Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 68
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
Music of_Argentina#Electronic
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required as a prerequisite to use of this board, but relief requested not within the scope of this board, either. To request page protection go to WP:RPP; to report a user for conduct go to WP:ANI after discussing the matter with the user on their talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Wetback
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | OP states on their talk page shortly after this filing, that the dispute has been resolved with administrator assistance Amadscientist (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
John D._Haynes_House
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute, and also is at AN/I and other forums already gwickwiretalkediting 18:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Search Stilts - go to tallest and Heaviest Stilts
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Not a dispute between users, but a help request. Consider either obtaining assistance through Editor assistance or simply making the change yourself, provided you can provide a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Case opened at WP:SPI. When that case is closed, if the content dispute is still going on, you are welcome to refile. CarrieVS (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Request for help to vanish, not to resolve this dispute. Filing editor - see my message on your talk page. CarrieVS (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Earth's Own Food Company
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion on article talkpage. Page protection requests should be placed at WP:RPP Issues with editor behavior should be addressed at WP:ANI -- Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Tomaso Albinoni, Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive discussion on the article talk page as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Attack (political party), Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No talk page discussion. There needs to have been extensive discussion before opening a DRN request; starting a thread on the article talk page is a good start, but it's only been one day and the other editor hasn't replied yet. If the other editor doesn't respond and edit-warring continues, you could go to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CarrieVS (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Eve McVeagh Publicity Photo from Snafu (1945)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN is not for matters pending in other venues. This question is pending at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files and will be resolved through the usual processes at that forum. Please make your arguments for retention there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Pope Francis#Relation to Jewish community in Argentina
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | AN/I opened by filing editor has not been closed. Please re-file this request after the discussion at that venue has closed.Amadscientist (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Roman reconstructionist pagan
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN is not for conduct disputes, which is what the opener is requesting (a review of TP actions). Re: the small amount of remotely content dispute, the sites presented are obviously not WP:RS, and if the OP wishes to take this further should go to WP:RSN, though I'm not sure how far they will get. gwickwiretalkediting 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Male Privilege
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Another noticeboard already has a filing. See WP:ANI After ANI is done with the issue feel free to refile --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
White privilege
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | filing editor is on a wiki break, and appears to no longer be interested in editing the page. Also under discussion at WP:ANI Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by UseTheCommandLine on 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Back in October 2012, an edit war broke out at this page after some edits were made to the lead paragraph, inserting a bunch of mitigating language that was clearly intended to cast doubt on the idea the article is written about. at the time I filed a DRN case, calling them weasel words, but DRN did not really become involved. Several months of protracted discussion followed from multiple editors. Recently, an ip editor removed some of the mitigating language that had again crept in. This removal was promptly reverted by an editor involved with the previous dispute (Thucydides411), and re-reverted by me -- briefly, I thought the mitigating language violated WP:SPADE, WP:WEASEL, and perhaps WP:UNDUE, since substantial space is given to criticisms of the idea in the lead section. Then the editor who had instigated the edit war in October (Apostle12) became involved. I attempted to open a talk page discussion about wording, but I am frankly unwilling to try and negotiate with this editor on my own. I have encountered this user's edits in other contexts and have had enough experience with their poor sourcing, POVPUSH, and other disruptive behavior that it is quite hard for me to WP:AGF. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion (current), extensive talk page discussion (October 2012) How do you think we can help? Additional eyes are needed. I am unwilling simply to argue with Apostle12; I genuinely wish to come to consensus, but my experience has been that without intervention or interest by other users things go in circles, and I do not have time for that. While Thucydides411 seems much more amenable to genuine consensus-building, they still are clearly critical of the concept. Other editors involved with previous disputes have largely abandoned editing, AFAICT. Opening comments by Apostle12UsetheCommandLine asserts that the current content dispute dates from Oct, 2012 and involves mitigating language that recently "crept" into the article. In fact the so-called "mitigating language" (really just language acknowledging some degree of dispute) was a compromise proposed by Thucydides411 on Feb 14, 2013. UsetheCommandLine was actively involved on Feb 14, accepted Thudydides411's compromise and engaged in collaborative editing supporting the compromise. On Jan 22, 2013 an unnamed editor had inserted mitigating language into the first sentence of the lede so that it read "White privilege refers to what some individuals perceive as advantages that white people enjoy in certain societies..." On Feb 14 UsetheCommandLine eliminated the mitigating language, along with the word "controversial," which he called "weasily." In a clear attempt at compromise Thucydides411 added the words "are argued to," so that the sentence read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to enjoy in certain societies..." I made some unrelated minor edits that day, then UsetheCommandLine engaged in collaborative editing, leaving "are argued to" intact and changing the sentence to read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies..." I was relieved that UsetheCommandLine had accepted Thucydides411's compromise and that the dispute had been resolved. On March 2 an unnamed editor removed the "are argued to" compromise, and longtime editor MalikShabbaz reverted, insisting that the unnamed editor take the matter to Talk. The compromise held until March 14, when an unnamed editor attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; Dawn Bard supported the compromise and reverted. On March 25 Beloki once again attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; UsetheCommandLine supported the compromise by reverting and retaining the "are argued to" language. On April 2 an unnamed editor attacked the compromise by removing the "are argued to" language, calling it "silly." Thucydides411 reverted, supporting the compromise he had originally authored and which up to that point had been supported by all other major editors including UsetheCommandline, Thucydides411, Malik Shabbaz, and myself. Suddenly UsetheCommandLine abandoned the compromise and reverted Thucydides411. I viewed this as a clear violation of Bold/Revert/Discuss and changed the sentence back to the version incorporating the Thucydides411's original "are argued to" compromise. Both Thucydides411 and I appealed to UsetheCommandline on his Talk page, however he refused to discuss the matter and opened this extremely premature DRN. I believe we are unlikely to find a better solution than the "are argued to" compromise. It does not fully satisfy those, like UsetheCommandLine, who will only be satisfied by full endorsement of the "White Privilege" concept; he wants the article to refer to "White privilege" as an uncontested fact. Nor does it fully satisfy the many other editors who believe the "White privilege" concept is unproven and is often overstated. I believe the first sentence should read something like, "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies." Fully satisfying no one and adequately satisfying everyone is what compromise is all about. The real mystery is why UsetheCommandLine abandoned this compromise, which he himself supported. I can only conclude he is demonstrating, as he has so often before, an "all take, no give" attitude, refusing discussion and collaboration in favor of intransigence, wikilawyering and attempts to discourage editor involvement by insisting on time consuming RFC's and DRN's. Opening comments by Thucydides411The White Privilege article has many problems with neutrality. The most glaring problem, which I have been trying to address, is the lead, which was changed in November 2012 from a fairly objective overview to one which is highly partisan. Around this time, a number of other highly partisan additions were made to the article, particularly in the section on Australia, which violate the neutral and objective tone which Wikipedia is supposed to employ. I have added a section to the article succinctly describing some of the objections to the idea of white privilege. On the talk page, I also provided a number of sources which disagree with the term and its use in historical research. The relevant discussion is here. None of these efforts have been able to move the discussion, which seems to be driven largely by ideological concerns. This is bad for Wikipedia: whatever we personally believe, we must be able to write neutrally. White privilege 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.
Volunteer's note: I initially closed this listing today for lack of talk page discussion based on the comments of the listing editor, but in fact in looking further into the matter there has been some recent talk page discussion and, indeed, the prior DRN listing was closed to send the matter back to the talk page without prejudice to refiling. I am not opening or "taking" this dispute and will leave it to other volunteers to decide whether or not they believe there has been sufficient recent talk page discussion. @UseTheCommandLine: Your opening statement makes it unclear whether you will or will not take part in any discussion which occurs here. Will you or will you not? — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Tracklacers
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Primarily a conduct dispute. What content issues are involved are either settled or insufficiently discussed at the article talk page. This noticeboard does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes and only handles content disputes which have been extensively discussed at the article talk page. A recommendation to both editors: When you talk about specific edits on the article talk page, you seem to make a lot of progress, but when you talk about one another — about COI, POV, or page ownership issues — you stall out and get frustrated. Stop that, raise one content issue at a time and discuss it. Don't say anything about the other editor or their biases or motivations, just discuss the edit, how it fits in with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and how it benefits or does not benefit the article. If you stall out, then come back here with specific content issues to discuss, not generalities. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Article on Harold S. Koplewicz
