Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Tuner (radio)	Closed	Andrevan (t)	27 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	22 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	18 days, 22 hours	Conyo14 (t)	3 days, 4 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	20 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	6 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 3 hours	Bogazicili (t)	5 days, 11 hours
Khwarazmian Empire	Closed	176.88.165.232 (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,
Egusi	Closed	OmoIyaLeke (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 15 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Constant314 (t)	1 days, 10 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	11 hours	None	n/a	TheWikiToby (t)	9 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Anti-Serb sentiment

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Antidiskriminator on 12:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anti-Serb sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A group of users think that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment (based on source which I believe is outdated politically motivated primary source). This view is also based on WP:CONSISTENCY - because no other article (link to navigation template with 45 of them) on hatred toward an ethnic group does not have criticism section.

I proposed not to deny or justify hatred in Controversy section but to present explanations in one or couple of sentences within the main body of the article (with no outdated politically motivated primary sources) or to point to articles which provide more context in the See also section.

Peacemaker67 and Joy do not agree.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

To organize discussion based on human common sense, arguments and wikipedia policies without unnecessary personalization, uncivility and fallacy, which would hopefully lead to consensus about this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I will not be able to enter into this discussion properly until I have access to a real computer (at least five days away). I'm on iPhone, and it just isn't practical. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I will just briefly add that the "group of users" Antidiskriminator alludes to is a group of one. The other two editors that have engaged in this discussion are a registered account that has made a total of two edits (both to the talk page thread in question), and an IP that has made one edit (also to this talk page thread). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'll put aside the other problems with the article (such as WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, on which I agree with Joy and bobrayner). The central issue here is the means by which we include in the article an examination of how entirely legitimate examples of "Anti-Serb/Serbia sentiment" during WWI (the reaction to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and WWII (Hitler's attitude to the Serbs and the genocidal policies and actions of the Ustashe) were woven into a propaganda narrative in the 1980's and 1990's by Slobodan Milošević and his fellow travellers. This propaganda narrative of perpetual Serb victimhood was then used to justify and encourage "all sorts of nastiness" (as Joy puts it) during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Antidiskriminator relies on WP:CONSISTENCY, which has been an inactive proposal since 2006 and on which there was no apparent consensus. A quick look at Wikipedia talk:Consistency will confirm what the perceived problems with the proposal were, and several editors made cogent observations against the proposal with which I have sympathy. In my view, key amongst them are, "The fact that two different groups of people say two different things is not logically contradictory" and "encyclopedia articles are more like separate stories. Individual stories have consistency--truth relative to them. Taken together, however, they are a jumble of purported facts that don't really have much to do with each other." Whether this article is stylistically consistent with other articles on ethnic hatred is WP:OTHERSTUFF in my view. The actions of Serbs in the past that have contributed to "Anti-Serb sentiment" (such as colonisation of Albanian-speaking areas during the Balkan Wars), and the use of past misdeeds against Serbs to justify Serb misdeeds in the 80's/90's are both central to the story of "Anti-Serb sentiment", and to remove them or reduce discussion of them to a couple of sentences (as Antidiskriminator proposes) would mean that the article would not tell the whole story (and would lack context). The idea that discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's could imply that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed is inherently contradictory. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Joy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Please see Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment#Criticism?? etc. The entirety of the article has a variety of problems; pruning the criticism altogether, which is what was suggested originally, would easily be seen as whitewashing, and adding just another problem to the pile. Antidiskriminator seems to have a tendency of making various edits consistent with Serbian nationalist talking points, recently he 'earned' an WP:ARBMAC topic ban over one Serbian World War II issue (a Chetnik commander) and led to a move ban over another (the article about the Nazi occupation of Serbia), and this appears to be no exception - let's shun the criticism from the get-go just because it doesn't fit our preferred narrative. Assorted Croatian and other nationalists who tried to delete the entire article on their own deluded premises notwithstanding -- the criticism of the use of this term in the more recent history is entirely legitimate, and is already sourced to several English-language publications that appear to be reliable sources. The term has been tainted in the 1980s with the SANU Memorandum's perfidious invocation of "Serbophobia", and in turn Slobodan Milošević's fake outrage about it - they used it as a blatant technique to make the Serbs look like the perpetual victims, while at the same time they orchestrated all sorts of nastiness in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon and the phrase would be incomplete without the clear description of this issue. Also, as I said earlier, having the criticism section does not in any way invalidate the description of the legitimate applications of the phrase, such as those related to WWII. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by bobrayner

I agree with Joy's stance that the article has broader problems; it's a collection of Serb-nationalist talking points; any fragment that fits the Serb-victimhood trope is put on the page without context. The issue over the criticism section raised by Antidiskriminator seems to be highly selective; there are wider issues that need to be fixed. Same problem we had at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Timbouctou

I agree with Peacemaker67, Joy and bobrayner. Although the article has been cleaned up in the meantime, it still suffers from issues which I am not sure can be dealt with at all. Anti-something articles need to rely on sources which deal with the topic directly, and unlike antisemitism and a host of other examples of ethnic hatred, not a single book (Serbian or otherwise) exists which does that in this particular case. The only work written on the subject directly is by MacDonald, and he actually talks about it as a narrative that was used by Serb nationalist to justify Serbia's role in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Nobody is saying that Serbs hadn't been persecuted in WW2, but we already have a dedicated and much more detailed article about that issue. Once you remove that part, all you have left is a WP:SYNTH of quotes cherry picked from Google Books, from various historical periods, and provided with little or no context. Also, I object to Antidiskriminator's usage of those quotes. Many works written by credible historians talk about "anti-Serbian" sentiment or policies (as in "against foreign policies led by Serbia"), which in Antidiskriminator's interpretation are interchangeable with "anti-Serb" (as in "against the ethnic group"), which then he uses as synonymous with "Serbophobic" (as in "irrationally obsessed with persecuting Serbs"). These are not the same thing and treating these terms as if they are without taking into account the context of the sourced text and the events talked about is way below encyclopedic standards. Although anti-Serb sentiment does exist and has manifested itself overtly on several occasions over the course of history - especially when talking about periods of WW1 and WW2 and the Yugoslav wars - this article presents it as a coherent historical narrative which depicts Serbs as perennial victims of their neighbours. And that idea a) is not represented in any source and b) was outright debunked by at least some sources. So removing criticism of the term would hardly be helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Serb sentiment discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi;

I've asked another regular to help me mediate in this matter, and until he agrees, this will be quite slow to kick off.

