Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 58
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Bushmaster Firearms International
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing for lack of participation and interest. I won't call this resolved but a rough consensu appears to be for inclusion of the material (only because there seems to be no good argument against here). Continue on talk page. Since the article has been unlocked it is advised that editors tread lightly. Do not edit war. Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Information about the use of a Bushmaster Firearms product in the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, was placed into the article. Certain editors deleted the reference to the shooting, which was then reverted and an edit war ensued. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A discussion was started on the Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International page, but the discussion was unproductive. The debate was repetitive. Those who wanted to delete the reference claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was not sufficiently notable. I provided arguments why it is notable. The two sides did not agree on this point. How do you think we can help? Protect the page against deletion of factual, relevant material; provide neutral third party arbitration. Opening comments by BobbieCharltonPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by MatthewVanitasPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I have a goodly amount of experience at WP:GUNS and general experience on the subject. My current take is that neither side is (as a body) behaving unduly admirably: overall one "pro-gun" side is pulling up clumsy ideological canards to avoid any mention of criminal usage of X brand/make of firearms, and one "anti-gun" side is using an extremely recent and (in the US particularly) emotionally volatile event to add substantive slant to coverage of a decades-old company that appears to infringe on WP:RECENTISM. It is extremely likely that media coverage of this brand-name is directing hits towards this article, so there is public interest in the Bushmaster brand immediately resulting from the alleged usage of a firearm of this brand in the Sandy Hook shooting. However, even setting aside the WP:GUNS#CU consensus, which I agree is solely internal to WP:G and not overarching, I'm not necessarily seeing signs of a long-term interest in the Sandy Hook incident as a significant factor in the history of Bushmaster Arms except potentially the recent news that the corporate holder may sell the company for liability reasons. I fully agree that there are individual editors who have either mis-used WP:G#CU or have somewhat properly applied the non-binding WP:G#CU but evidenced totally inappropriate ideological bias on the firearms issue. However, I remain wary of WP:RECENTISM issues until such point as significant concrete (not WP:CRYSTAL) business/legal ramifications issue forth from the use of a Bushmaster Firearms Inc. product in the Sandy Hook shootings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by ROG5728The addition being advocated by Zeamays doesn't seem to be in keeping with WP:NPOV, (edit by volunteer, striking out non policy link)
Opening comments by zeamaysFactual mention of the relevant Sandy Hood Murders are relevant & should be included in the article.
Various murders are mentioned in the respective Wp article on the murder weapon. The opponents bring up various irrelevant arguments. --Zeamays (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by PhiwumPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised to see I'm part of a dispute. I'm not particularly interested in gun rights and don't usually edit such articles, but it seems perfectly neutral to mention the fact that Bushmaster has been in the public discussion regarding the CT shootings. Much of the debate following the shootings has centered around the appropriateness of civilian ownership of so-called assault weapons and large capacity ammo drums or clips. Because it was a Bushmaster that was used, the question of whether this kind of rifle really is an assault weapon or not --- or at least the question of whether it's appropriate for civilians to own such weapons --- is a fairly essential topic for the manufacturer's WP entry. I don't think that a reasonably neutral and factual comment that these topics are part of the debate started by this obviously notable event should be controversial in the least. To be honest, I came to the page initially because I wanted to learn about the rifle in question and whether it is reasonable to call it an assault weapon. (I still have no strong opinion, since I'm not sure on what counts as an "assault weapon", but at least I learned a bit more about the weapon and its maker.) Phiwum (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) COMMENT: As it turns out, my only edit to the page was to correct the number reported murdered in the school (twenty-six murdered at the school, not twenty-seven). I'm fairly uninvolved in this dispute. Phiwum (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by L0b0tPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Bushmaster Firearms International discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Moxie Marlinspike
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No recent talk page discussion. Continuing to edit an article without discussion after a request for discussion has been made is considered by many to be disruptive editing for which a request for sanctions may be made at WP:ANI. An alternative would be to make a request for comments to try to bring in more members of the community. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A single user is repeatedly deleting the bulk of the article's content without communicating about what's going on. These actions have come up a few times in the article's talk page, and even though there is a consensus around the content in place, the user will randomly wait some interval before deleting it all again without communicating. Attempts to open a dialog on this user's talk page result in the user deleting those opening comments without responding to them. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Communicating on the article's talk page, communicating on the user's talk page. No response. How do you think we can help? Guidance on the best way to avoid an edit war. Are there more productive ways to engage with an otherwise unresponsive user who will delete content at random intervals? Opening comments by Johnny SqueakyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Moxie Marlinspike discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
There haven't been any talk page comments in months; you should try to re-initiate conversation on the talk page. If the other user continues to make contentious edits without discussing them then you should take it to WP:ANI. Additionally, please do not edit war. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Jat people#THIS_ARTICLE_NEEDS_TO_BE_UPDATED.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No recent talk page discussion. All forms of dispute resolution here require talk page discussion before requesting dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am slightly concerned about the Jatt article the user Akashasr, is disputing the user Sitush and his edits, which at least from a neutral perspective look unbalanced it seems there is some truth to what Akashasr is saying. I don't want to get involved into a fight between these two users this is why I have decided to use the resolution notice board my only concern is that it seems personal biases are getting in the way of a balanced and encyclopedic article. I think both users contribution need to be reviewed on Indian/Punjabi articles, especially Sitush's contribution, since I noticed on his talkpage he talks about removing Ram Swarup Joon references, a source which is academically accepted. I want to see a balanced article free or personal baises. Have you tried to resolve this previously? none. How do you think we can help? just look into the issue and balance the article, I think just looking into it will help. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Jat people#THIS_ARTICLE_NEEDS_TO_BE_UPDATED. discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Participants agreed the issues are resolved, and the article has been updated as agreed.—Darkwind (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel[1] the location of the new state is described as 'IN ERETZ-ISRAEL'. In the first info box in the Article [Israeli Declaration of Independence], Number 57 gives his description of the purpose - 'Purpose Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine[1] after its expiration.' Number 57 has given a contemporary article (15 May 1948) in the New York Times [2] as a reference for the ‘Purpose’, When I asked Number 57 for 'the exact proposition for which the NYT was the reference or RS', he gave an answer in his edit of 22:57, 15 December 2012. I consider that answer unhelpful. If the purpose of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 was limited to parts of the British Mandate for Palestine, presumably the new state was content as late as 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by Resolution 181(II) of 29 November. 1947[3]. On the other hand, if the Purpose of the Declaration was limited only by the boundaries of Eretz-Israel (Land of Israel)[4], presumably the new state was not content, even as early as the moment of its birth on 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by the Resolution. When Israel first made the decision on the limits of its possible future boundaries, is critical in apportioning blame for the start of the conflict. My view is that the ‘Purpose’ should refer to Eretz-Israel, the term used in critical parts of the Declaration of 14 May 1948.