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_S._Koplewicz. Also, DGG, a very experienced editor, has volunteered at the AfD page to take responsibility for editing the page neutrally if the page is not deleted. Feel free to refile if that intervention does not work out. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close due to not listing all involved editors. Please feel free to refile, listing all editors involved in the discussion at the article talk page. While it is possible to do this manually in the existing listing, it is very complicated to do so and each editor must be notified manually (rather than automatically via the bot). It is far easier just to relist using the listing form and to include all involved editors there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Shephard Smith
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion on talk page between the editors listed here, as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
American History X Film Criticism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Help request/complaint, not a dispute, per se. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Multiple reasons. This noticeboard requires extensive talk page discussion and the requesting editor has made only one edit to the article talk page. This noticeboard is also not for disputes pending in other forums and the requesting editor has also listed this at WP:EAR. Finally, this is much more like a help request than a request for dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
François Robichon de La Guérinière, User talk:Technical 13/2013#Please don't "fix" what isn't broken, Robert Kirkwood, 2007 Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles, List of bishops of Strängnäs
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural Close. DRN does not address editor behavior only content disputes. Behavior should be addressed at WP:ANI --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Constitution of_Hungary
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Harnad (talk · contribs)
- Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
- Koertefa (talk · contribs)
- Fakirbakir (talk · contribs)
- Norden1990 (talk · contribs)
- Ltbuni (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There are some important ongoing developments regarding the new Hungarian constitution and its amendments. The constitution and amendments have been widely criticized internationally by heads of state as undemocratic. International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele has written several analyses and critiques of the constitution and amendments -- in Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog as well as before the Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee in Washington last week. I have been posting updates of Professor Scheppele's critiques on the Constitution of Hungary page and Users Biruitorul and Koertefa have kept deleting them on constantly changing grounds: are soap-boxing, recentism, unbalanced POV, NEWSORG and UNDUE. I have tried to rebut their grounds for objection, but they keep deleting. I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized: it is important that the basis for the international objections -- which are precisely those described by Professor Scheppele -- should appear to counterbalance them. (It is precisely this sort of tactic of media control in Hungary that is the focus of the international objections; the current government's parliamentary super-majority has become accustomed to controlling the press and public opinion in Hungary, as well as in Hungarian consulates and embassies abroad. This makes it all the more important that this should not be allowed to happen in Wikipedia.)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried modifying the text, and many explanations on the talks pages of the text as well as the talk pages of the editors who were doing the deleting, including my own talk page. I have also asked David Goodman (User:DGG) to mediate.
How do you think we can help?
I think those who have been deleting my updates of the international criticism should instead be encouraged to post the other side's point of view: Those who are in favor of the constitution and amendments, and who think the international criticism is unwarranted. The more detail they can give about the contents of the constitution and modifications, and any errors in the criticism, the better. But repeated deletion, on multiple spurious grounds, is not the way.
Opening comments by Biruitorul
I wrote a balanced summary of the recent amendment to the Hungarian constitution: one paragraph of description, one of criticism. Given the size of the rest of the article, I think this is an appropriate dimension. Also, this is not that significant of an event - yes, it's important, but it isn't, as Harnad claims, an "important, ongoing historic event... gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide". With all due respect, the last time anyone really cared about internal developments in Hungary was the Ajka alumina plant accident.
I vociferously object to the inclusion of the blog post in question. For one, no matter how many times Harnad repeats the phrase "International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele", that does not automatically mean we should be quoting her. And it's slightly misleading to say the comments appeared on "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog"; there is Paul-Krugman-as-economist, and there is Paul Krugman-as-politically-opinionated-individual, and it's the latter who mainly runs the blog. The comments are partisan in tone, they are on a blog (i.e., not peer reviewed), they are editorial content - in short, they are not relevant to the topic.