--The Historian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've got a second mediator who's willing to assist on this matter, and he's going to take the lead. To start off, I'd like parties to provide summaries of no more than one paragraph of their cases. Antidiskriminator, I want you to have a look at your link that is entitled "45 of them", since it just shows a template - I'm not 100% sure as to what it's meant to show, and I'd like it if you'd correct that please. The Historian (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrected.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fromm looking at the Wikipedia:Consistency, the rule described therein only applies to factual consistency. Stylistic consistency, which is what I think you're arguing over, is dealt with in the manual of style. From what I've read on the manual of style, it appears that Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles. This is my opinion, and I'd like the leading mediator to take a look to see whether I'm on the right track, so don't take my reasoning here as gospel until the lead mediator has given it the OK. --The Historian (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Stylistic consistency is dealt with in the manual of style. WP:CONSISTENCY only say that "the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" which confirm your oppinion that "Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this fact, could parties make submissions of not more than one paragraph, written in this "discussion" session, on what effect the fact that WP:Consistensy does not apply might have on this dispute, and how we should proceed. I ask this merely because one of the parties (I've lost track of whom) alleges that WP:CONSISTENSY does apply. Since we have worked out that it doesn't, the original claimant's submission that it does has fallen away. --The Historian (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've essentially addressed this above, but once WP:CONSISTENCY is put to one side, the remaining issue is that User:Antidiskriminator thinks "that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment". Antidiskriminator's apparent belief that detailed discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's implies that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed, or somehow denies or justifies hatred of Serbs, is inherently contradictory. My view is that either the section should stand as is, or the existing content of the section in question should instead be placed in chronologically appropriate places in the lead and body. The use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" in the 1980s/90s by Milošević and his fellow travellers is an integral part of the chronological narrative of "Anti-Serb sentiment". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Although WP:CONSISTENCY does not directly apply here (because it deals only with factual consistency) it is helpful for this dispute because it confirms that "stylistic — the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" and explains that Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists to deal with stylistic consistency. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Consistency is a red herring. Whether or not the article should have exactly the same headings as other articles about anti-whatever-sentiment, that sidesteps the article's bigger issues. Focussing on the name of a heading rather on serious content problems is worrying. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about not coming back earlier - real life and a long and messy arbitration case in which I'm an involved party got in the way. I've reviewed the article in its entirety. There is very little in each section describing the history of anti-serb discrimination look a bit "empty". I would suggest that parts of the "criticism and controversy" section should be integrated into the main historical section of the article. The "Serbophobia" section...I'm not 100% sure where that goes. The "breakup of Yugoslavia" section is quite lacking in substance, so think about putting "serbophobia" in there. Otherwise, there's very little else I can do.

--The Historian (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two other editors that could help resolving this dispute. One actually added this disputed section to the article (PRODUCER) and another (User:Timbouctou) substantially edited it. I notified both of them about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume (after a week's wait) they are not interested in engaging here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe second mediator can help to resolve this dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added my opinion above. Timbouctou (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson (colonist)

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by WLRoss on 08:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anthony Johnson (colonist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WLRoss (talk · contribs)
• Scoobydunk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A new editor, Scoobydunk, disputes the view that John Casor was the first legal slave in the British colonies and that his owner Anthony Johnson was thus the first slave owner. He supports that Indentured servitude for life is slavery which makes John Punch the first slave and Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner. Scoobydunk has deleted text pointing out that Indentured servitude for life was not uncommon in the colonies and other related text that does not support his view. I added seven sources, books written by authors with history degrees, to the specific claim. Scoobydunk deleted the claim while leaving the references.[1]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed the problem on the Talk page.[2] and added at least 15 academic sources to the article supporting the original text. An uninvolved editor also explained the difference between servitude and slavery to Scoobydunk which was rejected.

How do you think we can help?

Add input from uninvolved editors in a noticeboard environment.

Summary of dispute by Scoobydunk

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Historians confirm that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave. I gave WLRoss a number of sources that prove Punch was sentenced to life in servitude thus making him the first legally recognized slave in 1641. WLRoss violated WP:OR policy and tried to claim Punch wasn't a slave but an indentured servant and provided no source that made this distinction, it was purely his own opinion. The Punch case predates the Johnson v. Parker trial of 1654 which legally recognized Casor as a slave. I've given a number of sources in the talk page to substantiate this claim. WLRoss basically said that all of my sources were "wrong" because he disagrees with what qualifies an indentured servant vs. a slave, which is not his decision to make. Regardless of what his opinion is, historians regard Punch as the first legal slave in the English colonies because his case predates Casor's by 13 years. Thus, Hugh Gwyn was the first slave owner, not Anthony Johnson.

WLRoss wants the article to read that Anthony Johnson was "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." This is wrong for a number of reasons. Spain had slaves dating back to 1560 in their colony. Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641 and even the official state website says this. Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650. John Punch was sentenced to life long slavery for trying to runaway in 1641,Virginia. So to make a claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner is wrong for a variety of reasons and ignores many legal documents and court cases. I edited the claim to say "he was the first legally recognized slave owner in the English colonies to hold a servant for life where crime was not involved." This wording accommodates all of the information that was presented in the talk page. If you remove any of the qualifiers, then it becomes a false statement. WLRoss violates WP:POV by ignoring what has been factually recognized by numerous reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson (colonist) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Wayne's six sources do not meet reliable source requirements. Two of the works are books intended for juveniles (11 and up) and two are written by generalists who are not specialists in either slavery, African Americans, or American colonial history. One is a WPA work written during the Depression by unnamed authors, and the final one does not support Wayne's overly broad claims -- in fact it supports Scoobydunk. In the interest of brevity, I have listed the specifics, with appropriate links, at Talk:Anthony Johnson (colonist)#Dispute Resolution.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How do they not meet reliable source requirements? Five are written by authors with degrees in history and the two books intended for juveniles were written as high school textbooks. Two being generalists actually supports this being the mainstream view as generalists are far less likely to subscribe to alternate theories.
The source you say supports Scoobydunk does not, while it does say that indentured servants were technically slaves, it specifically says that laws defining slavery began in the 1660s and that Casor was the first legal slave which is exactly what the WP article says.
Scoobydunk states that Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641. The term Massachusetts uses is bond slavery and the act applied only to "lawful Captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us." Also, the children of bond slaves were born free. Bond slavery is slavery of labour not of the person. In the 1780s, the Supreme Court stated it "could find no authority for believing that slavery ever had any legal existence in that State." The 1864 Constitutional Convention looked into the historical legality of slavery and in regards to Massachusetts argued that slavery had not legally existed in Massachusetts until laws protecting slavery were passed in 1698. Scoobydunk also states that slavery existed in the Spanish mainland colonies. This is irrelevant as the Johnson article says British colonies while the infobox specifically says the Thirteen Colonies. Even if Scoobydunk were right about Casor then Punch is still not the first slave as there had been many cases before where indentured servants were sentenced to a life of servitude for escaping, the earliest I have heard of was in 1630.

• The crux of this dispute is: was slavery as we know it legal before Casor? Everyone knows that slaves did exist, but they were not legally sanctioned, please provide sources written by historians for the view that it was. Wayne (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've responded in depth at the discussion page of the article -- this page really isn't intended to rehash the entire debate before a volunteer makes an appearance.

In any event, if the two juvenile books are in fact textbooks then this makes them tertiary sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) and inappropriate for use here. As far as the two generalists, one work is "Discovering A Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America" (hardly an appropriate or logical source when so many other works are available) and the other is "Popular Controversies in World History", a work that is a compendium, free of footnotes or bibliography, that includes chapters covering the entirety of human history -- once again a tertiary source. These sources may be available online, but you still need to do much, much, better if you are going to argue your case based on sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Obama was the first black President of The United States of America." However, this is not the same thing as "Obama is the first President of The United States of America." If you remove the word "black" then the entire statement ceases to be factually accurate. For some reason, WLRoss thinks it's okay to remove descriptive qualifiers for which the veracity of the statement hinges upon. If the statement is not properly qualified, then it becomes false.

Now, if you look at what I quoted from your last revision of the Anthony Johnson article, it said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." Spain had mainland colonies, therefore my mentioning that Spain held slaves since 1560 IS RELEVANT because Spain owned mainland colonies. Therefore, the wording in your revision was factually incorrect when talking about "mainland colonies".

The WPA article also qualifies their assertion that John Casor was the first slave by saying "where crime was not involved." They specifically qualified this statement with "where crime was not involved" because it acknowledges that slaves were held prior to Casor, like John Punch who had been legally sentenced and therefore legally sanctioned. If you take out "where crime was not involved" then the statement is no longer historically or factually accurate. That's why this source actually supports my argument and this was the compromise I used to preserve your desire to say that Casor was the "first" of anything.