An enormous number of edits have been to the Talk page with no help of resolution in sight. Can you persuade Number 57 to refrain from abuse? Number 57 has not answered my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference. ‘Palestine’ (used in the article) in any event, is not the best translation of Eretz-Israel; ‘Land of Israel’ (the Old Testament term) is better. How do you think we can help? By helping to see if a compromise can be reached. Persuading Number 57 not to be abusive. By getting Number 57 to answer my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference. Opening comments by Number 57I have tried to explain to Trahelliven several times that the common name of the state in which Israel was declared independence should be used (at the time the phrase in question was written, the article was located at British Mandate for Palestine. Since then it has been moved to Mandatory Palestine, and I have suggested rewording to reflect this, but Trahelliven has rejected), as opposed to duplicating the declaration, which is both ambiguous and not using the common term. After making clear my opposition to his suggested edits and pointing out the flaws of using "Eretz Israel", Travelliven then demanded a reliable source to state that Israel was declared in Mandatory Palestine. I found the NYT reference, which states that Israeli independence was declared in Palestine. However, Trahelliven refuses to accept that the Palestine referred to in this article is the same thing as Mandatory Palestine, despite the other editor in the discussion agreeing. To me, this is similar to someone claiming that a modern day news item about China is not a reliable source unless it states "People's Republic of China". Trahelliven's attitide to the NYT source suggests to me that he is deliberately seeking to avoid acknowledging it to be correct, as this means there is no ground for his preferred use of "Eretz Israel". If further sources are required, the Times on 15 May 1948 states "President Truman late today formally proclaimed the recognition of the new Jewish state, acting a few minutes after its proclamation in Palestine" (this is an online source I have access to through my local library). I think it should be fairly clear to anyone that "Palestine" here is being used as shorthand for Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by No More Mr Nice GuyI really don't have much to add to #57's statement. It's not like the text is in any way contentious or there's some kind of disagreement amongst historians about this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't mean my opinion carries any more weight than anyone elses but I'll do my best to try broker a resolution to this dispute as an independent individual. Once all parties have posted their opening statements we can begin the discussion. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1) The MFA English translation of the Declaration of 14 May 1948[5], uses the term Eretz-Israel....HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Eretz-Israel, literally translated as Land of Israel). is a rendition in Roman script of the original Hebrew אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration clearly indicate that Eretz-Israel was used in the Old Testament sense. This may, or may not, include areas outside the area of the British Mandate, depending on which book of the Old Testament you read. 2) The relevent text in the NYT article of 15 May 1948[6] reads:-
The writer of the article used Palestine as a rough translation of the original Hebrew אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. 3) The NYT article may be a Reliable Source of the making of the Declaration of 14 May 1948, but not of the accuracy of the translation of the Hebrew. 4) There is no basis for using the phrase in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine instead of Eretz-Israel. At the very least, I am entitled to insert a citation needed tag to dispute the reference as a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be more important to state the territory/state in which independence was declared, rather than the generic region. In the present case, the phrase might have gone as follows: - in these parts of Mandatory Palestine set aside for the Jewish state by UNGA Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947. [8] However, by 14 May 1948, Jewish forces had already taken areas outside those allocated for the Jewish state, including Jaffa that very day. Further, followers of Revisionist Zionism hoped for a Jewish state that included part of the original Mandate east of the River Jordan. The vague term of Eretz-Israel was used deliberately. Trahelliven (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are talking about obtaining the independence of a country, there is an assumption that the entity already existed in a legal sense with more or less defined boundaries; the country is just not independent. Thus Wars of Scottish Independence is a correct description of the conflict between 1286 and 1328.; what comprised Scotland was already more or less defined. What happened on 14 May 1948 was completely different. it was the establishment of Israel, which was being declared. In the precent circumstances there were no defined boundaries at all other than those set out in the partition plan. It is clear that by 14 May 1948 that the Jewish leadership considered itself not bound by those boundaries. In these cirmcustances, the Jewish leadership could declare the establishment of the new state without having to specify definite boundaries. If Mandatory Palestine is to be used in place of Eretz-Israel, should a Reliable Source be provided to justify the substition? Trahelliven (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To state what the declaration said should be easy. You go the the key phrases in the declaration and repeat it verbatim. At most, you can literally translate it as in the Land of Israel. If the declaration had said in New York, to paraphrase it as in Manhattan or in New Amsterdam would alter the meaning. If the phrase in Eretz-Israel is a little vague, that may well have been the intention.
I am sorry if I broke the rules, but as Number 57 said, we are going around in circles. There is nothing more we can say. There are in fact only two editors. What is our next step? Trahelliven (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Article, Israeli Declaration of Independence amended as agreed. Happy Christmas!! 23:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk)
|
![[7]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Davids-kingdom_with_captions_specifiying_vassal_kingdoms-derivative-work.jpg){kind=link}
Publishers Clearing House
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The IPs have not edited in days, and there was no significant discussion on the talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Over the past 3 - 4 years, unsigned authors modify content that has been reviewed and/or edited by third parties, discussed on talk pages, and/or verified by multiple cites. These changes typically A) delete any factual, though unflattering, but well documented comments, and/or B) attempt to add promotional information, and/or C) occur approximately 60 days prior to the first week of February, when PCH conducts its drawings. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked to have user sign changes or discuss on talk page. When I've undone their changes I've explained reasons for the change How do you think we can help? Provide a third party opinion Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Publishers Clearing House discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:William Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year#Blue.26yellow_caption_for_table
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The thread is inactive. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Use of color in table caption. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like to include a color caption to stylistically match the colors of the award logo at the top of the page. See here at the top of the table a blue strip. The Rambling Man doesn't want to use a color strip (which matches the color of the award logo), and also seems to object to even having a logo at all (which is standard for most award articles). Opening comments by The Rambling ManStill being discussed, not sure why this has been opened, happy Christmas all. Snowdogs are on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Green Cardamom
Talk:William Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year#Blue.26yellow_caption_for_table discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Everyone please state their stance on the dispute here. Not replying to the others for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Van Rensselaer_(surname)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | 2nd party not participating. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview An editor is insisting on putting too much information for a surname list on one hand and putting misleading un-cited information in other areas ... its demonstrated in edits and talk. We are dealing with a name that has been in North America since 1550s When the Van Rensselaers colonized all but just a few generations. Those generations did not procreate long. It is rare indeed but the entire family name is of American descent.... 100% no exceptions. The other editor is adding garbage about other family names and Finish and Belgian nonsense, it is getting hard to keep up with error correction. I am merely trying to keep an unbiased list with some background on the name and for some reason the other editor is insistent on bringing un-needed attention to the persons signature on the family crest placing a link that is likely already in his bio. For the moment I will let it go for the moment, but I will fix it later. Neither of us as far as I know had anything to do with this unbiased article that the other editor does seems to have little regard. Van_(Dutch) Have you tried to resolve this previously? showing facts and citing edits How do you think we can help? I think by simply - not being me would be a great help (it ain't easy) Opening comments by VoceditenorePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Van Rensselaer_(surname) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
at this point i see the issue resolved But for the fact yet another person reverted my last correction back to whatever it was all I just cleaned up. If it can be reversed by someone so it does not rack up as edit war i will be satisfied thank you for your time JGVR (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Inactive thread and the page has been fixed by volunteers. No need for more discussion here. As the problem was fixed, I'll mark it as resolved. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Wikipedia editor Muboshgu (talk · contribs) has been removing edits for their own opinion. As a fan of the sports team, I edited the page to look more organized and include more relevant material seen here [11] and the editor undid all 3 edits for the reasons of "fancruft," sources, and "non-notable rivalries," even though I provided sources and the information was clear and consistent with the rest of the page. I noticed the editor was a fan of a rival team and may hold some bias. Wiki should be used by everyone, but in this case it is quite unfair to people who actually care about the page rather than someone who can intentionally remove beneficial edits and not get into trouble because of their editor status. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I made edits of organizing rivals section into 3 parts and added more relevant material to support the statements. All edits were taken down because of a "lack of sources," I then added each source for everything said. All my edits were taken off again for new reasons of "Fancruft" and non-notable rivalries, yet the same rivalries stay on the page and the edits I made were all providing evidence for statements made about a rival, not fancruft. How do you think we can help? Ideally, the user should be notified that 3rd parties have reviewed the content removed, seen in the contrast edit here-> [12] If the 3rd parties believe that the user did remove the edits in a harmful manner instead of "following normal protocol" [13] then tell the user of his or her errors and suggest not editing rival pages Opening comments by MuboshguI reverted additions of unsourced fancruft onto a page that is already a magnet for unsourced fancruft. The page should probably be locked to prevent IP editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. That doesn't mean my opinions carry any more weight that anyone elses but I'll do my best to try broker a resolution to this dispute Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the dispute still going on or should I close the thread? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Van Rensselaer (surname)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Made against user Kraxler after he gave a warning on the talk page. Filing user is on discussion for edit warring on the page in question. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Familiarization with this article is imperative Van_(Dutch)#Collation_and_capitalisation to keep context. For some it is very confusing, and THAT in and of itself is the cause of this conflict. Kraxler is under the impression that when a mistake becomes so commonplace to the point that it even gets handed down for generations...what is proper is no longer a mistake. He holds a mistaken view that Dutch names in America no longer hold the small "v" spelling. This is only true when the surname is used as a standalone or at the beginning of a sentence. His notions have caused countless re-edits... so many it gets so frustrating that when a person tries fixing it and accidentally overlooks an improper cap it is seen as a sign of ignorance of the standard. This name was in North America 200 years before the American Revolution, so it was not subject to "Americanization" by immigration officials. Kraxler seems to think the proper resolution s to wipe out the entire article and replace it with the text from talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? encouraging the understanding of the article. tried informing that America no longer has immigration officials "Americanizing" names. tried explaining this name was in America 200 before the American Revolution. How do you think we can help? Explain to Kraxler that just because a mistake becomes so commonplace it gets handed down for generations does NOT mean 'proper no longer proper and proper does not count when you are in America' (that is not a quote it is a mindset) Opening comments by KraxlerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Van Rensselaer (surname) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Moshe Friedman
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The filing user is blocked for EW on this matter, so discussion here is neither possible nor would be helpful. —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Rather than engage in dialogue one user is cursing and making mass changes rather than on talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? He wont respond. How do you think we can help? Simple research. Opening comments by TheRedPenOfDoomPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The article was a nest of BLP violations. After innumerable edit conflicts, I was stubbed the article, put an "Under construction " banner on it, left a message on the users talk page to stop creating edit conflicts for an hour. The user's ignoring of those messages and causing further edit conflicts and re-insertion of BLP violations led me to use four letter words, and i would again if he had continued. If the user expects instantaneous responses while someone is doing a major overhaul of a BLP article, they are in the wrong place. This can be speedily closed as I have no interest in attempting to resolve anything with this user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Moshe Friedman discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Ben-Jamin Newham, Backyard science
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Being dealt with via external measures (AfD, blocked filer, etc). Hasteur (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Ben-Jamin Newhams' page keeps being deleted by the same person "Harry the Dirty Dog" I have supplied more than enough credits and references to qualify him as a "notable person" and "Harry the Dirty Dog" keeps romving the page saying he isn't worthy!… also Ben-Jamin's name keeps being removed from the "Personalities" section of the "Backyard Science" page… he co-starred in the show WITH Sophie Lowe and he has done more afterwards than she has… If Sophie Lowe has a page up, I believe it fair that Ben-jamin Newham should to! Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried persistance (re-posting)… comprimise (posting different ways) and talking with the user to see why they are so butter against Ben-jamin.. now i just believe it is a personal attack on the up and coming celebrity Ben-Jamin. How do you think we can help? allow Ben-Jamins' page to remain up once i re-post it tomorrow morning and send "Harry the Dirty Dog" warning for abuse and unfairly moderating subjects he has no knowlage in. Opening comments by Harry the Dirty DogThis user has broken WP:3RR on Backyard Science. He insists on adding a non-notable actor whose article has now been deleted three times who has a bit-part in one episode, supported by IMDb, which he has been repeatedly told is a non-reliable source. I nominated the article twice for speedy, and another editor once. A third editor took it to AfD but it was speedied instead. I did not delete the article as I am not an admin. He has been reported for promotion. His threats to recreate the article including the the use of profanity ([14]), should be enough to see him blocked given that he has been amply warned. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Ben-Jamin Newham, Backyard science discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've looked at the debate and see a few things.
