyclopedic language, and it certainly didn't make everyone look good. The entry was reverted, and heavily criticized. Most of the criticisms fell flat in the face of the sources, and the dispute culminated in a call for me to do all the work of re-arranging the sources so that each word of the summary would point directly to text from which it was taken. I considered it obvious what the sources were saying and that I had given a faithful or near-faithful summary (one can always improve). I had also included extensive quotations in the references. I feel that editors who criticize my summary should at least read the quotations provided. I also feel that Wikipedia editors have the leeway to summarize sources in their own words, so that not every word of the paragraph needs to be sourced as taken directly from the sources (though most of the controversial words did come directly from the sources). I offered to compromise by summarizing in a different way, by using attribution, or by using quotes. No one would take me up on this. In the end, I agreed to take out the most controversial word "ingrates," and asked for further objections. There were none after weeks. I inserted the paragraph, minus the offending word. It was reverted by Somedifferentstuff. See this section of the talk page for full details, and this section for the paragraph we're working on and this for the paragraph as I most recently inserted it. There is current discussion on the talk page here. See this section for quotations from the sources. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Just give it a quick gander, and if you feel you can give some enlightenment do so. Otherwise give us a recommendation to go up the line of DR. Be——Critical 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Occupy Wall Street discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
So this, "OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work", is only backed by one source. Is that correct? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm a clerk here at this noticeboard, and I'm not involved in this dispute. First of all, let me say that I think that material describing the reaction of conservatives and Tea Party absolutely does belong in the article. However, I think there are two issues with using BeCritical's material as it stands. The first is that the quoting, attribution and neutrality could be improved. For example, take the text "Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare". While qualified with "Conservatives and Tea Party activists", the description "shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots" is presented in Wikipedia's voice, which I don't think is very desirable. In my opinion, this could be better done either by using more neutral language or by using quotations. I would favour something like 'Conservatives and Tea Party activists have criticised the movement, and have described members as variously "shiftless", "indolent", "messy", and "anti-Semitic". Some critics have used stronger language still; Author X referred to them as a "drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots"'. To BeCritical - I'm sure that this wording can also be improved, and of course any wording will depend on what the individual sources say (which I have not checked), but this could be a direction that you might want to consider. The second issue that I saw was the larger structure of the article. On skimming through it, it struck me immediately that while there is a "criticism" section, there is no "support" section. Instead, there is a large "reaction" section detailing reaction from various sectors of society. In the interests of balancing the article to be structurally neutral, I think this should be changed. It would be hard to have a large "support" section and a large "criticism" section, as many views are somewhere in between - for example, from the first sentence we have "National polls from October to December 2011 were mixed", and I'm not sure which one we would put this in. I think it would be a better idea to weave the material in the criticism section into the other existing "reaction" subsections. You could maybe put the material about Conservatives and Tea Party activists in the "media reaction" section or a new "reaction from political activists" subsection, and material from politicians in the "political response" section. I'm sure it can all go somewhere, at any rate. On a slightly related note, the "reaction" section has become very large, and is taking up a sizeable chunk of the article. Have you considered splitting it? We could make a new article called something like Reaction to the Occupy Wall Street protest, which I think would benefit both the parent article and this dispute. What would everyone say to this? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Template:Respell used for foreign names
| Resolved. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:84.10.140.247 is adding unreferenced approximately spelling of Polish names using Template:Respell which is designed to be used to show the pronunciation of English words or names. We can read in tempalte documentation that "The respelling key covers only English pronunciation, and should not be used for foreign names or words which have not been assimilated into English". Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
I informed User:84.10.140.247 that his edits are unreferenced and Template:Respell is designed to be used to show the pronunciation of English words or names.