Your other source, Toppin, actually speaks of both Punch and Casor and correctly uses qualifiers for both. Toppin says on page 45 "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling." So clearly the author of your source agrees with me and the facts of history that John Punch became a slave in 1641 as the result of a judicial ruling. Toppin goes on to say this about John Casor "John Casor, in 1655, is the first black we know of to be made a slave in a CIVIL CASE in Virginia." See, Toppin qualifies this statement by saying "civil case in Virginia." However, if you remove either "civli case" or "Virginia" or both, the statement is no longer factually accurate.

Herbert S. Klein in his "Slavery in the Americas A Comparative Study of Virginia and Cuba" also supports the position that slavery was recognized as an institution in Virginia starting with the John Punch case. He says "Although the legislative or statutory structure of Negro slavery was not begun until 1662, there already appeared as early as 1640 county court cases recognizing the institution as it was being created in practice by the planters. In that year John Punch, a Negro, was made to serve for life as a punishment for running away, whereas the two whites with him had but four additional years added to their time." Klein also goes on to talk about Casor and the Johnson v. Parker suit, but only references it to illustrate how hard it was for black indentured servants to escape from being labeled as life long slaves. He never says anything about Casor being the first slave or that this case established slavery. So here's another Historian that actually recognizes both Punch and Casor in his work and explains how slavery as an institution began with the Punch case and gives Johnson/Casor no historical significance in establishing or recognizing the institution.

Though your use of "mainstream" and "minority" are logical fallacies and have no bearing on the validity of the information presented, here's an encyclopedia entry that says "Yet court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640, the year that slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html . And here's what the NPS own government website says about the history of Jamestown. "1640 John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, first documented slave for life." http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm.

Though it's not important unless you can disprove all of the claims about John Punch, here's what the Mass. Body of Liberties says about slavery. "91. There shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, or captivity amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons cloth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority." This law does explain "bond slavery" and the rules and restrictions on it but then also acknowledges that these rules of bond slavery don't apply to people who are sentenced to slavery/servitude by authority. Thus, Mass. legalized slavery in 1640 by confirming that people can be sentenced to slavery by an authority.

It is a fact that Punch was sentenced to slavery in 1641 and therefore Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave in the English colonies. From what I've seen, your sources that try to claim this ignore John Punch and his trial and some of them, like Sweet, misrepresent the information from their own source like he did with "'Myne Owne Ground' Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore" where Timothy Breen says nothing about the Casor suit establishing slavery in Virginia or that Johnson was the first slave owner. Anyone with a neutral point of view can easily see that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia and Casor wasn't. You try to muddle this conversation by using argumentum ad populum and pretending that the mainstream point of view has any relevance and what's worse, you're only asserting that it's the mainstream point of view, which is original research, and provide no sources that argue that it is the mainstream point of view. The facts of history are not dependent upon your opinion on what is the mainstream point of view. I'd also like to add that fairly recently there was a CNN article and many others confirming Obama's ancestry to the first slave in what would be the mainland United States, and that slave was John Punch. So if you wanted to argue "mainstream" I'm pretty sure this would trump anything you saw on Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yours is a straw man argument, you should have used Washington was the first white President of The United States of America to illustrate the reason for the removal of white.
• Spain is not relevant as the article notes it was only the British colonies. Any minor mistakes in parts are irrelevant ATM as the article is still being rewritten and the meaning is clear.
• where crime was not involved is already mentioned in the article but it is only a single source so due weight applies. The wording of the main claim is per multiple sources.
• Punch, in effect, became a slave. No one disputes that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery but legal slavery it was not and Toppin goes on to say exactly what the article does, that Casor was the first legal slave.
• Per Klein's created in practice, this does not have the same meaning as legally created.
• Neither of those sources were written by historians so have no bearing on the mainstream or minority view of historians.
• The wording actually says that bond slavery applies to all who are sentenced to servitude by authority, not does not apply as you claim.
• You have to be kidding. I am pretending that the mainstream point of view has relevance? That is the one of the Five Pillars of WP. You keep throwing up non-academic sources. The subject matter is such that many sources are bound to be PC or have bias so please provide sources from historians.
• Why are you undermining my use of academic sources by claiming that my sources include Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website? I'm not American so have no idea who Glen Beck is and I have never heard of that website. Wayne (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a strawman argument, it's an extreme example to demonstrate the flaw in your edits and explain to you how failing to properly qualify your statements leads to a factual inaccuracy.
• The article, as you intentionally left it in multiple revisions, said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." which is wrong for a number of reasons, one of them being that Spain had slaves since 1560. So it is relevant and your attempt to dismiss it as "an obvious mistake that everyone will be able to discern" is a poor attempt to mislead others.
• It still supports my argument and it makes the distinction because there were other slaves before John Casor legally sanctioned to slavery before 1654. To reword this without the proper qualifiers is to tell a factual lie.
• There you go again at failing to recognize descriptive qualifiers. Toppin only says Casor was the first to be made a slave in a "CIVIL CASE" because he acknowledges that Punch was a slave long before. Punch doesn't assert that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery, he says that the court ruling, in effect, made him a slave. If TOppin thought Casor was the first slave, then he wouldn't have qualified the statement with "civil case" the same way you don't need to qualify the statement "Washington was the first President of the U.S.A" by describing him as "white". "White" holds no relevance on Washington being the first President while "civil case" is completely relevant and necessary for his statement to be factually correct.
• You're ignoring the sentiment that Klein considered the Punch case as the first to recognize slavery as an institution and doesn't give any such merit to the Johnson case. You're trying to play with semantics and your interpretation of the meaning of words isn't going to change this fact. It's clear that you're violating WP:POV by not only ignoring the point Klein was making in regards to the development in slavery, but to disregard it as well.
• I didn't qualify my statement with "of historians" and neither did you in most of your usage of those terms. <--This is you making a strawman argument, btw. You try to make it sound like I was talking about mainstream and minority opinions "of historians" then try to dismiss my argument by saying they weren't from historians. Strawman all the way.
• No, this states that bond slavery is not allowed unless for prisoners of war that sell themselves or are sold to us. It then describes how those bond slaves should be treated. Then it says "This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority," meaning that this law does not exempt/free/apply to anyone who is sentenced to servitude/slavery by authority. Hence, they legally recognized slavery as a punishment for a crime in 1641.
• Whether it's mainstream or not has no relevance to the validity of the claim. That point aside, again you fail to provide any source that argues that CAsor was the first slave and not John Punch or submit any reliable source arguing that this is the mainstream view. This is simply your opinion and again shows your violation of WP:POV and WP:OR. I've used plenty of academic sources, some of them being your own used against you and last I checked, reliable sources are not limited to solely academic sources. So this argument you keep incorrectly asserting amounts to nothing and is yet another diversion from the fact that you can't validate your own claims.
• I wasn't using Glen Beck to undermine your sources, just your opinion on what constitutes as the mainstream view. However, I can easily undermine some of your sources since you insist on using books written for 11 year olds. It's like you trying to delete the "imaginary numbers" wikipedia entry because your 7th grade math book says "you can't have a square root of a negative number". Higher academia constantly constantly overturns or corrects discrepancies presented at lower learning levels. Klein's book is a collegiate level book that has much more detailed and accurate information than a general history book that skims over subjects and is intended for middle-schoolers.
• You're trying to argue that John Punch was not a slave and you haven't provided a single source that makes that argument. You haven't listed one here, you didn't list one on the talk page either. It is purely based on your own original research and is against wikipedia's policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get in an argument so I will be brief. The article says in the thirteen colonies and any mistakes like "mainland colonies" would be corrected during the rewrite. To argue that I intentionally leave such mistakes in the article is a violation of WP:NPA. So far none of your academic sources contradicts me despite your interpretation of them. One of my sources, Toppin, is considered one of the greatest authorities on African American history and he states that Casor was the first legal slave. He also states that blacks had worked as slaves in Maryland since the colony's founding in 1634 but he immediately qualifies it by saying that "the first Maryland law recognizing slavery did not come until in 1664" and this is what the article talks about...the legal standing of slavery, not what you or websites with no academic authority believe is slavery. Wayne (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Toppin, I have provided links and comments on the article discussion page. The work cited by Toppin is a textbook intended for juveniles -- once again not a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "intended for juveniles"? It was intended for high schools so I would like to think that such a book was a reliable source or I'd be rather concerned about your school system. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time for a rewrite yet you didn't change this language and you willingly and consistently reverted what I wrote back to the wrong statement. It's not against WP:NPA because we have multiple examples of you intentionally reverting it back to incorrect information. Also, we've already established that Toppin considered Punch a slave before Casor and he goes on to say that Casor was only the first slave resulting from a "civil case". If you leave out "civil case" it makes the statement incorrect and again, you're intentionally misrepresenting the source when you do this. From all of the sources and information provided, it clearly demonstrates that John Punch was a slave in Virginia before Casor. You have yet to disprove this or offer a source contesting this. Therefore, logically, if Punch was a legally recognized slave before Casor, then Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave and he's not. That's why the only sources you listed that weren't meant for an 11 year old said Casor was only the first legal slave where crime was not involved or because of a civil case. I'm still waiting for your sources that substantiate your claim that Punch wasn't a slave. You've yet to provide those while I have given many sources that substantiate my claim that Casor wasn't the first legally recognized slave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How did I have "plenty of time for a rewrite" when you refused to allow me time to do it and were reverting my edits within minutes of my making them? I've put my case as have you. Rather than flood the page with irrelevant text leave it for other editors to comment on who they believe is right. Wayne (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you requested time on Sep. 3 and as of Sep 7 you were still posting incorrect information based on OR and in violation of WP:POV. On top of that, you've been active on the Anthony Johnson page for over a year, that's PLENTY of time to do research on the subject and submit the most comprehensive and accurate information. To claim you didn't have enough time is intellectually dishonest and me making my own revisions doesn't affect the amount of time you had to do your rewrite especially since you disengaged from the discussion on Sept. 5, giving you 2 days to make changes. You've put your case and it has been proven wrong, not just by me, but by another editor as well. You've failed to disprove our claims and have avoided nearly every argument North Shoreman and I have made. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