For all these reasons I intend to close this filing as "Dealt with externally" pending significant objections in 24 hours. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Venus Project
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Attempts to use multiple venues simultaneously may be percieved as "Forum shopping" this case is declined on that basis, however when AN and AN/I filings are closed or archived, editors MUST discuss this extensively on the talkpage before filing here. Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Earl King Jr. has an ANI past of disruptive behavior and reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph info, etc, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work after which he said, "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the encyclopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invent, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits, but that'd be suppressive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page. AN board. How do you think we can help? Identify if the removed information is on par with other articles (such as pages of reality TV shows, relatively unknown actors, various Apple/Bell/etc product pages) and encyclopedic, or promotional/doesn't improve the article and whether Earl King Jr. should be banned. Opening comments by Earl King Jr.Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by BobraynerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by RobinpfoxPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The Venus ProjectPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I will close this in 24 hours as the opening comment is about the editor Earl King Jr. and 2 more discussions you have opened on WP:AN (now moved to WP:ANI). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
|
List of indigenous peoples Talk page
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The rules of this noticeboard say that it is not for use while other dispute resolution processes are pending. The RFC in this case has not yet been closed and has a number of days yet to run (30 days is customary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute relates to including Palestinians on the list. Some editors have argued that Palestinians should be excluded if Jews are. The scope of the article was defined by RfC consensus 3/2012[15] as "the narrow, internationally recognized definition". I asked Tritomex if he would concisely describe the relevance of genetics to the discussion[16]. He declined [17]. Tritomex then attacked me for referring to "Zionist colonialism", but sources making such references had been on the talk page before I had arrived. Dailycare presented two more official UN publications that explicitly recognize Palestinians as indigenous. Moxy made following statement, then backtracked when conforming RS were produced. As per all the other RcF on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indegenous body - so no change from the norm. Moxy, with a slightly sycophantic tone, responds to Tritomex as follows [18] Moxy[19] tells me “we're no experts", and declares that he is a geneticist and a musician, which I take to be an indirect admission of his incompetence to be working on the article in the first place. Tritomex, Moxy, HaleakalAri and Evildoer187 together form a false counter-consensus to that shared by Dailycare and me in relation to the UN RS. They refuse to discuss or recognize RS, or misrepresent others' positions, which has made for a tautological discussion. They are not discussing in good faith, in my opinion.
User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#List_of_indigenous_peoples This discussion of unreliable source presented by Evildoer187 Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Unreliable_source
Clarify the scope of the article as being the "narrow, internationally recognized definition". Insist that editors adhere to WP:TPG, WP:NPA, WP:CIR, and WP:AGF. Experienced editors (some boasting "higher degrees") have consistently been evasive in discussing the facts presented in the sources, which is against policy. If that doesn't change, there is no point in presenting sources to discuss with them in the first place, so they must be made to adhere to relevant Talk page and other policies. Opening comments by MoxyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TritomexPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Evildoer187Did you.....just accuse us of conspiring against you? Really? There is no "evasiveness" taking place, except perhaps by Ubikwit himself. He does not have adequate support or justification for his proposed revisions. Palestinians do not fall under the current criteria for inclusion, and there is no consensus in the UN or anywhere else that considers them to be an indigenous group. We've all explained this to him time and again, but he does not seem willing to accept it. The way I see it, this entire thing is just a ploy to keep this dispute going until he gets what he wants. I'm not playing ball.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by DailycarePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by HaleakalAriPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
List of indigenous peoples Talk page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The rules of this noticeboard say that it is not for use while other dispute resolution processes are pending. A Third Opinion was requested on this matter and a Third Opinion Wikipedian, RayAYang provided an initial opinion and is still working with the parties to the dispute. That process must be completed before attempting other dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview TheTimesAreAChanging and Veritas Aeterna disagree in the following areas: 1. Is the role of Henry Kissinger in the Chile coup d'état that led to the Pinochet regime accurately described in this section or not? 2. Which sources, those of TheTimesAreAChanging, or those of Veritas Aeterna are more reliable? 3. Does this section adhere to neutral point of view? TheTimesAreAChanging believes that the edits of Veritas Aeterna push a negative view of Kissinger's role; Veritas Aeterna believes that the current section pushes an overly positive view of Kissinger's role. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked for a third party opinion. Ray says that my contribution should be shortened as the Chile intervention is less significant than other parts of the Kissinger biography. I agree the whole section should be much shorter, but then if my edits are left out it paints an underduly exculpatory view of Kissinger's actions.