And I'd like to point out that Harnad has spread around the exact same blog quote at Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán, Politics of Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Fidesz, Viktor Orbán and, most ludicrously, given that it covers 2000 years, History of Hungary. Does Kim Lane Scheppele (note the red link) really have to be mentioned in all those articles? I happen to care about the article on the Constitution the most because I wrote it (and no, I'm not claiming I own it, but it's natural I should care), but this should be addressed. Harnad's strong feelings on the topic shouldn't be making a soapbox out of a whole spectrum of articles. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Professor Scheppele's analysis is now published in the record of the US Helsinki Commision [1a], [1b]. Critiques by others have also been published in the official working documents of the European Parliament [2],[3], [4], [5], by the Venice Commission on Hungary [6], Amnesty International [7 and Human Rights Watch [8]. --Stevan Harnad 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:PSTS, we don't normally directly cite testimony delivered at hearings, official reports and the like, assuming there are secondary sources that have covered the same material and reported on the same topic. That being the case, I fail to see the relevance of this link dump. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is not at all how I read WP:PSTS. But if the objective is to describe specifically how a constitution curtails freedoms, according to the interpretations of its critics, and we are not allowed to cite hearings, official reports, newspapers, constitutional scholars or Nobel Laureates' blogs (because the Nobel Laureate is a liberal!) to that effect, what can we cite? Your summary does not make these critical points: if it did, there would be no need to attribute them to Professor Scheppele (if that is what makes you keep deleting them), just as long as they were clearly made. But the specific points of criticism are being suppressed, and they do need to be made. This really is a matter of balance. No one is proposing to delete the positive interpretations of the constitutions: just to to complement them clearly with the negative ones. --Stevan Harnad 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just a minute, please: much of what you've said distorts or misinterprets my statements. The optimal sort of references are readily identified at WP:RS - "articles, books, monographs, or research papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community" (it's probably a little too early for those) or "news reporting from well-established news outlets" (of those there have been plenty, and the article touches on them). The problem with Krugman's blog is not that he is a liberal (I would object as strongly to citing, say, the blog of conservative laureate Mario Vargas Llosa); it's that it is a blog, with all that WP:BLOGS has to say about that, and his prize doesn't wave away that issue. In theory, I don't object to reporting what Scheppele has to say, provided it's in in an appropriate venue, say this one. But as far as criticisms worth mentioning go, those have been made, in descending order of relevance, by opposition Hungarian politicians, by European-level ones, and by American law professors. I'm not saying the last are completely unworthy of mentioning, but the focus really should be on what Hungarians themselves have to say, given that that has been given most weight by available news coverage. Attila Mesterházy and Gordon Bajnai may not be legal experts, but they are where the attention of reliable sources has been focused. - Biruitorul Talk 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- One of the core problems at issue in the critiques of the Hungarian Constitution is the freedom of the Hungarian press and media. The international criticisms of the Constitution are barely covered by the Hungarian press [9], precisely because of the threat of fines (or worse) owing to the Media Law under dispute. Hungarian press coverage is extremely unbalanced, by WP standards. I also find it very puzzling that you would find a Budapest trade newspaper a more reliable source about the views expressed in the US Helsinki Commision than the official records of the Commission itself. (It would also mean a lot less coverage of important current events in WP if they had to wait for published peer-reviewed learned-journal articles to be cited before they could be described...) --Stevan Harnad 11:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That blog's political opinion is, of course, not enough to support such a bold claim that the media in Hungary is not free. That blog is a clear POV, for example, it ends with stating that "those responsible for Hungary and the region in the State Department will not be swayed by Szájer’s twisting of the truth.". That's a clear political opinion and not what I would call a neutral approach... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Supposing Hungarian press coverage is unbalanced, what about press coverage in German, in French or, for that matter, in English? Surely the tentacles of Orbánism haven't grown so powerful as to muzzle every important newspaper there is.
- I don't have any special love for The Budapest Times, but your comment displays somewhat of a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia generally works. There is no original research; flowing from that, we don't validate the significance of primary sources by quoting them directly, but only account importance to them if secondary sources have commented on them. For instance, although Scheppele did testify before Congress, no one seems to have found this worth reporting on - not, for instance, The Washington Post. Thus, since we lack secondary coverage of her testimony, for our purposes it's not worth repeating here. People testify before Congress all the time; it's only when the press decides it's relevant that their testimony becomes relevant for us too.