Should this pronunciation be kept or not? Oleola (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Template:Respell used for foreign names discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi Oleola, and thanks for posting here. I agree with you about {{respell}} - we should only use that for English names. I can see why the IP editor would like help with pronunciation using something other than the IPA, but it appears that we don't have any provision for doing this. I assume that this is because the result would not be an accurate reflection of the Polish sounds. I think the best way to solve this problem would be to find a Polish speaker to record some audio files for us, but I can appreciate that would take effort to organize. Whether we can get audio files or not, the {{respell}} template shouldn't go in the articles here as it would go against the manual of style. I'll leave a note on the talk page of both articles, and remove the respell template. If the IP reverts again, then we can take it to WP:AN3. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Tikun Olam (blog)
| This appears to be settled. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I am trying to make an edit regarding the reliability of Richard Silverstein, who is often cited in the mainstream media, as a journalist. The blogger Aussie Dave from Israellycool initiated a sting operation to reveal Silverstein as someone who will take any anti-Israel information he receives and publish it, no matter the reliability, by "outing" himself with a fake Facebook account. Silverstein took the bait and never vetted the source. For someone who has acclaimed himself as the "WikiLeaks" of Israel, this is a huge misstep and worthy of mentioning on his page regarding his own veracity. User:Malik Shabazz reverted the edit, saying that a primary source is not acceptable. So I found a secondary source from a blog that cites the original, but to User:Malik Shabazz this is also not acceptable. I understand that a news article is preferable, but things like this will never be reported by the mainstream media, as it would be deemed "not important enough". I don't think the 3O understood this. Thus, I am asking for guidance and dispute resolution. The link to the relevant article is http://www.israellycool.com/2011/12/29/richard-silverstein-exposed/. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
I have tried discussing on the talk page, but User:Malik Shabazz will not accept investigative blog posts. I have also tried 3O.
Guidance for finding a reliable source that is acceptable to all parties, as the edit is important, or ruling on the veracity of Israellycool's reliability. DevilInPgh (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Tikun Olam (blog) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi DevilInPgh, and thanks for posting here. I'm afraid that Wikipedia has high standards for its sourcing, and that both Malik Shabazz and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff are correct in saying that in general, blogs cannot be used as references for Wikipedia articles. I very much doubt that you will receive a different answer than this from any experienced editor. If content cannot be sourced to a reliable source, then it should not be in Wikipedia. Sorry, but the policies and guidelines are quite clear on this. For futher reading you might want to take a look at WP:BLOGS and WP:USERGENERATED. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
|
KOffice
| No talk page discussion. Both parties are encouraged to explain their reasoning on the article's talk page and come to a deadlock prior to posting here Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Editor KAMiKAZOW has been writing about events that the product dropped support for mobile devices. When asked to back up those statements he stated that instead I should provide proof that these events did not happen. (which sounds impossible to me). He did point to an email from one of the authors that might be a reason for his confusion; but the writer talks about one (1) mobile device, and an outdated at that. I would like to get someone to mediate and avoid a ping-pong of edits and make KAMiKAZOW provide a quotation instead of writing overly broad statements. See the history, all the edits made in 2012 are the ones this is about. Reading the diffs should make the point clear. As far as I can tell, editor KAMiKAZOW makes the conclusion that since one outdated mobile (maemo/meego) is not explicitly supported, absolutely no mobile platforms are supported. This does not follow since it ignores the support available in the platform. That this support is available can be proven because many applications that are based on KDE and Qt run on a big set of mobile platforms, without those apps needing added support. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
See the discussion below. I think I (hasan) provided all the linkes possible to be given to support the claims.