How do you think we can help? Please have one, or preferably more, experts on Chile and the Pinochet coup d'état review this area, especially those familiar with Kornbluh's work. Part of the dispute is that I believe other sources are either not familiar, or (if they are partisan), choose to ignore this work. More likely they are not familiar with this work, and its analysis of CIA, NSC, White House, FBI, and State Department declassified documents from the Chile Declassification Project. It is key evidence. Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChangingPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Leveson Inquiry
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The issue has been resolved. The disputed content has been moved to a more appropiate article and all parties involved have agreed that focus is now to improve the article's current content. They also expressed the desire to continue further discussion (if any) on the correspondent talk pages. Therefore, I close this case and express many thanks to all users who participated. — ΛΧΣ21 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people". The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Wikipedia that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather Leveson Inquiry spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections. Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing. The discussion in question is here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC) [Note 15/12/12: I have informed the editors by posting on the talk page, and am sure everyone currently involved has seen it but will happily post on their talk pages if that is considered necessary. Six have contributed on the talk page so far and I had only mentioned the most recent - it's absolutely right that AJHingston contribute.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person. How do you think we can help? It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion. Opening comments by Paul MacDermottI feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AJHingstonAs I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Wikipedia is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by JimthingRe. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info. Leveson InquiryPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I closed this because it appeared that the filing editor may have left Wikipedia and because no volunteer had yet addressed the case. I see that it has now been reopened by the filing editor, which is fine, but when a case has been open as long as this one and no one has addressed it it is frequently the case that there is no volunteer who cares to do so (and some may feel that for one reason or another that they should not take it because they are non-neutral). We will let it sit for another day or three to see if someone may choose to take it, but if they do not then I'll probably close it again as stale. I do not know if the bot will relist it in the case summary or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the dispute still going on? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I can see I am in a minority here, and I don't want this to drag on and on endlessly wasting editors time. I have edited the page moving the exact Straub incident off the page and onto that vandalism page, in acceptance of the WP:UNDUE argument, just making a small comment in the reaction section about it accordingly as per other editors requests as a compromise, as it should be mentioned somewhere here. If this is now dealt with, this dispute should be closed, provided other editors are reasonably happy to do so. Jimthing (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this specific dispute is now resolved, if I have understood the comments above. The other parts of your comments may be valid about the whole article, but they should be addresses on the talk page directly where they belong. Though FWIW, I agree the article should have more depth for sure. Can someone, perhaps ΛΧΣ21, please close this now. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Paloma Faith
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Lack of participation. Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Paloma Faith's date of birth was initially listed on a few websites as being 21st July 1985, making her 26. Further investigations (such as magazine articles from 2007 like http://www.exacteditions.com/read/trespass/issue-1-8880/23/2?dps=on listed on the discussion page) show her true date of birth to be 21st July 1981. However despite several users providing proof to her true date of birth, such as UK BMD records, the previously mentioned magazine articles, company director records and even a scanned birth certificate (which I however understand is not acceptable for Wikipedia), her date of birth is constantly reverted to 1985 due to "lack of sources" despite the sources for her 1985 date of birth being two "pr spin" web articles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Voluminous links to documentations confirming her 1981 date of birth have been provided, however these have all been dismissed as unacceptable and her date of birth reverted back to 1985, despite the fact there is far more evidence to her 1981 date of birth than the 1985 date of birth. How do you think we can help? Review the submitted resources regarding the date of birth, and/or provide an acceptable usable source for a UK based registration document (such as a BMD document, company register document etc) regarding the same. Opening comments by Criggy77Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by MajorbonkersPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by jmbI came across the dispute by chance after seeing some doubts about her age in the press so looked it up on the GRO (official British government reference) index through two sources and confirmed 1981. Her name is quite unusual so it is very unlikely there is any ambiguity because of someone else with a similar name. It was then that I found that several others had also looked up the date but corrections kept being reversed because of an incorrect date being given in unreliable sources like newspapers (I wonder how many of them have used the incorrect date on Wikipedia as a source!). I must admit that I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia because of this incident and distrust any fact I see on Wikipedia until I can confirm with a trustworthy reference. jmb (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by JuneGloomPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Paloma Faith#Age discussion
|
Marseille#Immigration
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus against inclusion of material, thus no dispute, but see my closing comments, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I want to refer to recent demographic studies that predict Marseille will soon become a Muslim-majority city. There's currently no mention of this in the 'Immigration' section of the article, even though the National Geographic article I originally cited is the first link I get when I type 'Marseille Immigration' into google. The next source I quoted to justify my edit was a BBC page which states that according to demographers, Marseille 'will be the first Muslim-majority city in Western Europe'. Both editors objected that this was on a programme description page, so I have now quoted an article by an academic which implies that Marseille will become a Muslim-majority city around 2030. Both editors continue to object, citing various objections, none of which I feel have a great deal of substance. The significant objections are: 1. the BBC source is not reliable because it is a programme guide; 2. the National Geographic source is not reliable because the forecast is qualified by the word 'likely'; 3. neither source is reliable by virtue of insufficient focus on the issue - 'cherry-picking'/out of context; 4. WP:NPOV, and 5. the Boston College source does not make the date of Muslim-majority explicit - WP:CRYSTAL. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is the first time I've raised the matter. How do you think we can help? By providing third party opinions. Opening comments by HPotatoPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Forecasts of the Muslim population of Marseille were and are the subject of intense media and public interest (the BBC page above is dated 3rd June 2012). Failing to adress the subject in the section of the Marseille article entitled 'Immigration' is a clear-cut case of 'ignoring the elephant in the room'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPotato (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by MathsciPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Improperly filed case according to this comment.[20] In addition a third editor disagreeing with HPotato's editing has not been included. In his second edit to the article HPotato, a very recently created account, threatened to bring it to this board[21] after thirty minutes of editing the article. He was very shortly afterwards blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on the article. Hot off the block, he resumed his disruptive editing on the article and talk page. He reported here, as threatened, after his fourth content edit to wikipedia (with a registered account) and four hours after being unblocked, thinking that this was a place to elicit a third opinion. But it is not. There is nothing to be done here: no dispute. The talk page is the correct place for discussion, which just involves the appropriate use of reliable sources. If one isolated POV-pusher engaging in tendentious editing is unsuccessful in introducing undue poorly sourced speculative content, this noticeboard is not the place to resolve that. That is WP:RSN, in case of doubt. On the talk page HPotato was advised to make an enquiry at WP:RSN about sources, but has not done so. Detailed discussion continues on Talk:Marseille and should not be fragmented by parallel discussions here because of one highly disruptive user who has made 4 content edits to wikipedia in his brief period as a registered user and who is in dispute with all other editors currently commenting. All detailed remarks about content and sourcing can be found on the article talk page. Transporterman can comment there as another editor if he wishes. This abuse of process will probably be superseded by a report at WP:ANI or WP:AN. I have watched the neutral and anodyne article Marseille since 2007, with 430 edits. Only very seldom—far less often than on Europe—are there disruptive editors. HPotato follows Pmanderson and Zeromus1, both of whom were blocked by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Dr.K.Per Mathsci's comments above there is a third editor who has not been mentioned, so this is an improperly filed case. HPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) insists on adding speculation that in eighteen years from now Marseille will be on the verge of becoming a Muslim-majority city. As I explained in detail on the talkpage of the article such long-term speculation should not be included in the article per WP:CRYSTAL. A third editor has also commented and he said that adding this speculation would also be WP:UNDUE with which I agree. So we have three editors at the talkpage of Marseille who disagree with HPotato. The consensus is already clear. We do not need dispute resolution. We are only here because HPotato does not want to drop the stick. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment For the record. I did not object to the filing of the report. I just said it was improperly filed. Also this case needs no resolution. It is already resolved because the consensus is clear. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by GeorgeLouisPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by JohnuniqFor the record, there is a silent fourth party, namely myself. Marseille is on my watchlist, and whereas I haven't done much editing anywhere lately, I noticed the article near the top of my watchlist, showing HPotato's second edit. I had a look at the change, and reverted it with an edit summary to the effect that the text was in the wrong place, and if it was wanted elsewhere, it should be discussed on talk. My revert was edit conflicted, and it was Dr.K. who actually reverted HPotato. I didn't notice that until a couple of hours later when I had time to add my thoughts to the talk page, but I saw that Dr.K. had provided such excellent explanations that any comment I might have made would have been superfluous. There is no dispute to resolve, just a new editor who might need advice. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Marseille#Immigration discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The proper remedy for the omission of a party that any of the parties believes to be essential is simply to add the editor to the editor list and to notify that editor using {{subst:drn-notice}}, not to object to the filing. Since both objectors only mention a "third editor" Closing comments: I'm going to close this because I do believe that there is an adequate consensus against inclusion of the material at this time and in the form and with the sources which are being given to support it. In coming to this decision, I have disregarded all the allegations made about the experience, motivations, conduct, and editing practices of HPotato, all of which are entirely inappropriate for this forum in accordance with its guidelines, and have only considered the edits and sources which HPotato has offered and the arguments made against them. When consensus exists, it is inappropriate for dispute resolution to take place because there is no dispute to resolve and that must always be the first consideration when a DR volunteer takes on a case. However, I also have to say that I believe that this particular consensus is just barely sufficient to have that effect and is limited to the current dispute and current circumstances. Since the discussion is continuing on the article talk page, it may very well be the case that consensus will not exist or will no longer exist if the discussion moves beyond the current edits, sources, arguments, and counterarguments and that dispute resolution may well be appropriate if that occurs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Amir-Abbas Fakhravar