After I first started the Johnson rewrite in February I got involved in a very complicated RfC which finished in July followed on the 16 July by an Arbitration case which ended in September so I had little time to research much of anything. You keep calling me intellectually dishonest yet you allowed only 12 hours after I asked for a few days to rewrite the article before you started reverting[3]. Then I had two days of editing[4] which you call "OR and in violation of WP:POV" before you started reverting just about everything I was doing. I challenge you to post the diffs to show that anything I added[5] was OR or a violation of NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No one cares about your excuses. You had plenty of time to make sure this page was filled with accurate information since you've been participating on it since March of 2012. Here's an example of your OR and POV[6]. Here you try to argue that Punch was not a slave and was an indentured servant. You supplied no source arguing that he wasn't a slave because it was simply based on your own original research and the fact that you ignored the many documents and sources I gave you that confirmed he was a slave before Casor, you still make this inaccurate claim because you clearly don't have a neutral point of view. You further establish this in the talk page by making statements like "mainstream" and dismissing my multiple sources as "minority" when you actually provide no sources that argue that your position is the mainstream view and that Punch is the minority view. This is another example of your clear bias and original research. Challenge accomplished.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the original text on the left you may notice that the only new text I added in that edit was "This legal determination remained unsupported until 1662 when Virginia passed the first laws legalizing slavery, the legislation incorporated the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem, that the offspring of a slave took the status of the mother ad infinitum (forever) which was soon widely adopted by other colonies despite the doctrine directly contradicting common law" which pushed that paragraph to the end of the section which is why it is blue. The link for it specifically states that Punch was an indentured servant anyway and is more accurate and NPOV than the text you added; "Hugh Gwyn actually became the first lifelong slave owner in Virginia when the court granted him John Punch as a slave for life" which you referenced to a PBS television show. The word slave was never mentioned in the Punch court case and it was acknowledged that he was an indentured servant. While the word slave was also not used in the Casor case, the court found that he was not an indentured servant so a slave was all he could have been. The "many documents and sources" you gave are websites, few of which appear to be written by historians and all of which consider indentured servitude to be slavery. While no sources say what is the mainstream view the ones written by historians must carry more weight and especially if they are peer reviewed which I assume they are if used for school books as several were. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Though that may not have been the diff where you added that text, you did add that text nonetheless. Here's where you first added it and thus violated WP:POV and WP:OR [7]. Your source, which was actually my source used to point out that JOhnson nor Casor played a role in the development of slavery in Virginia, only uses the Punch case to show how race started to play a factor when punishing indentured servants and doesn't make any reference to Punch's status after the case. So this doesn't contend or contradict the numerous historians I've cited throughout our discussion that have confirmed that Punch was sentenced to slavery, was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia, or acknowledged that the Punch case was one of the first that recognized slavery as an institution in the English colonies. Punch being recognized as a slave before Casor is the neutral point of view and you trying to argue that all of the historians and sources I've listed are "incorrect" is clearly based on your bias and original research, as you've yet to submit anything making this argument. It's also about time you stop pretending I've only used one source or only websites, because I've already listed collegiate books written by historians that support my position which inherently disprove yours.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Still ignoring Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and insisting that high school textbooks are the best, or even acceptable, sources for this article. The numerous reliable sources I've quoted from on the article discussion page, which you refuse to comment on, do not call him the first slaveholder and find his historical significance elsewhere. A bibliographic essay summarizing all of the significant writings on the origins of slavery in Virginia does not even indicate that the Casor case is part of the debate. You are only cherry picking isolated quotes from whatever sources you can find online that support your own position -- you have not demonstrated that the position you are advocating is a mainstream view among historians. The actual mainstream historians, rather than focusing on a county court decision, look to the legislative record and find that in Virginia laws recognizing slavery didn't start being enacted until the 1660's, well after the Casor decision. The court decision only confirmed what was already common -- blacks being held for life as slaves. Edmund S. Morgan in the source quoted on the article's discussion page identifies recorded deeds showing ownership of slaves with language such as "a Negro woman and all her increase (which for future tyme shall bee borne of her body)." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also of note from the Alden T. Vaughan journal article discussed on the article's talk page: A Virginia law of 1643 provided that 'WHEREAS divers controversies have risen between masters and servants being brought into the collony without indentures . . . Be it therefor enacted. . . that such servants as shall be imported haveing no indentures or covenants either men or women if they be above twenty year old to serve fowre year,if they shall be above twelve and under twenty to serve five years. And if under twelve to serve seaven years'(Hening, ed., Statutes,I, 257). This law almost certainly did not apply to Africans, who were sold as contraband in Virginia; by international law and British custom, they could be held in lifetime servitude.[emphasis added] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That link is a reversion of false information ("Johnson vs Parker was the first time Virginia legally recognized that blacks could own indentured servants") to the previous version, not an addition of text. You reply still does change the fact that slavery (contraband) was not legal. "Blacks being held for life as slaves"...so what? White indentured servants were also held for life or sentenced to a life of servitude for crimes. Your argument does not change the fact that Punch was one of the first legal cases to show different treatment between blacks and whites (whites had been sentenced to life of servitude before but in Punches case three servants who committed the same crime together were sentenced differently) while the Casor case was the first instance of a legally recognized slave.
Ben Kinchlow (Black Yellow Dogs): "Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation's first official legal slaveholder." Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa (African American Chronology): "This case helps to establish slavery as a legally binding institution." Ira Berlin (Many Thousands Gone): "Into the middle years of the seventeenth century and perhaps later, slaves enjoyed the same benefits extended to white servants." Adam Miller (Discovering A Lost Heritage): "As a result, Johnson thereby became America's first holder of black slaves for life." John Henrik Clarke (Slave trade and slavery): "This was the first recorded civil case... establishing a person as a slave for life." Richard Asaolu (Slavery): "In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave." Wayne (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, now the bias comes out in full force.