Just having a 3rd person do a read over and tell us both if we are missing something. Or giving your interpretation of the facts in evidence would be good. 89.253.119.50 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC) KOffice discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I'm not interested discussing with some random IP user. Since summer I'm the main author of the KOffice article. I researched a lot for improving the Calligra and KOffice articles (English and German Wikipedias). I know what I'm writing about. Thomas Zander, the current KOffice maintainer, has repeatedly stated that he is not interested in developing any user interface for mobile devices. One of those statements was linked by me as reference. The IP user claims that the mobile code was merely dropped because Maemo was made obsolete – a claim he has not a single proof for. Since KOffice and Calligra share the same heritage, it would've been easy for Zander forking any mobile GUI code from Calligra – be it the older Calligra Mobile GUI or the newer Calligra Active GUI. The IP user is further claiming that the older GUI code was only compatible with Maemo 5 which is simply wrong. It's code written for Qt 4.x and compiles on most platforms supported by Qt 4.x, including successors of Maemo: then-current MeeGo und today's Mer. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I'm the 'random IP user' that noticed you misinterpret events and end up over-generalizing. I don't see the strength of the argument change based on me having a name or not. My name is Hasan, if that makes any difference. There is no doubt you know what you are writing about, but when someone disagrees with you, it might be worth re-checking your facts. And all the evidence you brought forwards seems to go against that argument you are making. KOffice ported to git and since then the f-office dir is missing; this is the FreOffice tool which is meamo5 specific. Maemo5 is called Fremantle; which is where the tool and the dir got their name from. Notice also that its dead in many other places. The FreOffice link shows that it has not been updated for over a year. I doubt it still exists in calligra either. Your next statement; it would've been easy for Zander forking any mobile GUI code from Calligra [] older Calligra Mobile GUI or the newer Calligra Active GUI.. This ignores that those parts have been added to the calligra repo, never to the kofice repo. Or, in other words, it was effort happened elsewhere that nobody in koffice actively went out and copied, this point proves nothing. Last; you link to an email and state that this proves all mobile efforts are removed. The mail mentions meego (because maemo was renamed) as the next version of the f-office tool. But like the f-office tool Nokia is making it in house, only releasing the sources after it already end-of-lifed inside of Nokia. So, again, there is no mobile code that was there to remove, other than the f-office dir which was hard-coded to use maemo5 APIs for a phone that only a hand full of geeks actually own. And again, many Qt apps are indeed deployed to mobile phones. Without explicit support in their codebases. So unless KOffice stopped using Qt, there *is* mobile support, and I have seen no links that zander stated he doesn't want to support mobile. Its likely he just doesn't want to support that one platform that he worked with before he unceremoniously left that job. ;) 89.253.119.50 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Closing Comment: No talk page discussion has taken place so it's too early for this board. IP editor, you're encouraged to get a editor account so that we can we can better track and help you. KAMiKAZOW, it's expected that all editors treat everyone with respect, IP editors are not second class citizens. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Honor killing naming discussion
| Closing this now, as discussion seems to have petered out. It still seems that further discussion is needed to gain consensus on the content issue - I recommend an RfC or maybe another requested move for this. If anyone still wishes to pursue the conduct issues here further then I recommend WP:WQA, although personally I don't feel that anyone's conduct is actionable at all. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Plot Spoiler moved these six articles from "Killing of" to "Honor killing of". User:Kevin McE moved them back and User:Plot Spoiler reverted his move. He then requested article be listed as a DYK. User:Kevin McE evidently saw this and thought it improper, reverted it and did a move request after Plot Spoiler reverted it. I saw his move request regarding moving Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh back to Killing of Sadia Sheikh appeared at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts. I went to the talk page and expressed my ambivalence about doing this for the one article at the page. I was concerned because other women/feminism articles had been used as defacto Muslim bashing articles and I had gotten death threats from a sock puppet on one of them for disputing this behavior. Another editor discusses this at my talk page. Given this history, it seemed natural for me to leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. User:Plotspoiler complained I was canvassing and administrator User:Jayjg reverted my announcement calling it "blatant" and later mocked my explanations for its relevance here and here; in the latter case he mocked my saying we might have to bring the dispute to this noticeboard. Later I discovered that six articles had been changed from killing to honor killing by User:Plotspoiler and that four of them explicitly mentioned this involved Muslims. I proposed here that given the controversy of these six moves, proper Move Request policy be followed and said again that I though posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam would be proper. Both User:PlotSpoiler and User:Jayjg ignored my proposal to follow proper procedure. And User:Jayjg replied here: "Hard to believe these retroactive and absurdly weak excuses still continue. Carol, you got off easy; please accept your good fortune and move on." I believe he was inferring I was lucky he didn't sanction me for canvassing! Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
per the above, much discussion at Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh (only discussion on the page)