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion. I also note the issue with BLP policy regarding critcism/controversy sections as well as undue weight. Editors are advised to work to find common ground and seek help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and more discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Amadscientist (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The subject is a political prisoner from Iran. Several individuals who were also political prisoners in Iran (some of which were housed in the same cell as the subject) were interviewed by Mother Jones magazine wherein they gave evidence suggesting that the subject's accounts regarding his escape and his statute are false. In light of this information, editor Kabriat created a section outlining these controversies. Editor Siavash777 (which bears the same name as the subject's nickname) has repeatedly reverted these comments, simply wishing to relegate the topic to the following sentence "According to an article published in Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, some of other Iranian political activists criticizing Fakhravar's story." During discussions on the issue Siavash777 argued that "the entire article is based on rummers [sic] and Mr. Fakhravar's enemies or competitors or Islamic Republic of Iran's informants who wants to attack Fakhravar and didn't have any fact never ever. You can't find any single fact for any of accusations made by writer of this article". In support of his accusations Siavash777 cites to a blog. Kabriat noted that the entire page currently has POV issues and that most of the biography is sourced to Front Page Magazine, a publication with "an ideological slant and questionable reliability." Kabriat then noted "Second, the Mother Jones article is reliable. It's not a "blog", it's an article written by Laura Rozen, an expert and frequent commentator and journalist on Middle East affairs (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/authors/laura-rozen). The article is also based on a variety of eye-witnesses testimonies. Third, to the extent we intend to rely upon Front Page Mag for any assertions, then there's not much of an argument to exclude the contrary position taken in the Mother Jones article. Lastly, all of the accusations are unfounded and in fact sourced to one blog which, coincidentally enough, seems to idolize the subject." Have you tried to resolve this previously? The topic was posted the talk page for the subject's article and the noticeboard on the biography of living persons, an archive which can be found here: (Volunteer has deleted the off wiki link. All archives links should be limited to Wikipedia archives only)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC) How do you think we can help? It would be helpful if a more neutral individual could moderate the dispute and recommend compromises. Opening comments by Siavash777Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Amir-Abbas Fakhravar discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Moved on to RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The main dispute which has been going on for months is whether certain polls are polls of single-payer healthcare or simply polls of "various levels of government involvement" in healthcare. Me and Scjessey are of the opinion that they are single-payer polls and Thargor Orlando/North8000/Arzel are of the latter. This is the contested version in question. Me and Scjessey hold that the consensus of virtually every reliable source is that they are single-payer polls but the other editors challenge this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? How do you think we can help? By deciding whether or not they are single-payer polls. Opening comments by ScjesseyThis again? "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in." At the beginning, I was an uninvolved editor brought in to mediate a dispute between Cartoon and Thargor. It quickly became apparent that Thargor was not interested in resolving anything and preferred to just revert anything that suggested Americans were in favor of a single-payer healthcare system (reliable sources be damned). Dispute resolution broke down because of Thargor's intransigence and tendentiousness. I abandoned the topic because I was fed up with beating my head against the Thargor brick wall. North and Arzel aren't really involved in this dispute other than to offer ideological support to Thargor. In essence, the topic suffers from a lack of editors and opinions, allowing non-mainstream views to have a greater voice than they otherwise would. I would still prefer to have nothing to do with this matter, but I will monitor this debate and chip in where appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Thargor OrlandoOnce again, CartoonDiablo rushes to DRN as opposed to hashing things out at talk. The issue is not really content at this point, as the result of more eyes at the articles is resulting in an actual consensus coming about. The issue is CD's conduct at this stage - edit warring, 3RR, misuse of sources, violations of basic verifiability policy. These are not things DRN is designed to solve. We're here because CD's continued forum shopping has yet to result in his viewpoint winning, and I'm sure he'll try to escalate it yet again when this also fails to go his way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by North8000As a preface, I tend to try to help "right wrongs" regarding happenings at articles and forums regarding following Wikipedia policies and guidelines and helping individuals that are improperly getting beat up. As such, as often as not I am supporting folks whose real world POV's are the exact opposite of mine. In this case most of the above applies, except that I am ambivalent regarding any related RW topics. I have not been involved in any such dispute. I briefly commented on this in November and then was asked to look in by an uninvolved admin which I have done over the last 2 days. What I saw is behavioral problems by CartoonDiablo, and some rough "ganging up" by CartoonDiablo and Scjessey against Thargor Orlando (who was making policy-based arguments and edits) and my efforts have been towards something that will get those resolved. We may have been inching on a path towards that which I suspect is why this DRN was opened (as a smokescreen). The question in the posting is also fatally flawed. Whatever they are trying to do it should be in terms of article content. The closest legit topic I can think of would be "shall the wording in the article identify those as single-payer polls"? And the answer to the latter is given much direction by Wikipedia core policies. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Arzel.It would appear that there have been several polls about various health care policies, many of which are worded in reference to Medicare. Some advocacy groups have used the results of these polls to push a point of view regarding a single-payor health care plan. CD believes that since these sources call these polls single-payor like that they can be used in this article to present that POV, much like the single-payor advocates are doing. If polls are to be used (which in general are pretty worthless for complex questions like this) then they should be limited to poll questions which specifically ask the single-payor question, anything else is simply pushing a specific POV. Arzel (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
As no one else seems to want to take this discussion, I will. Is the dispute for everyone about adding "One Nation, Uninsured," New York Times and "If the Health Care Mandate Is Struck Down, Single-Payer Becomes the Best Choice", Huffington Post to the Public opinion section of the article? Some of you did not even talk about the content dispute, rather focusing on the behavioural aspect. If the dispute is adding these two references, here's another question. Why have these 2 references when there are 6 other references? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo's arguments and sourcing seem very solid. Thargor has been unable to make a compelling case for rejecting them. The "months of attempts at building consensus" are really just months of WP:IDL. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thargor says: "We go by what the polls actually say, not how an opinion column labels it or how an advocacy group tries to spin it." The only problem is, that is the WRONG way to use reliable sources. Wikipedia specifically prefers secondary reliable sources (newspaper columns) over primary reliable sources (polls). This project has always been more comfortable letting a secondary source interpret primary sources for us. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have no opinion about who or what is right or wrong here, nor have I made an extensive examination of what's gone before. All I've done is to read what's been said here and the comment and question I have is this: We cannot do here at DRN what is asked in the How do you think we can help? section, i.e. decide whether or not they are single-payer polls. This forum cannot make binding content decisions, nor can any of the other regular dispute resolution processes here. And that brings me to my question: What do the disputants think that we can do here? Is there any point in continuing to re-hash this discussion? To that end, I would raise the effect of the Consensus policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Is it time to perhaps ask an administrator to make a consensus determination and close the discussion at the article talk pages? Or perhaps instead to move on to getting the entire community involved through a RFC? I just get the impression that nothing is happening here except a rehash of what's been said many times before and I wonder whether or not this thread ought or ought not to be closed as "failed." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As currently phrased and requested, this is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. While DRN will not reject requests merely because some conduct disputes are involved, this noticeboard is not for disputes which are primarily conduct disputes (and even when conduct disputes are involved we will generally only deal with the content portion of those disputes). Conduct disputes should be taken to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U (which might be the best choice in this case), or some other primarily-conduct-focused forum and, ultimately, to WP:ARBCOM if those other measures fail. Moreover, one primary party has declined to participate here and, even if this were an appropriate forum, there's nothing we can do here in that circumstance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview This issue is a rather larger one than one single content dispute. GarnetAndBlack holds a deep-seated hatred and bias against Clemson University. Any pages related to Clemson, he edits with extreme bias or retaliates in some way if a Clemson user (like myself) corrects one of his erroneous edits. GarnetAndBlack is extremely rude and abrasive to all Clemson editors, and he makes threats with Wikipedia policy or removes entire sections of content for minor edits. He often demands a consensus be made on the talk page, yet he still ignores said consensuses and continues to revert changes. His edits are often made with snide, clearly biased comments against Clemson (such as trash talk when updating a Clemson loss to a statistic box). Recently, he deleted positive, factual information about Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney when a minor edit and citation could have been added instead. These edits were done to retaliate immediately against my edits to the Clemson-South Carolina football brawl page that corrected factual errors that painted Clemson in a bad light. In other words, he often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" rather than making minor corrections if the information paints Clemson or the school's coaches in a positive light. Attempts to communicate with him usually result in personal attacks or he is non-responsive. On one occasion, a fellow Gamecock fan of his even had to point out that he was off-base with his insistence that an extremely questionable source that painted Clemson in an unfavorable light not be removed. Since I am a Clemson fan, in the spirit of Wikipedia policy for unbiased and factual information, I refrain from editing Univ. of SC pages because I know I'm not the best person for this job. However, GarnetAndBlack bias has run rampant in editing Clemson pages, exhibits "ownership", he exudes extreme hostility to those who question him, and I also believe he is "gaming the system" with his constant threats over Wikipedia policies. Have you tried to resolve this previously? About a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I did not handle our conflicts appropriately. I admit that. Since then, however, I have tried to work with him in making productive edits. I've reached out to him on various talk pages, only to be ignored unless I make an edit he disagrees with. Then I am either threatened or he orders me to find a consensus, although there's really only the two of us editing. Twice I've had to bring in third parties to resolve it. He addresses me rudely even when I am polite How do you think we can help? Well, I'm hoping a third party can open his eyes to his bias and hostility without having to go to arbitration. I'm hoping a third party can show how the bias and utter hatred of all things Clemson severely impacts his ability to edit pages about Clemson without compromising the integrity of the pages. While I have my own bias, I do not harbor such hatred towards Univ. of SC (I actually do some work for them that brings new students to the school). Thank you. Opening comments by GarnetAndBlackPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
What this noticeboard is not:
This will be my first and last comment here. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by ClmsntigrPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale, no response by one primary disputant, but it appears that discussion may have moved beyond the need for this on the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview This is basically a question over how similar a re-worded statement can be from its source without qualifying as a copyright violation. Particularly, this concerns brief plot synopses for upcoming episodes of the Cartoon Network animated series Young Justice announced via press release. I provided a re-worded version of the synopses for the episodes' entries on the List of Young Justice episodes. Jack Sebastian then removes them, calling them copyright violations, and replaces them with a re-worded version that, in my opinion, is significantly closer to the source material. Since I consider that a copyright violation, I restore the old version (mine) of the page. Jack Sebastian removes them again and...you see where this is going. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Jack Sebastian and I have, in simplest terms, had it out with this dispute. In two different locations, even. However, as Jack Sebastian is now making personal attacks and doing everything in his ability to block me from contributing to the discussion, my hands are now tied. How do you think we can help? As I said, Jack Sebastian has made personal attacks and is doing everything to keep me out of the discussion. To be honest, I don't know if I could continue the discussion without doing the same. I need the dispute to be resolved quickly before this escalates and at least one of us winds up blocked. Opening comments by Jack SebastianPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