- And like I said, it's surely too early for journal articles on the topic, but not for in-depth press coverage; in fact we already have such coverage in the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Evidence that the press has decided it's relevant: Financial Times: [i], [ii]; Wall Street Journal: [iii]; Morgenweb [iv]; Suedwest Presse: [v]. --Stevan Harnad 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Provided WP:UNDUE is respected, I have no particular objection to these sources being cited. - Biruitorul Talk 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Does the above resolve the matter then? I will take the 5-6 specific points of criticism made repeatedly by Professor Scheppele and since taken up by the international (and Hungarian non-governmental) press, paraphrase them, attribute them to Professor Scheppele, and cite, alongside the original source (the US Helsinski Commission archive) the newspapers above that have cited it. That strikes me as a reasonable resolution, and would be even better (and more revealing of the goings on in Hungary) if this summary were also followed by a point-counterpoint (to be written Ltbuni, in the way he has been doing and proposing to do) consisting of the official rebuttals by the Fidesz government. Then WP users would have a balanced picture of point and counterpoint, and could draw their own conclusions. --Stevan Harnad 11:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Koertefa
I have described my problems with user Harnad's additions on his Talk page. I summarize them here, too: it seems to me that Harnad is using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Recently, he added lengthy criticisms about the new Hungarian Constitution, and even copied the same text to several articles [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (same text 5 times) or [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (same text 5 times) or [20][21][22][23][24] (same text 5 times). I agree that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, but WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. I was quite surprised to read what Harnad wrote: "I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized", since even before he started editing the article, it contained several criticisms and, if any, it was already a bit unbalanced towards the critical points of view: [25], for example read the 2nd paragraph of the lead (it is the version before Harnad started editing it). Of course, it is important that the constitution and its amendments received international criticisms, but a brief summary of the criticisms should be enough. The quotes should all be deleted, as they provide an excellent opportunity for POV pushing. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Fakirbakir
I have to repeat myself. The "2011 Constitution" section is unbalanced and looks like a soapbox. This part of the article does not interpret the constitution itself, the proper analysis is missing, however concerns a lot about "democratic deficiency". Hungary is not the USSR. Hungary is a democracy. Objectivity needed. Lets see US Representative Chris Smith's opinion (he is the Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission):[26] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- No one is claiming Hungary is not a democracy, but the fact is that passage of the constitution did generate much comment, both domestic and external, and it's our duty to summarize that. No, not every single criticism, but a broad overview of prominent political actors' opinions is needed. There is some analysis in the "contents" section. I don't really think we should be quoting Smith, at least not that particular article; a source that starts "In contrast to international critics of recent Hungarian constitutional progress that offends their liberal ideology" is hopelessly partisan. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:[27]. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu ([28]) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, some commentary from a conservative think tank doesn't really have a place here, just like we shouldn't be citing Krugman's left-leaning blog. As for mandiner, which seems like another blog reproducing raw testimony: let's just say that the level of coverage there is not quite up to the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set by WP:RS.
- There are quotable defenses of the recent amendment, but they're found in such reputable sources as the BBC, the Financial Times or Deutsche Welle. - Biruitorul Talk 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:[27]. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu ([28]) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Norden1990
Wikipedia is not the place of political propaganda. Wikipedia should use historical context, these very long POV quotes make the articles to unbalanced. For example absurd that this case appears in the article of History of Hungary. Furthermore the text does not contain the constitutional amendment itself but only the reactions. Mr Harnad did not try to inclufe the other side's arguments (government responses), that were wrote by only other editors. It is not yet clear the effects of this new amendment. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Ltbuni
This is the typical example of edit wars, each of the participants is convinced that he/she is right, and the other is evil, and she / he has the duty to draw the attention of the world to the incoming tyranny of Mr. Orbán / the unfair treatment of Mr. Orbán by the western media or the leftists. One opinion provokes the opposite side to intervene or to deconstruct the other's narrative (see point 5.). This is becoming pure politics. So, my proposals:
1. I think we should lock the article waiting for further events - people said many things against/for the constitution and will say as well, but NOTHING HAPPENED YET with the amendment: it is passed and now it is under investigation, but that is all. No resolution, no decision by the international organizations, what is more, as far as I know, even the official English translation is missing.
2. Since there is no official translation, we should try to compile some elements of it, not mistaking the legal text itself, for its interpretation. When I tried to "balance" the article, I added some letters, written by Minister Navracsics, Martonyi, and OV - some of them quoted parts of the text, and prof KLS's blog refers to an attached document, with the proposed amendement as well- We should copypaste some proposed rules from them.
3. Both side must be given place. That is why I added the US-concerns in the article. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Hungary&diff=542786588&oldid=542653973 In this version, the Békemenet is missing, while the other manifest is there. How about a "government reaction" section?
4. In the linked "Wikisource", I only found the 1949 Constitution. We should fix the article, with the actual text of the Basic Law as well, asap.
5. My English is not perfect, so anyone can fix it, I won't be upset... http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/viktor-orbans-grandiose-plans-might-be-thwarted-b-strasbourg-and-brussels/
--Ltbuni (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That the amendment passed and was signed into law is significant, so we should mention that. Also, "international organizations" don't have the power to invalidate it, so it's here to stay for the time being.