• Literally in the same sentence you quoted from "Black Yellow Dogs" Kinchlow says "(not for a crime)" and he also admits this earlier in the essay. Your purposefully ignoring "not for a crime" to benefit your own agenda is intellectually dishonest and against WP:POV. On top of that, since Kinchlow recognizes that people were sentenced to slavery as a result of crime before the JOhnson v PArker case, then there is NO reason accept that Johnson was the first slave holder.
• Next you quote a book by Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa. What you quoted says "helps to establish slavery" but it doesn't assert that it "did" establish slavery. We already know there were many factors that caused the evolution of slavery but this wasn't the first nor only instance that established it. On top of that Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa confirms my other points that Mass. legally recognized slavery in 1641 and that "Connecticut gives statutory recognition to slavery" in 1650. Again, you ignore these points to try and stick to your claim that Johnson was the first slave owner in the English colonies, which is clearly not true.
• Then you quote Adam Miller who wrote a ridiculously biased and factually wrong book with the purpose of characterizing historical facts as "myths" and trying to debunk them. In the section regarding Anthony Johnson, he says that white Europeans were not the ones to introduce slavery to America. You've already admitted that Spain had slavery in their colonies in 1560 which predates the Johnson case by 90 years. So right off the bat this author is clearly not an expert on the history of slavery in America. On top of that he uses "The Free Negro in Virginia" written by Jack Henderson Russell as his source besides Virginia land deeds. In his book, Russell describes John Punch as follows "...while 'the third, being a negro,' was reduced from his former condition of servitude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life." Russell references this case explaining how slavery became an established fact between 1640-1660. Russell doesn't stop there though, he goes on to explain the importance of Johnson v. Parker case by saying it introduced 3 propositions. The first being that there were negroes in the colony that were servants by indenture under the laws of servitude. The second being that some negro servants who became free also owned indentured servants of their own. And finally, He says it showed how difficult it was for Africans to escape being reduced to slavery. He doesn't recognize it as establishing slavery or for being the first of anything, so clearly Adam Miller ignored the majority of the content in his own source to suit his personal narrative. Miller was debunked by his own source, how embarrassing.
• I don't even need to touch on John Clarke since he qualifies his statement with the words "civil case". Interesting to know that Clarke referenced Toppin who asserted that John Punch was a slave due to the ruling in the Punch Case but doesn't mention anything about John Punch in his book. Bit of a bias maybe?
• And lastly, we have Richard Asaolu who, like Sweet, contradicts your quoted statement in the preceding sentence. Asaolu says "However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So if the courts legally recognized that at least one black person had been sentenced to slavery by 1640, how can Casor possibly be the first legally recognized slave in 1654? Now, maybe if you want to change "first legally recognized" to "first to have been found a slave all along" then that would be a more accurate and comprehensive phrasing based on all of the sources we've both provided but that still doesn't make Johnson the first slave owner in any way shape or form, since there were legally recognized slave owners before him like Hugh Gwyn who owned John Punch.

I also want to note that the sources you've listed that say Johnson v. Parker "helps establish" or "became the basis" for slavery don't actually cite any court cases, laws, or decisions that were directly influenced by it or directly referenced it. They merely assert those claims without explaining or proving how.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And he also misrepresents Berlin. Berlin does not claim that Johnson was the first of anything. Berlin notes that "the ambiguous language of 'slavery' and 'servitude' has become entangled in an all-encompassing discussion of the origins of racism in British North America. ... Admitting that little is known about the first arrivals and that only imperfectly, I have presumed them to be slaves in that they were sold by international slave traders and purchased by men familiar with the existence of African slavery in the Atlantic. That they were treated like servants in a society in which servants composed the vast majority of bound laborers and that some gained their freedom or aced as free men and women (as did servants) does not alter this presumption, since slavery took many different forms in early Virginia [emphasis added], as it did throughout the Atlantic world."

Wayne's claim "that slavery (contraband) was not legal" before the Casor case is simply bizarre. The legality of slavery had been accepted for centuries and nothing done by the Virginia or other legislatures had done anything to make it illegal. What the Massachusetts action in 1641 had done (and what later actions in other colonies would do -- or the earlier actions by the Dutch in New Netherland) was to simply acknowledge that local laws were needed to regulate the form slavery would take as it expanded and evolved in the colonies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Programme:Talk

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Minphie on 06:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Needle exchange programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Minphie (talk · contribs)
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute between myself, Minphie, and Stigmatella auratiaca over whether text describing a review of needle exchange effectiveness by the United States Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine is correct or misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk page and requests for two Third Opinions which both suggested mediation.

How do you think we can help?

A third party might add some clarity to differences.

Summary of dispute by Stigmatella aurantiaca

User:Minphie posts exclusively in opposition to Harm Reduction.

Regarding the current dispute on Needle Exchange Programs, Minphie has selectively quoted, on multiple occasions and out of context, single words and sentence fragments from Chapter 3 of a 2006 US Institute of Medicine study, stating that "the evidence for the effectiveness of NSPs in preventing HIV was 'inconclusive' and that 'multiple studies show that NSEs do not reduce transmission of HCV(Hepatitis C).' "

Through such selective quote mining, Minphie makes it seem that the report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease. In reality, the authors carefully note that the inconclusiveness of available studies is due to unavoidable deficiencies of the study designs. It is practically and ethically impossible to conduct randomized controlled trials, and researchers must rely on study designs of far lower statistical power, such as cohort studies and ecological studies.

The following is a revised version of an alternative chapter summary that I offered, which Minphie rejected:

The available evidence shows that multi-component HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange have clear beneficial effects in reducing drug-related risk behaviors, although the statistical power of the available studies (mostly cohort studies) have been inadequate to actually prove that NSPs reduce HIV incidence rates. Multiple ecological studies show a positive correlation between implementation or expansion of NSP programs and a reduction in HIV prevalence, although it should be noted that correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship. The statistical power of cohort studies have been inadequate to prove that NSPs reduce rates of HCV transmission and acquisition, although a single case-control study reported a dramatic reduction. Not enough studies have been performed examining the possibility of NSPs having undesired unintended consequences; the few existing studies on this point do not point to NSPs having unintended negative effects. Overall, although many of the studies have design limitations, the consistency of these results across a large number of studies supports the conclusion that NSPs have an important beneficial role in the fight against HIV and HCV. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Minphie

It was User:Gabbe that first placed the science on the effectiveness of NEPs front and centre of the Wikipedia Needle Exchange Programme article [8], a prominence given to the science that I believe is aligned with the need for evidence-based drug policy internationally.