It appears to me that there have been third parties who have intervened in this dispute at the article talk page after it was listed here and that discussion has become unstuck. Unless someone objects, I or another DRN volunteer will close this case 24 hours after this posting. If the listing party is considering objecting, however, they need to take into consideration that the listing will probably be closed nonetheless if the other party does not choose to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Ethnic conflict_in_Sri_Lanka
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved in part, premature for insufficient recent substantial discussion in part. See closing notes, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In August Beeblebrox add tags to the page based on AFD discussion which resulted as Keep and Improve. This page mostly edited by Himesh84. Beeblebrox, obi2canibe also contributed to article. But most of the obi2canibe are introducing tags and undones. No contribution to the content. In the talk page obi2canibe has stated he is not an expert on this subject. Also Beeblebrox said he is not interest about article and he have little knowledge on subject. More referenced were added to the page. This page was there since considerable time no one specifically says what are the problems in the page. Yet, again article was nominated to delete in Here and no one raised problem in article. Most of the participant praised the page and result was just Keep. obi2canibe also participated to the latest AFD discussion. He is neither act according to latest consensus nor specifically providing what are the issues in the current version. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested to specify issues in the article ( Talk page discussions) and tried to resolve issues with users who edited content but not further involved in the page. I also tried to communicate with users who contributed to the content but not active on this page How do you think we can help? Help to remove tags according to the consensus and result of latest AFD or specifically address issues which I can use to improve the page. Opening comments by BeeblebroxI do not consider myself an involved party and will not be participating in this discussion or monitoring this situation in any way. See related closed thread on my talk page for repeated explanation of this position. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Obi2canibePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 61.245.168.53See the dispute overview notes. ( I got different IPs from DNS ) Ethnic conflict_in_Sri_Lanka discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Closing notes: The fact that an article has been "kept" in an AFD discussion only means that the article meets the minimum standards for independent inclusion in Wikipedia; it implies nothing about the overall article quality and, for that reason, article quality tags are entirely appropriate, if needed and appropriate. The present request is only over the effect of that keep. To the extent that there is an allegation that one editor insists on the tags remaining on the article, but will not specify what problems need to be corrected, that is — if true — a conduct dispute which is not within the scope of this noticeboard. There is no dispute over the substantive content of the article which has had sufficient recent substantial discussion at the talk page to justify a request here. I would close by reminding everyone involved here, without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions under the community decision made here and logged here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Narcissism, Individualism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion is proceeding with other editors at the article talk pages. Feel free to relist here with additional editors added if that discussion becomes stuck. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Link between Individualism and Narcissism is in violation of WP:IRS. Attempt to remove the content has resulted in an ongoing edit war. Repeated requests have been made to discuss the content on the talk page, but other users have refused to engage me. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Repeatedly asked the other users to engage me on the talk page. Tried to seek advice at WP:AN#Burden of Proof. Tried to tag the content instead of delete it, but Wiki-markup does not seem to allow tags on links. How do you think we can help? Enforce WP:IRS, and remove the content until sources are cited and a case has been made. Opening comments by PenbatPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by ShadowjamsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I'm hardly involved in this outside of concerns about edit warring. For context see WP:AN#Burden of Proof and the previous ANI at [22]. The only new comments were added within the last few hours, and the old discussion from December 29 was accompanied by the originator of this being blocked for edit warring. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Narcissism, Individualism discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
This request will be closed by a DRN volunteer as stale unless someone objects within the next 24 hours after the posting of this notice, and will be closed even then unless Penbat chooses to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, If you know of the sources, you are responsible for providing them. If you would have posted this on the talk pages, as was expected of you and repeatedly asked for in my edit comments, a discussion would have ensued instead of an edit war. If you would post this on the talk page instead of here, we can close this dispute and have a discussion.--115.94.64.219 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Juan Manuel de Rosas
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.,
| Failed. The parties involved have been unwilling to compromise in any fashion whatsoever rendering my mediation attempts impossible. I would recommend a formal mediation next, where a more experienced mediator can hopefully hammer out an agreement. Thanks to all involved for giving it a good faith effort, and good luck in resolving the dispute. Go Phightins! 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For the past three years Cambalachero and I have clashed over certain aspects of Argentine history. The main issue right now is about Juan Manuel de Rosas who ruled Argentina from 1829 until 1852. I pointed out that he is regarded by historians a dictator and a ruthless one. Cambalachero, on the other hand, says that historians regard Rosas a democratically elected leader. This issue was discussed years ago in Platine War talk page and was recently discussed in Juan Manuel de Rosas own article. I requested a Third Opinion and Noleander volunteered to help. After a long debate he agreed with me that Rosas was a dictator, that historians generally agree that he was a dictator and that Cambalachero's view is Revisionism and can not be taken as mainstream view regarding the matter. Nonetheless Cambalachero has refused to back down and that's why I came here. I need the help of other authors in dealing with this problem. Have you tried to resolve this previously?
How do you think we can help? Cambalachero has argued that the article should say that Rosas was a dictator according to some historians but not to others. That Rosas killed thousands of innocent people according to some historians and none according to others. And so on and on. For obvious reasons, an article in Wikipedia can not be presented as two heads sharing a same body. As Noleander remarked: ""If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority" Opening comments by CambalacheroPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
First of all, Lecen misrepresents my words. I do not say that historians, as an unified body, say that Rosas was democratic. I pointed that there are many who said so, that the view of Rosas as a dictator is not universal, and that modern Argentine historians have already ended that dispute. Although the historians who did not condemn Rosas were known as "revisionists", the most respected Argentine historians and heads of academic institutions (all there in the talk) point that this "revisionism" has been incorporated into the standard academic knowledge of Argentina; thus, a paradigm shift took place and it is not revisonism anymore. Again, it is not me who says that, it is fully referenced (it may be long or boring to read, but the references are there). And respected tertiary sources pointing the current consensus over a topic are better than discussing ourselves which is that consensus. As for English-speaking sources, John Lynch points himself that Rosas is completely forgotten in it, that nobody studies him; then discussing the current consensus among English-speaking sources is abstract and mostly pointless. To avoid Systemic bias we should consider the body of authors who do work heavily on this and related topics (Argentine Spanish-speaking historians). In short: Lecen wants the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, "Rosas was a dictator". I think instead that the article should point who considered Rosas a dictator, who did not, and which is the current state of the historiographical dispute (which is resolved). As it is done in the article Oliver Cromwell, the focus of a similar real-world controversy, and checked and edited by far more English-speaking editors: the word is present but always attributed, never in a "Cromwell was a dictator" way, even when we wouldn't lack sources to reference it. Besides, Wikipedia has a policy to avoid contentious labels. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Juan Manuel de Rosas discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Comment - Last week I tried to help resolve the dispute by offering a Third Opinion in the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page. For that reason, I'll recuse myself from acting as a DRN volunteer here. FWIW, my opinion is that there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances. The article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on. At a minium, the article needs to state that "many historians consider him a dictator". The next issue is whether the article can state that "Rosas is a dictator" in the encyclopedia's voice. User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This claim about Perón has already been refuted at the talk page. I cited Fernando Devoto, titular teacher of theory and history of the historiography at the "Faculty of Philosophy and Words", and researcher at the Ravignani institute, author of the book "History of the Argentine historiography" (as you see, a much more specific book for the topic at hand). Perón did not promote revisionism in a political manner over the natural work of academic institutions. Here and here you have scanned pages with all the details. As for the repatriation of Rosas’ body, Menem did not intend to start a "cult of Rosas", but rather make a symbolic end to the disputes that once divided the country. Check his speech here. Yes, it departs from the academic background (the fate of the body of a historical man is not part of his historiography), but it reconfirms that the dispute is over. Horacio González, president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, had this interview. He said about revisionism that "From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first" (in other words, a paradigm shift). Félix Luna was also a university teacher, Secretary of Culture of Buenos Aires, and received the Konex Award. In the book "With Rosas or against Rosas" he wrote "Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance." Luis Alberto Romero, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martín and the UBA, wrote this. "Historical revisionism, a historiographical movement that defied that perspective, added original causes – a romantic idea of the people, a hostile perspective of Britain, reinvidicaton of Rosas and caudillos – but ultimately it was built over similar premises, and when it was traducted for the schools it was as a moderate and pacific version, complementary rather than alternative of the dominant one". In other words, revisionism has been incorporated into the standard view of history, and national education teachs that. Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, director of the National Academy of History, wrote the book "Argentine Military campaigns". He pointed in the prologue that "It is not the task of the one who reconstructs them [note: the historical peoples] to defend or condemn them: just to point how did they acted in the events where they have been involved". The quotes may be expanded if required, but I hope they are concise enough for the layman now. As you see they are not descriptions of Rosas himself, so that we define ourselves how do historians see Rosas (a task borderline with original research), but descriptions of academics who have already done that job. I may also add that, more than a century after his death and with his political party extinct, Rosas appears in the Argentine currency. No despised dictator would have such honor, which is reserved for the most remarkable people of a country. He also has a national day. Cambalachero (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - As a Latin American historian, I completely agree with Cambalachero. As all history students should know, even those who have skimmed a history book every now and then, certain characters and events are highly controversial. Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of these characters, a person who during his lifetime was lauded by his supporters and despised by his opponents. This has translated into the historiographical study of the person, with academics taking opposing sides in the issue. I support the notion that the Wikipedia article should reflect the complexity of the issue without taking a specific side, the opposite of what is proposed by Lecen.