First, given these are controversial moves, should User:PlotSpoiler revert his changes and go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do a multiple listing of all six articles so the wider community can comment on each article's talk page? (Note: some are more notable than others in general; some have more refs than others labeling them "honor killings.") Second, since I believe bias colors both editors labeling of "canvassing" - especially after it was discovered this involved six articles, four explicitly about Muslims - I'd like a neutral opinion on whether mentioning this Move Request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is canvassing. WP:Canvass explicitly says appropriate notification can be made on: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. I think this is just as relevant to this wikiproject as to Wikiproject Feminism where I first saw the notice and did finally put a posting. CarolMooreDC 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Honor killing naming discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
First of all, many of the points addressed have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Her accusations of "Muslim bashing" are unfounded and a severe lack of WP:AGF. Secondly, the article, Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, has not one mention of Islam so it was clearly inappropriate for her to canvas for comment at WP:Islam, regardless of the content of the other honor killing articles (which she only checked retroactively). At the time when I originally renamed these articles, over a week ago, there was no dispute and these articles had been mostly dormant. I renamed the articles as such, with the honor killing title, because that it was what makes all of these articles notable. The individuals aren't themselves notable but as recognized honor killings they are. In some articles "Murder of..." is used and in others "Killing of..." At the same time though, sometimes more specific terminology is used if that's what makes the event notable, such the Lynching of Jesse Washington. In this case, the determination that it was an honor killing is what makes this event notable, rather than it simply being a murder or killing. Honor killing has become the accepted term for the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. It need not be viewed as a euphemism -- in fact, the term is not even mentioned once in the honor killing article. Ultimately, I am prepared for a fair discussion of how these articles should be titled but carolmoore shouldn't be slandering me as being part of some Muslim-bashing campaign. A lot of this just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially given that Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh passed all DYK criteria. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see two related disputes here: the content dispute about the naming of the articles, and the conduct dispute about Carol's alleged canvassing. I think we should keep the content dispute to the requested move discussion - as it says at the top of this page, this noticeboard is not a place to take disputes already being discussed at another venue, and I don't think much will be gained by discussing the actual article naming here. I echo Kevin McE's sentiment that there has been evidence brought up there that hasn't been replied to, and I encourage editors to comment on the content issue there without getting distracted by the allegations of canvassing - we can deal with those here instead. So, let me see if I can tease apart the different issues related to these allegations. In the original article, currently titled Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, there is no mention of Islam, and honour killings themselves are not inherently connected to religion, per our article Honor killing. So there is no direct connection of the article to Islam. However, honour killings are often discussed in connection with Islam - note the mentions of the Qu'ran in the previous link - and as Sadia Sheikh's family were from Pakistan, it seems reasonable to deduce that they were Muslim. (Although, per the honor killing article, Sadia Sheikh's case may have had more to do with Pakistani culture and little or nothing to do with Islam.) So, I think it is fair to say that the article is indirectly related to Islam. Now, in WP:CANVASS it says notifying WikiProjects that are directly relevant is acceptable, but it doesn't say anything about WikiProjects that are indirectly relevant. It says that vote-stacking is definitely unacceptable, but what exactly constitutes vote-stacking is open to interpretation. My view is that the notifying of WikiProject Islam fell in a grey area, and that different editors will see it in different lights. Because of this, it was probably a mistake on Carol's part to post the initial notification without asking other participants in the requested move first. However, I see the action as having been made in good faith, and I don't agree with Shrigley's view above that it was "malicious canvassing", or with Jayjg saying that Carol was "caught", etc. although I think Jayjg was probably right to remove the notification. However, now that the focus of the discussion has broadened to other articles that use "honor killing of" in the title, and because honor killings are often discussed in relation to Islam, I think that now the discussion is relevant to WikiProject Islam, so I would support another notification being made there on these grounds. I can see that this dispute has been quite bitter for all involved, but I don't think that any further action is really appropriate here, so I encourage everyone to leave this incident behind and to get on with improving the encylopaedia. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Back to the WP:Consensus violation issueOk, now that I've admitted to my stupidity on canvassing, can we get back to my other main issue? The abuse of WP:Consensus by User:Plot Spoiler reverting without discussion User:Kevin McE's reverts of name changes to six articles? There is now an even split among various users brought in from the community about moving names BACK to the original. But that debate should be about changing it to a NEW title - and there's clearly no consensus to do that. So it is more important than ever that we deal with this original violation. Discussion at: Talk:Honor_killing_of_Sadia_Sheikh#Consensus_policy_and_BRD_demand_reverts_to_originals. CarolMooreDC 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Fobos-Grunt
| Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The Russian state owned news agency, RIA Novosti, made a false report about the space probe Fobos-Grunt. MSNBC and Universe Today reported this. I want to include this information in the article about Fobos-Grunt. W. D. Graham thinks it should not be included. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We discussed the issue on Fobos-Grunt talk page
To decide if a sentence about the false statements by RIA Novosti should be included in the article. Mschribr (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Fobos-Grunt discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The issue relates to a single mistake in a single report by Russian news agency RIA Novosti, which gave an exact time and location for the spacecraft's reentry, long before it would be possible to have calculated that information precisely. This report received minor coverage in a handful of other news sources, and a number of blogs. I do not believe it is appropriate to report every detail of news coverage of a spacecraft, the article should focus on the spacecraft and mission itself, not the fact that one news agency published an inaccurate report about it. The dispute arose when I removed a section entitled "Folklore and Rumors", added to the article by Victor Engel (talk · contribs), and Mschribr (talk · contribs) requested that it be restored. The content of the section at the time of its removal was:
The only two sources given are both primary, and have both been discredited. The claim that the Russian media are spreading rumours is unreferenced, and the claims regarding the popularity of the subject appear to be original research. The section also contradicts itself by claiming that RIA Novosti only published the story in Russian, and then citing the English version of the report (which it explicitly claimed not to exist). There has also been no indication of the cause of the error in the report, I believe that if it is a simple mistake then it is not significant or notable enough to warrant inclusion, and without evidence to the contrary, it would be extremely inappropriate to claim that it is anything else. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am a mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. In this edit, Mschribr says that, "I said I only want the Phobos grunt Wikipedia article to say the RIA Novosti story was a mistake and not corrected." From the discussion at the article talk page, it appears to me that while there may be an argument to be made that the story was a mistake that it is not possible to come to that conclusion without violating the synthesis provisions of the no original research policy. For the information to be included in Wikipedia, there must be a reliable source which specifically says that the story was a mistake. From the discussion at the talk page, it appears to me that no such reliable source exists to prove that it is a mistake. Even if such a reliable source can be found, however, I have some considerable doubt about whether that error is important enough that the amount of text needed to set it out and explain it would not give it undue weight. Unless there is some strong significance to the mistake other than it merely being a mistake, it is insignificant. To say that it is somehow significant (as Mschribr does in the edit diffed above) because the news agency who made the mistake is an agency of the same government which launched the probe and/or because the news article was picked up by other news sources means nothing in and of itself. To put it in for what it might imply again brings us back to synthesis and original research unless a reliable source plainly stating or discussing that implication can be found. In my opinion, the material should not be included in the article based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|
NGO Monitor
| Dispute settled by participants (if this is mistaken leave a note on my talk page and I'll reopen this thread). Kudos to them! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is a minor dispute about the phrasing of a statement. In the NGOM article, under the heading 'Funding' we have a sentence stating 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no governmental support.' However, one of NGOM's donors is the Jewish Agency for Israel and this organisation has a fairly unique status, since it is not only funded by the Israeli government but is also ceded, by law, governmental powers in certain areas, such as immigration. The unusual status of the organisation has led to it being labelled as a 'quasi-governmental' organisation by the BBC, the New York Times, and the Guardian. Since the purpose of the sentence in the article is (presumably) to inform the reader of the financial relationship between the organisation and the Israeli government, I would like to, preferably, remove the sentence as potentially misleading and leave the reader to come to their own conclusions based on the list of donors we provide and the links to NGOM's financial statements. However, as a compromise position, given that two other editors would like the sentence to stay in, I have suggested that add the information about the support from a quasi-governmental entity to the statement, so it will read something along the lines of 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no (possibly insert 'direct' here?) governmental support, although one of its major donors, the Jewish Agency for Israel, has been characterised as a quasi-governmental body by the Guardian, the New York Times and the BBC' (with alterations being made depending on what form of referencing is preferred). However, we are unable to reach consensus on this issue as one editor (A Sniper) feels that this would somehow constitute original research (I can't claim to understand his reasoning on this point). Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We have discussed the point through numerous posts on the talk page but have come to a standstill (the last couple of posts from each of us have no really added anything new to the discussion).