User:Stigmatella aurantiaca has alleged on the Talk page, and backed this by constant deletions of my text, that I misrepresent, in the relevant Wikipedia article, the most authoritative review on needle exchange effectiveness completed in 2006 by the US Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (which had backed NEPs since the 1990s before the current science was in). To this charge I assert that:

1. Stigmatella's suggested replacement wording could not possibly be acceptable because it implies, inadvertently or otherwise, that the 11 journal studies rigorous enough to meet the US IOM criteria for review are individually not statistically significant or somehow individually lack 'statistical power'. This is certainly not the case. The discredited 2004 WHO review which had concluded that the science did indeed demonstrate NEP effectiveness re HIV incidence found 3 studies which were negative for NEP effectiveness, all of which were statistically significant. The 2004 WHO review found 6 studies which they said demonstrated NEP effectiveness, however three were discarded by the IOM - one did not even study comparison populations, and the other two were inconclusive on their researchers' own admissions in-article. Two of the remaining 3 WHO positives were (statistically significant) ecological studies, which the IOM clearly says are unable to demonstrate any causality. But this is a far cry from lack of statistical power or lack of statistical significance for individual studies - it is rather that the studies positive for NEP are balanced equally against studies which are negative making any conclusion other than that the science is inconclusive inevitable. Questions on the validity of case-control studies vs RCTs, for instance, are not irrelevant, but neither are they determinative for the 'inconclusive' finding by the IOM.
2. The two 2010 Palmateer-initiated reviews of reviews found (correctly) that "there is insufficient evidence that NSP prevents transmission of the Hepatitis C virus", yet Stigmatella's wording suggests that this is wrong, and that the US IOM, which concurs with the Palmateer finding, is somehow the result of lack of statistical power in journal studies when in fact the balance of the studies do not demonstrate effectiveness (only one does) and that lack of demonstrated effectiveness is universally bemoaned, in print, by some of the world's most recognised proponents of NEP. Stigmatella's wording is optimistically misleading.
3. At no place have I ever stated or implied, as Stigmatella asserts, that "the (IOM) report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease." In fact I additionally quote verbatim their conclusion that multi-component programs which include NEPs have demonstrated effectiveness. Stigmatella charges that I have not referenced the IOM recommendations re NEP, but this is simply because I am addressing the science - their recommendations are a separate matter and can be covered in the Research section.

In summary, I have not misrepresented the US IOM report but rather given a verbatim rendition of its conclusions on the science. Stigmatella's interpretation leads to a more optimistic rendition of the science than is actually the case which will only open Wikipedia to the charge of being a source of biased rather than neutral or balanced information for the public. Minphie (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Programme:Talk discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Wow, uh.. I'm going to spend tonight (and maybe more time) looking through the talkpage and previous discussion, and I'll comment further then. From a first look, I'm not sure DRN can offer anything more than just my uninvolved opinion - since I can't make anything binding, it's worth about $0.02. However, if I see some room for help, I'll be glad to help. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry that there is such a huge amount to wade through. Over the years, quite a number of people have been at odds with Minphie, and this is not the first time that Minphie has used selective quote-mining, original research, and fanciful misreadings to distort the conclusions of source material. Here is an example from before I joined Wikipedia:

• User:Figs Might Ply/Minphie#Harm reduction

Here are a selected few sections (out of many!) from talk pages of articles that I've not been involved with:

• Talk:Supervised injection site#Misrepresentation of sources
• Talk:Harm reduction/Archive 2#Evidence & validity of Harm Minimisation as public health
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive86#Consensus.2C_Cooperation_.26_Civility_with_response_from_user_in_question

Minphie once also raised vandalism charges in an attempt to silence an editor who disagreed with his edits. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I will spend some time tomorrow to do a summary of my side of the dispute, (I have been time-poor this week) however I cannot let the above comments about disruptive editing pass without comment as it may serve to prejudice an understanding of the real issues between us. 1. Stigmatella raises issues of allegations by Figs Might Ply from 2010. Go to the Sockpuppet Wikipedia page back around that time and it will be found that Rakkar and Figs Might Ply were the same contributor, subsequently blocked. Another party in that dispute, Steinberger, who figures in the Wikiquette complaint with Rakkar and sockpuppet Figs Might Ply, was blocked subsequently here for this discussion, and was the subject of my vandalism complaint. Read LiteratureGeek's comments on his behaviour at the time of the block and I don't believe I have any case to answer here. The Misrepresentation of Sources thread, if looked at in date order for that section, reveals that there was no misrepresentation of sources - the final comment in that section was made before my final reply to what was a baseless allegation. I guess that my concern here is that all of this has nothing to do with content, but rather behaviour, as baseless as these allegations were, and that we need to talk content only in a mediated forum. This does not mean that I am unwilling to answer any allegations re behaviour, as I have nothing whatsoever I am embarrassed about on Wikipedia when all the facts are known and verified, but content is the focus of mediation. Minphie (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just based on this, I think this is too intertwined with a conduct issue for me to feel comfortable that I'd help you get to a resolution. I won't close this yet, but unless another volunteer picks it up, I think the best bet may be to hold RfC(s) on the content side of it, and take any conduct concerns to the appropriate channels. This is bigger (it seems to me) than one lowly person (me) can solve. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I sorta thought that might be the case. Minphie versus the rest of the world is an ongoing struggle. He/she doesn't believe in consensus and never gives up. I only happen to be the latest in a long line of editors who've unwillingly gotten dragged into this mudfight. Thanks for your efforts! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

From another DRN volunteer. While a RFC may be the appropriate next turn, I suggest that we wait until Minphie expresses a summary of the other point(s) of view here. I deleted two post scripts by Stigmatella aurantiaca that were not relevant to this discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoping this discussion remains active. Minphie (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked. But Minphie's complaints had nothing to do with it. Rather, LiteratureGeek had enough and reported both of us for edit warring. ("All that I would like is for you all to work out some sort of a compromise and come up with a balanced article and the edit warring to stop.") However, Minphie strategically seized to edit at this time and thus nothing came of his report to the edit warring noticeboard. (Minphie habit of misrepresenting yet again...) Steinberger (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:RealClearPolitics

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by TParis on 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:RealClearPolitics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TParis (talk · contribs)
• goethean (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
• DD2K (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute concerning whether a source supports the statement that the article's subject was founded by conservatives.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, offering an alternative.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by TParis

After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.

Summary of dispute by Goethean

It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.

The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....

...

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:

This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....

The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.

A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.

The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arzel

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.

McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".

This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.

I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DD2K

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

RealClearPolitics discussion

• Any volunteers yet? We're all reasonable people, there hasn't been any name calling by the parties, this should be an easy case.--v/r - TP 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, I'll take this one on. I'll need to look over things and comment in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Ykantor on 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• pluto2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?

There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement. I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).

He does not agree. He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. As of today, I reminded him in his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Summary of dispute by pluto2012

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

1948 Palestine war discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• I believe that it was indeed the arabs who started the war, as they were against the creation of Israel, and even today. OccultZone (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by TheRedPenOfDoom on 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The White Queen (TV series)#Historicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
• Deb (talk · contribs)
• 202.81.243.116 (talk · contribs)
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs)
• fdewaele (talk · contribs)
• Rosemary Cheese (talk · contribs)
• You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs)
• Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The television show is a historical drama. It was widely panned for many reasons, one of them is that it was not very historically accurate. One group of editors says that we should list historical inaccuracies that we find when we look at a history text book - the history book verifies the error. Another group of editors says that we can only include specific "inaccuracies" if a reliable source has published commentary specifically mentioning the historical error in the show- that comparing what happened in TV show to what is written in a history book and concluding that the TV show has an error is WP:SYN

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

lots and lots of talk on the talk page

edit to add: and as Deb has pointed out below Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#The_White_Queen_.28TV_series.29.23Historical_Inaccuracies, and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#"Historical inaccuracies" sections

How do you think we can help?