Lastly, I find Noleander's statement about me ("obfuscate and stonewall") quite insulting. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Compromise proposal (focusing only on the Rosas article for now) - What if we create a new section in the article that focuses on the dictator issue. We include the reliable sources that state he was or was not a dictator. For the short term, we attribute all the sources (that is, we do not use the encyclopedia's voice). Since this is not an article on historical revisionism, we avoid sources that are only discussing revisionism, and limit ourselves to sources that simply state whether or not Rosas was a dictator. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I found this source from John Keane (political theorist) ([23]). Please read pages 414 and 415. Keane's "caudillo democracy" is a perfect explanation of the complicated Rosas regime. Rosas cannot simply be labeled a "dictator" because his ruling style was a strange mix between democracy and despotism ("Democratic Caesarism"). This is why I keep repeating that the common description of Rosas is as Caudillo. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Compromise proposal #2(Following up on MarshalN20's suggestion) - We add material to the "Criticism and historical perspective" which addresses the various viewpoints of modern scholars (not 19th c. contemporaries). We include historians that call him a "dictator" and we include historians that say he was not a dictator, but instead was ...blah, blah. In all cases, we identify the historians by name per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I can not agree with Noleander nor with Wdford. You are both giving undue weight for a Revisionism school, which is not even mainstream. We can't place in Rosas' article two different and opposing views as they had the same weight. It's an absurd. It doesn't make sense at all. Am I the only one who has noticed that so far I have brought sources while Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have given nothing more but their personal opinions? What the f&%@ is that? Since when reliable sources have the same weight as Wikipedians' personal opinions? --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
How about this for an outline of a new paragraph (or subsection) within the Criticism section, which goes something like this:
Of course, every sentence would be sourced to a reliable source. The final two "bias" sentences are just placeholders in case there are documented allegations of bias ... there may be none, in which case those "bias" sentences would not appear. --Noleander (talk)
This discussion came under my notice for some reason, and I think there is a good solution on the table: Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly "Rosas was not a dictator". Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Please read John Keane (political theorist) ([24]). Pages 414 and 415 are particularly good. Keane's "caudillo democracy" is a perfect explanation of the complicated Rosas regime. Rosas cannot simply be labeled a "dictator" because his ruling style was a strange mix between democracy and despotism ("Democratic Caesarism"). This is why I keep insisting that the common description of Rosas is as Caudillo. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that I outed his manipulation of sources, Lecen got into an aggresive denial. He is repeating everywhere that "I did not bring sources", when that's what I did most of the time. I will do it once more:
It was pointed that those sources are revisionist. However, I have already included at the begining of the discussion several academic, uninvolved and modern sources that state that revisionism has been accepted and incorporated into the standard academic consensus. It's still called that way merely because of custom, strictly speaking, it is not revisionism anymore. Lecen says that revisionism is not mainstream, but which is his proof of that? He did not bring any source that contradicts the ones I gave. In fact, we are discussing about the historiography rather than the history, and he never brought sources working under that approach. He claims the existence of a consensus by using google hits, not by using reliable references that say, directly and plainly, that there is such consensus. By the way, modern sources do not usually have the "was not a dictator because..." bit. They simply skip the whole thing. After all, to justify "X was a dictator" is to condemn him, and to justify "X was not a dictator" is to praise him (ultimately it is not a fact of life, but a political opinion). And, as pointed and referenced, Argentine historiography has already grown up from that early stage of needing to set apart heroes and villains: Rosas is not considered as either one, but just as a historical man as all the others, and whose actions are not explained by personal motivations but by geopolitical ones. A good recent example is "Great Biographies of the 200 years: Juan Manuel de Rosas", published by Clarín in 2010 (recent and aimed for the main public): it does not call Rosas a dictator, nor tries to justify him, it's just a "boring" and disappasionated explanation of events. Dorrego does this, Lavalle does this, Rosas does this, Lavalle does this, and so on. Precisely the style that should be used in wikipedia, if you ask me. As for the file, the source is "own work" (in addition to PD-old for death of the author) because, regardless of the previous versions of the same portrait in the file history, the last one is an actual photo of the physical portrait that I took personally. But don't try to mess the discussion by raising several unrelated topics at the same time, it makes the discussion very confusing. As for Neolander's proposal at the begin of this subsection, yes, I agree. I don't agree in the detail of skiping the XIX century stuff, Rosas was controversial and had both supporters and detractors even in his day, and that is worth talking about, too. I made a more or less long version of the history of the way that historians have worked with Rosas at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas (it is based in a book about the Historiography of Argentina, extracting from it the info from the paragraphs about historians working in this specific topic). The section at the main article is a summary of the information detailed there; at least that was the angle I used. Cambalachero (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Go PhightinsThat was quite a bit of reading; I still am not 100% sure I understand the three sides to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how, based on what I just read (this entire thread, the 3O, and skimming some of the information provided by Cambalachero, haven't gotten to all of it yet), I would summarize this dispute. And just as an FYI, I am not able to read, much less comprehend Spanish, so if that's going to become an issue, another volunteer is needed. Lecen feels (and has provided a couple of sources) that state that Rosas was an oppressive dictator, while Cambalachero and possibly MarshalN20, though I still haven't quite figured out how he fits into this equation yet, think, and have cited several historians which Lecen discounts, that Rosas was a victim dealt a bad hand and consequently fell into authoritarian rule, but at his heart was a good guy. Lecen discounts that calling it historical revisionism. If this is inaccurate, please, each of you in 300 words or less, state how that interpretation is incorrect and state your desired outcome. As a sidenote, however, it seems to me that no matter what happens here, Lecen is inclined to go further down the dispute resolution process to an RfC and then to Arbitration. I would ask all of you, then, are we doing ourselves any good here? If each of you honestly think we can hammer out an agreement, than I am more than willing to help facilitate that, but if this is just a pit stop enroute to an eventual arbitration, what good is this discussion doing? Go Phightins! 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
My initial thoughts are as follows: the policies and/or guidelines that need to be considered are: Are there any other Wikipedia guidelines that any of you feel need to be considered in this discussion? I think it violates all four of those to label Rosas as a dictator using the encyclopedias voice...we don't even flat-out call Joseph Stalin a dictator. I tend to agree with MarshalN20 that we need to present Rosas in a balanced manner, and for that reason, I will not support the word "dictator" being used from the encyclopedia's voice under any circumstances in the article. To me, it seems that "caudillo" is an accurate, though not inflammatory, term from a historical perspective. I have read pages 414-15 in the book provided by MN20, which seems like a pretty solid source in this case. As mentioned earlier, my knowledge of Spanish is limited to a few classes in school, so I cannot read, nor interpret, Spanish unless it is extraordinarily basic... thus, I cannot translate the biography on O'Donnell provided to me on my talk page. That brings up another thing, let's keep all discussion related to this on this page and off my talk page. I would like this to be fully transparent. Go Phightins! 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What if in the "criticism and historical perspective" section, we added a sentence similar to the following: Though historians disagree as to whether Rosas was a dictator or a victim of circumstance, most agree that he was a caudillo. If necessary, it could be modified to say "Historians x and y view Rosas as a dictator while historians a and b view him as a victim of circumstance" or whatever else. At this point, I'm not sure how else this can end. Unfortunately, I think that the DR process may progress unless we can agree to the aforementioned proposal. Go Phightins! 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by LecenFirst and most importantly is to find out which sources are reliable and generally accepted. The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica (and it's used by Britannica as its main source).[31] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[32] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[33] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[34] Now let's take a look at what books about Argentina have been saying for the past 20 years (by order in which they were published). Note: All of these books may be found easily at Google books and they are all for sale at Amazon .