- See WP:NOR - we're not going to start quoting at length from a 15-page document and adding our own interpretations.
- Has anyone reported on the US State Department's concerns? See WP:PSTS; we should have a secondary source attesting the notability of that fact.
- No, Wikisource does not have the Basic Law, but there is a link to it in Hungarian and in English, so that's not such a big deal. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is a big deal, the text is in the very heart of the whole pourparler. The link directs us to the OLD version of the Basic Law. I meant that asap there is an official translation of the whole IV.th amenedement, or at least of the revised Basic Law, we should upload it in the Wikisource, or link it in this article. I agree with You on the original research issue, but if a text contains the real legal text in English, why not quoting? The article now contains interpretation: "The amendment enshrines freedom of religion and allows constitutional complaints regarding the church law." It seems to me, that we just picked some rules arbitrarily as well. Where is the rule concerning the Court of Constitution? The whole edit-war will come to an end, if we present the WHOLE text.
But I can accept what You say. Unfortunately the article now has links to an out-of-date legal text - at least we should change its title something like this: Text of the 2011 Constitution without further amendments. It's misleading now.
--Ltbuni (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Possible text of the amendment- I have just googled it:
- in English: (It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele) http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf
- in Hungarian: www.parlament.hu/irom39/09929/09929-0055.pdf
I'd like to add them to the "External links" section. Objection?
Ltbuni (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Constitution of_Hungary discussion
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd be happy to help with this issue. Let's wait for all parties to post opening comments before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul's deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. Let's wait and see if user Norden1990 will post an opening comment before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul's deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- We are still missing an opening statement by user Norden1990, but let's get started. If they join the conversation later, that would be great. First off, I think it would be most instructive if we could see 2 or 3 examples of the material (&sources) that are proposed for this constitution/amendment material. Lets start with users Harnad and Biruitorul (and anyone else that wants to): can you post here (below) the exact material you think the article should contain (regarding the constitution/amendments), including footnotes/citations. After these specific proposals are posted below, we can review them and go from there. Does that sound okay? -- Noleander (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. --Stevan Harnad 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and KœrteFa. Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and KœrteFa feel that:
- Jobbik shouldn't be called a neo-fascist or nazi party,
- Awards given to other far-right figures at the same time shouldn't be mentioned, and
- The importance of the award is dubious.
- The users strongly feel that inclusion of the above material breaches neutrality and constitutes soapboxing. I would submit, however, that Jobbik's political affiliation, and the relationship of Szaniszló's award to other far-right recipients, and the importance of the award, are all well documented by sources. Furthermore, I don't believe the conduct of Ltbuni and KœrteFa has been fair: both have removed substantial material from an article that took quite some time to research, and almost wholly ignored the sources provided in the article or on the talk pages, with one or two sentence explanations, and consider their own point of view to be a priori the neutral one, despite the sources I advance, and without providing any of their own. I should note they've also made a few helpful changes. In any event, this has just come up, and may be relevant to this particular dispute resolution. -Darouet (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history
- Sorry am very busy, but will come back to all this shortly. You can see the Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló and page revision history for more info. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the Ferenc Szaniszló article: I suggest that this DRN case focus entirely on the Constitution of Hungary article ... that way we are more likely to reach a resolution. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history
- Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and KœrteFa. Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and KœrteFa feel that:
Reminder: still waiting for parties to post proposed material (with sources) here so we can compare and contrast. Also: I'll be on vacation until April 4 ... so I wont be able to participate in the case for several days. Parties are welcome to continue posting comments in this case during that period; another DRN volunteer may or may not come along and help out. In any case, I'll return to the case around April 4. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm back from wikibreak. Parties, if they still want to pursue resolution of this issue, should post here (below) the material they think the article should contain, including sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that there's been no activity on this thread since Noleander announced their return, I'm going to start a 48 hour clock for "Dispute has gone stale. Disputants are invited to re-file if the issue becomes inflamed again." pending a significant objection. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notified each disputant listed in the top of the filing. Hasteur (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't close yet. I plan to post a proposed passage within a few days. --Stevan Harnad 23:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lutici, Pomerania duringthe High Middle Ages
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | The dispute seems to require more assistance than we can provide at DRN. It is my recommendation that you file a case with The mediation committee. Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
![[33]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Wrymouth_expedition_pomerania_lutici.png){kind=link}