Help determine whether or not WP:SYN applies

Summary of dispute by Deb

Some weeks ago, I added a section called "Factual Inaccuracies" to this article. The title was changed to "Historical Inaccuracies" after a short time, and was added to by several other users. After about a fortnight, it was tagged by User:202.81.243.196 as "synthesis". A debate then began on the talk page about whether the section was valid, with two users (the anon and User:TheRedPenOfDoom) arguing that it constituted synthesis and original research, whilst User:Paul Barlow and User:fdewaele disagreed. I was not involved in this discussion until nearly a fortnight later when I noticed that the whole section had been removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. I restored the section on the grounds that there was no consensus for the removal of the referenced material, and an edit war quickly began. I made various concessions to the comments made by the two contributors who considered the section to be WP:OR and "synthesis", including adding further references to back up each statement in the section, adding further material to include positive as well as negative comments, and changing the title of the section to "Historicity", in response to the anon's accusations that the section was an implied criticism of the series. I consider that I have been stating historical facts (all referenced) which are not reflected in the series, in keeping with the widespread public discussion of the series. I do not consider this to be OR or synthesis, I believe the section to be valid and in keeping, and I feel that the approach proposed by these two contributors would actually result in non-NPOV edits, their argument being that you should not provide a reference for a historical fact, only for the fact that someone made a statement pointing out that this particular piece of history is not reflected in the series. Thus, they not only removed factual statements, they also removed any references relating to those facts. At Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, 202.81.243.196 began a discussion of the question (not involving me), resulting in a lack of consensus either way. Paul Barlow also began a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#"Historical inaccuracies" sections, which again did not involve me and again does not seem to have resulted in consensus. In the meantime, I have made every effort to improve the section so as to achieve something that complies fully with the guidelines on OR and synthesis, but nothing seems to satisfy these two contributors.

Response by TheRedPenOfDoom

For reference, the content of "the whole section" that I removed. [9] (and note that it was removed in a series of edits with what i felt were appropriately descriptive edit summaries to explain the policy based rationale).

And my position is not at all "that you should not provide a reference for a historical fact, only for the fact that someone made a statement pointing out that this particular piece of history is not reflected in the series." My position is that: "Content in the article about the TV show must be sourced to a reference that discusses the content of the TV show" see for example the edit summaries [10] [11] [12] and talk page comments [13] [14] [15] I am not at all sure where the impression otherwise came from.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 202.81.243.116

The section of the article originally titled "Historical Inaccuracies", later "Historicity", pointed out errors of fact in the TV series The White Queen. It did so by listing events shown in the series, then a phrase like "in fact" and then historical facts. All of these statements were clearly designed to support the contention by editors that the show lacks "historicity". Perhaps one or two of the points in the section were cited to a WP:RS making the criticism, the rest were all deductions made by editors. Which is WP:SYN. Any attempt to remove the latter, after explaining the problem, was reverted. When the original research policies were explained on the Talk page, they were simply ignored or dismissed as pedantry.

The entire "Reception" section of the article is now 593 words; the "Historicity" section is 693 words, giving that aspect an undue weight even if it was correctly sourced. It reflects only the opinions of a group of nitpicking editors who think that there is a need to point out errors of fact in a work of fiction. Only "errors" noted by reliable sources should be mentioned, and those should be under the "Reception" section.

On WP:NORN and WT:NOR, some of the "Historicity" advocates went to make their case. In every venue, they were told the same: that the list of errors they defend contravenes WP:OR. They ignored this and continued to revert any attempts to apply the policy. Unless there is some compulsion, I doubt there will be any change in this. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paul B

I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ("bureaucratic" rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were). Numerous articles have sections like this (see Les Miserables). Film versions of historical events often generate these sections, because editors who know about the history want to discuss dramatic deviations from fact, and readers who've seen the film want to know how much of it is historical fact. Often these sections expand chaotically and can end up including statements like "Prince Rupert had brown hair, but the actor playing him had black hair", which, though it may be verifiable, is pretty silly. In the end we have to decide for ourselves what's trivial and what's relevant to the article. It’s not OR to make such editorial judgements. The fundamental issue here is whether or not it is unacceptable to make statements about historical facts that do not come from critics commenting directly on the drama. This is an issue that has been raised in the past at the OR noticeboard, and there are differing views. My personal view is to favour common-sense over legalism and to recognise that WP:OR is not a Commandment, but a tool designed by the community to ensure that Wikipedia is not filled with idiosyncratic pet theories presented as fact. In cases such as these, most commentary comes from TV reviewers whose grasp of history is often hazy at best (e.g. their irrelevant obsession with "historically inaccurate" shiny white teeth, which only seems to come up when a drama is "medieval", even though there's no reason to believe that ancient Greeks and Romans had great teeth either). TV critics are not good judges of what is historically accurate or important. Historians of the period are better sources, but they do not comment on TV shows, at least they rarely do and rarely do so quickly (maybe in a few years someone will write an article on the Wars of the Roses in popular culture which mentions the show). In my view we should have a latitudinarian attitude to OR in such cases, because the overriding concern should be with what is encyclopaedic, verifiable and useful, not with blind adherence to over-rigid interpretations of rules without regard to their purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by fdewaele

Wikipedia articles should be sourced but one must not overdo the principle or it’s to become unworkable. When the subject is media (books, TV, film) and its historicity, it behooves to take a middle ground course. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion. Of course, there will always be grey areas (like historical minutiae), but a fact is a fact. It’s the kind of dogmatic adherence to strict interpretation of the “scripture”, as some editors do, which debases Wikipedia and makes Wikipedia as rigid as a paper encyclopedia, which it was never meant to be. -- fdewaele