Now let's take a look at what other works published in English have to say about Rosas (by order in which they were published):
This is not about two different views regarding Rosas that have the same weight. It isn't. Historians regard him not only a dictator, but one who ruled through Terrorism, or more precisely, State terrorism. What has happened is that Cambalachero (backed by MarshalN20) has been whitewashing Rosas' article (See here). He has used works which are regarded in Argentina as "Revisionism" and thus they do not represent the mainstream view about Rosas. Revisionism in Argentina is the product of nationalists and are closely tied to Argentine contemporary politics. It doesn't belong in here. There are two works in English about the Argentine revisionism and its relation to Rosas: [35][36] I'm going to make it short: Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial. It is the work of hard wing historians and politicians who are xenophobic and support authoritarian governments. It can not be treated merely as an "alternative view" nor as a "secondary opinion" regarding Rosas. It must be explicitly warned about what it is and what is it's goal. --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by MarshalN20
Comments by CambalacheroWhen I said that the former revisionism has already been accepted and incorporated into the standard academic view, I provided sources for that. Lecen says that all English-speaking historians call him a dictator, but this conclusion is based in google hits for specific terms, not in actual authors discussing that particular point (the view of English-speaking historians about Rosas, taken as an isolated group apart from Argentine ones), so his conclusion is basically original research. I already pointed at the article talk page that several of those google hits are flawed (mere passing-by comments in books of wider or unrelated topics, with no rationale for the term, and even from authors with a visible lack of knowledge of the topic); still, he shows then here again to try to impress others with mere numbers. I pointed as well how me made outright lies first about a quote (removing a part that changes the meaning) and then about the antecedents of an author; he did not deny his lies, he simply tries to let them go unnoticed beneath mountains of text... and even repeats them back, hoping perhaps that nobody noticed. As for the comparison with holocaust denial (a pathetic attempt to play the nazi card), historical denial is the denial of facts. The conclusions taken from those facts (in the cases of historians who want to take such conclusions) are a secondary thing, and ultimately unimportant. In the case of Rosas: what things he could do, what things he could not do, how did he become governor, which events took place by then, those are the historical facts. Considering all that information, was Rosas a dictator? The answer, either a "yes" or a "no", is an opinion (an opinion with more or less acceptance, but an opinion nonetheless). Initially, the answer was a "yes" in most cases. The revisionists of the 1930s began to say "no". With political motivations? Perhaps, but that's not what is really important: the really important thing for the academics is if their works are based in documentation, or just as mere essays. Yes, they provided it, loads of documentation that was unknown or ignored before. That's why revisionism has been accepted, for the added documentation. So... was Rosas a dictator? With the modern knowledge of the time period, with both the documented information known from the begining and those uncovered since the 1930s, the answer is: it depends on who you ask it to. For that reason, most modern authors do not reply the question, but just list the facts and let the reader think what he wants. Other, like Pacho O'Donell, still like to write both the information and their personal conclusions. The nazi card can also be replied with simpler information that anyone can understand: is there any chance that Hitler may appear in modern German currency, or have a monument in Berlin, or an associated national day? Because Rosas does have all those in Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I accept the point. I will not talk about Lecen as a user, merely about the main topic. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What may helpI recently helped mediate a discussion at the Falkland Islands page. What helped in that discussion was the usage of a sandbox, where all users (including mediator and commentators) got to see what exactly the "involved" users wanted to change in the article. In this Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion, all our focus has been on an abstract concept, with little hands-on work. Noleander and Phightins have suggested to get something more concrete in the article, but up to now Lecen refuses to even explain what exactly he wants to change in the article. I think the mediator must impose, rather than suggest, that Lecen present what he wants to do in the article (at least in a specific section, of his own chosing). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Argentine revisionismThe Argentine revisionism is the historiographic wing of a political movement known as "nationalism". The nationalism became a powerful movement in the 1930s and it's the Argentine equivalent (but not identical) to German Nazism, Italian Facism, Brazilian Integralism, etc, etc... As it happened in those countries, the Argentine nationalists also had it's own ideologues and intelectuals. In the history field they had the revisionists who attempted to rewrite history according to their own goals. That's how "Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina's most brutal politician of the nineteenth century, can be reinvented as a symbol of patriotic resistance to foreign oppression..." (Johnson, page 13). There are two works in English that deal with the Argentine nationalists (including their historiographic wing, the revisionism) and their attempt into turning Rosas from a reviled dictator to a national hero:
Both works call Rosas a dictator. "Whereas Perón had supported the return of nineteenth-century dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas's body to Argentina." (Johnson, p.254) "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they whished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." (emphasis mine; Rock, p.119) David Rock (page 108) said: "The streak of destructive nihilism in the attitudes of the Nationalists further evoked the Fascists. In 1935, Federico Ibarguren... believed , the only solution to 'anarchy' was dictatorship: 'Today we live... the prologue to another anarchy [like that in the 1820s]... Therefore when society has passed into definitive crisis, another Rosas will have to take power and impose order, but this time with machine guns, planes and bombs. And the liberals will tremble!'" Rock also said soon after on the same page: "Rosas, the revisionists claimed, had supported the powers and privileges of the church while both excluding Protestants and Jews." Both books (which can be found on Google books) go on explaining the authoritarian projects of the Nationalists (and their intelectual wing, the Revisionism). Does Wikipedia uses Mein Kampf as source regarding Germany's history or Jews' history? No. And for obvious reasons. That's what I have been trying to tell all along. That's why Cambalachero has picked five authors (whom he didn't revealed what were their books, which pages he used, etc...) who are dead for over 40 years. Those people are the Argentine equivalent to Fascists. They do not represent mainstream historiograph, they are not a legitimate "alternative view". I have been showing every single book published in English in here, showing that every single author regards Rosas a dictator. Books, books, books and books. All of them widely used as sources. Here I ask: why Cambalachero has consciously used books written by Argentine Fascists who died over 40 years ago and has ignored all other books written by mainstream historians? Why? With what purpose? To me the answer is quite obvious. That bullshit that Rosas ruled as somekind of paternal autocrat which is somehow a democracy (????!!!!!) is Revisionism/Nationalist crap. That can not be taken even as a second opinion. That may be presented in the Legacy section and nothing more. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have worked about this topic at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas, based on a book by Fernando Devoto, hardly a revisionist, and with much closer and detailed knowledge of this whole topic than those foreign authors. There are many flaws in Lecen's proposals.
Recommend closureAll right guys, this has escalated to the point that I don't think this discussion is of any use and would second Amadscientist's recommendation that you seek a formal mediation. The sides are too far apart and, based on what I've seen, are unwilling to compromise. Therefore, I would recommend that at this point, this discussion be closed and that you move along the dispute resolution process. As for the user conduct exhibited in this discussion as well as prior ones on this topic, I think you all need to step back and remember to assume good faith, remain civil, and comment on the content, not the contributors. There's enough misconduct to go around, so we need not name names, but at this point, I think this discussion is serving as nothing other than a means for additional mudslinging, misrepresentation, and frustration for all parties. There have been three, by my count, compromise proposals, none of which have been accepted by any of the parties, therefore, I am out of options as a volunteer here as I cannot see a way out of this debacle short of a formal mediation, which is what at this time I would recommend you seek. Thank you all for your time and effort, but this situation is beyond handling at this venue. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
|