Can you provide an opinion on whether the suggested compromise constitutes OR and give your opinion on what information to include and why? BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) NGO Monitor discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Greetings. My point briefly: our role is to report what the secondary sources state. If the article is about the NGO Monitor, and the NGO Monitor claims as their motto that they 'accept no government support', then we can certainly insert any counterclaims made by bona fide seccondary sources: i.e. someone reliable states that the claim made by NGO Monitor is false. But it is not our job to make an investigation ourselves, such as writing "...however, one of the donors listed by NGO Monitor is actually a quasi-governmental body", even if we give a reliable source that that donor is indeed a quasi-governmental body. This, in my opinion, would violate WP:OR. Editors should look for reliable sources that make the claim that NGO Monitor has given false information - we should by proxy not do it ourselves. Conclusion: the line as it stands should be edited so that it reflects that it is NGO Monitor making the claim that they receive no governmental donations, and we should leave it at that - unless there is a secondary source that points out that the claim is false. Best, A Sniper (talk)
|
Mardin, Van, Turkey
| Closing as premature. Please discuss with the other editors on the article talk page before attempting dispute resolution. If those discussions come to a standstill, then you may attempt DR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The pages mentioned include inaccurate and biased information. The big picture is ignored. References provided as evidence are sometimes from French articles. In any event, they are false, highly debatable at best. Users involved
I was accused of vandalism and given a block notice for making the articles neutral.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, I warned Kansas Bear with the three-edits rule and posted a new section on Rafy's talk page.
If Kansas Bear and Rafy are to edit the article as they like, I should also have the same right. If we cannot agree, which is where we are heading, then an impartial committee should edit the pages. Yozer1 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Mardin, Van, Turkey discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Ryan Doyle
| Any further concerns about conduct should be raised at WP:WQA, and we can discuss the content on the article's talk page if necessary. See my final comment below for more details. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
A (reputable) user user who does not share my opinions about what constitutes reliable sources in the article in question has completely and absolutely refused to discuss any particulars of her concerns, not only quoting no policy clauses nor any mention of the context of the subject matter, but refusing to even discuss the matter on the discussion page in any form. I have spent tedious hours examining the many policies she's referred me to, revising my work, and addressing her points with increasing civility and clarity. This has been met with all but name-calling insult on top of nothing productive. She responds to structural patterns that absolutely raise questions, but have no base in light of excessive addressing of those potential issues. She shows all but no sign she has, nor has any intention of, becoming familiar with the subject matter. Users involved
She acts habitually with actions that I'm sure benefit the encyclopedia more often than not; e.g. she aids me in becoming a better editor by directing me to policy files that do/may apply. Her skill and attention to detail are meticulous, but she has shown no ability to process particular exceptions to intrinsic structural patterns that flag, but do not confirm, problem areas.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I've spent exhaustive time studying her concerns and addressing her points with precise attention to policy clauses, responding from an elite understanding and weighing of the context of the article and the sources she questions. She's addressed none of these particulars on the discussion page, and on her talk page, has collapsed to stating broad, insulting, surreal claims such as that I haven't even examined her references. She increasingly attacks my honesty and integrity, with less and less reference to anything relevant to the issue. I realize the totality of my claim here seems astoundingly unlikely, especially in light of her experience, but if you take into account all the information over the past month, it speaks for itself.
I would appreciate your suggestion on the most direct and efficient path to resolution. It may be difficult for me to go through a long series of intermediate steps, as I've done absolutely everything to resolve the issue peacefully. I can't imagine how anything but a ruling would solve the situation, but I am open to suggestions. Squish7 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Ryan Doyle discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi everyone, I'm a clerk at this noticeboard, and I haven't been involved with this dispute before. First off, I found the way this request was worded a little vague, so allow me to ask a question. Am I right in saying that this dispute has occurred because the article uses mostly primary sources, whereas Cindamuse would like to see it written with mostly secondary sources? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|