Summary of dispute by Rosemary Cheese

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by You Can Act Like A Man

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Gareth Griffith-Jones

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I wasn't going to bother with this discussion, since I don't think the exact content of trivia lists is important. (I don't like them, but life is too short to worry about them.) But I'm really bothered by the way a common-sense issue has been blown up into a lot of obsessive rule-parsing. This is not the way to encourage people to participate as editors, and it's certainly not going to make the content better. Indeed, a lot of smart, well-informed people are driven away because of all this bureaucratic nonsense. To see how this argument violates common sense, consider the following: "In the first episode, Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped, which hadn't been invented yet." Is this too synthetic? Fine, I can get around this by saying "Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped. The moped was invented in the 20th century." That's two separate statements, both properly sourced (by the links) and with no stated inference. So I've gotten around the rule, at the expense of making the text less readable. And that's a good idea why? As the rules themselves say, Wikipedia rules are not legislation. They are guidance. They are a synthesis of how Wikipedians think we should run the show. Here's the correct way to use the rules: begin with common sense. Use your knowledge of the real world. Read the rules to make yourself a better editor, not to find ways to bully people. If you think somebody's doing something wrong, work with that person to achieve something you can both live with. Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down. And above all, do not delete material that you think true simply because you don't like the way it's sourced. Which is not only common sense, it's the rules.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:CIRCULAR wikilinks aren't proper sourcing. DonIago (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A wholly irrelevant comment, since Isaac Rabinovitch is simply illustrating a point. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find that comment highly relevant, but not the way it was intended to be. As I've already said, the rules are guidance, not legislation. Tell me, does anybody honestly think "The moped was invented in the 20th century" needs a citation? You should read WP:CIRCULAR for help in avoiding circular logic, not as something that defines the concept. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The context of the statement is important. If the line about Caesar's moped had been part of a plot description, then adding an additional note or footnote regarding real mopeds is not a problem. If however it was part of a list of "Historical inaccuracies", then it is being used by the contributing editor to advance a position, that "the show is full of errors". Which correct or not, is WP:SYN. I don't think that the desire of editors to point out errors of fact in fictional works justifies changing or ignoring this established policy. If the "un-historicity" of a story is important, then reviewers will have discussed this and their observations can be quoted. Already, this article now has a section on "inaccuracies", as observed by editors alone, that is longer then the entire "Reception" section; and was growing daily as editors pounced on more and more trivia to add. It's fun to nitpick at TV shows, plenty of forums exist for those who like to do that, But Wikipedia is not a forum: "do not use Wikipedia for ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)". To beat the example into the ground: the topic is not "mopeds" but "Caesar on a moped in this TV show" Cobbling together statements from different sources to synthesise a critique is not allowed. Also, I must state that this example is a strawman, implying that rule bound bureaucrats would prevent such a blatant anachronism being noted. If Caesar had been shown riding on a moped, every single review would have discussed it and editors would have no problem finding a citable quotation pointing out the anachronism. They however cannot find any to support all the trivial transgressions that they find in The White Queen. Because they were not important enough for critics to note. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. We're getting comments by folks who are neither listed in the DRN volunteer list nor listed as parties to this dispute and by folks who are listed as parties but who have not made an opening statement. @Isaac Rabinovitch and Doniago: Would you please clarify your roles here? If you are here as parties, please list yourself appropriately and make opening statements above (you can create your own section to do so); if you are here as DR volunteers, just say so, though it would also be well to list yourself as a volunteer on the volunteer page so the status bot identifies you correctly. @Paul Barlow: If you are going to participate in the discussion, would you please make an opening statement in your section, above, since you have been listed as a party? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you please check before posting such requests. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry TM. I've been following the filing since I've dealt with similar issues multiple times at film-related articles, but I'm not an involved party. My only intention was to point out that the claim that wikilinks provide proper sourcing is inaccurate. Other than that I wasn't planning to say anything unless/until the case was opened and it seemed appropriate. I'm not quite sure I want to escalate myself to the level of an actual DR volunteer, but I'll look into it. My apologies if I spoke out of turn! DonIago (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul, sorry, it was an edit conflict. Doniago, no problem, just wanted to be sure how you were here. It's not necessary to sign up as a volunteer to take on that role, we'd just like to know what hat you're wearing. Please feel free to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be very candid here. Paul says, above, "I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ('bureaucratic' rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were)." That may, indeed, have some validity. I think that you're going to find that most DR volunteers, myself included, are pretty rule-oriented and that those in this dispute who are taking the position that the rules ought to be ignored may feel like they're not getting much of a hearing in DR. An ideal Wiki-world would work like Isaac suggests, "Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down." But the way Wikipedia works is through consensus and the rules themselves say that the rules are the "established consensus" of the community (see CONLIMITED). I take that to mean that when the rules clearly apply to a situation, then the rules govern unless a IAR local exception to the rules is established. But since there is already an established consensus, the IAR local exception must itself be established by a clear consensus (which can be arrived at via discussion or via default and silent consensus). Paul suggests that the rules ought to give way to special circumstances such as that which results from a topic area being one of popular interest rather than academic interest and, as a result, few high-quality reliable sources exist for matters of significant interest. I disagree: this encyclopedia is this encyclopedia and the same standards ought to apply throughout unless general exceptions are made for certain topic areas. That can be done either by the community establishing rules to create general exceptions or by creating specific local exceptions for individual articles.

While I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case, the synthesis rule is a subset of the original research rule which is a subset of the verifiability rule. The purpose of the verifiability rule is to insure that the average reader can find a source for everything in Wikipedia and the reason for that, in turn, in my opinion, is that verifiability is Wikipedia's substitute for having a board of editors to make judgment calls on content. Paper encyclopedias obtain their authority from the quality of their editors. By allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia cannot rely on that so we rely on other organizations' reliability for fact checking and accuracy. Once we verge into taking various pieces of information and drawing or implying conclusions about them, we've violated one of the most basic principles on which Wikipedia is built.

Whether or whether not this series was historically correct is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia except to the extent that the question contributed to its notability and notability is determined by reliable sources commenting on that issue. The degree to which those sources were right or wrong is also irrelevant except to the extent that their rightness or wrongness contributed to its notability due to their rightness or wrongness being discussed in reliable sources. For this article to engage in an analysis of whether the series was or was not historically accurate or an analysis of whether sources' criticism or defense of the series was accurate or inaccurate is outside the scope and purpose of Wikipedia.

If other articles have engaged in such an analysis, then those articles are either wrong and should be corrected or, equally possibly, they are examples of silent local exceptions to policy due to no challenge being raised there. However, I reject the idea that the existence of some such articles, even a large number of such articles, has created a general working exception to policy, one which is generally accepted but to which the letter of policy has not yet caught up. It's one thing to say that there's been a general change to policy which has not yet been formalized in the case of, say, hyphenization or the rules for exterior links; it's an entirely different thing to say that one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia has changed in that manner and that there is an entire general class of articles in which lower levels of sourcing are required than for general articles. To anyone contending that I would say put up or shut up: Drop the stick here at this one article and seek to create a policy which says just that, following the procedure set out in the Policy policy (not a typo). If the lower level of sourcing which you say the community accepts is in fact so widely accepted, the policy ought to be easy to pass.

If there is a question of whether a particular edits or set of edits engage in synthesis we can talk about that, but I seem to be seeing a tacit admission that the situation here — again I've not specifically looked at it to see if it does or does not — does violate the synthesis rule but that the rule shouldn't be followed. From my point of view, if the edits violate the rule, then the material should not go in unless there is a clear consensus here for it to do so as a local exception.

Sorry, tldr, but hey... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you are missing the point here. You say, "I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case". I don't think you are in a position to comment until you have looked at it. You will find that the dispute is about the interpretation of the guideline, not about the fact that the guideline exists and exists for good reason. Consensus appears to me to be that the edits I made do not contravene the guidelines. You can see RedPen's interpretation of those guidelines below, which could fairly be summarised as "a book published before the TV series was shown cannot be used to reference a historical fact portrayed in that series". Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose and value of WP:SYN is not in doubt. What is in question is what consititutes SYN. Of course policies and guidelines can and do change, but that's strictly a matter for other fora. WP:OR can never be absolutely clear because there can be a variety of interpretations of what constitutes an "original" statement, and all editing involves the choice, interpretation and synthesis of sources by editors. Let's take an example. Scholar X says "King John was bad". Scholar Y says "King John was good". Is it OR to say "scholars disagree about whether John was good or bad"? A hard-liner interpretation of OR might be that the very statement that there is "disagreement" is OR - that it is an original idea synthesised from two separate statements. My view is that that's the route to madness and that such ultra-rigid interpretations of rules are profoundly damaging to the project, as they destroy the possibility of coherent and readable summaries of facts and debates. In this case the claim is that the historical events on which the TV show is based are fully documented and that noting those is not OR.
It is not a "criticism" of the show, BTW, because almost all historical drama, including Shakespeare, involves departures from fact for dramatic purposes. It is background information relevant to understanding the show from which the reader can draw conclusions. My position is that it would only be OR if we interpreted such differences (e.g. "because they had so few extras they depicted the battle taking place in a dense forest rather than an open field" or "they put it is a forest to emphasise the feeling of confusion"). I do not think this is proper forum for discussing this issue because DR is not the place to determine the limits of what is and is not OR. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

two examples of the specific content items that have been challenged as WP:SYN on the talk page:

“

• In episode 6, "Love and Marriage", Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a youthful courtier. In fact, she was the wife of a London tradesman, probably in her thirties by the time she began her liaison with the king.

”

References

and

“

• William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, a pivotal figure in the transfer of power from Edward IV to Richard III, is completely omitted from the TV adaptation. In fact, it was Hastings, not Anthony Woodville, who was Jane Shore’s lover and was disgraced along with her following Edward’s death.

”

References

The first item is comparing the 2013 show to content from a book published in 1956. The second apparently comparing a post from the broadcast company which includes a cast list at the bottom and noting that a certain historical personage is not listed in the cast, and comparing it to the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography entry about the personage that says they played a pivotal role in the events of the times. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Paul B - I am not sure that I completely understand your position. It appears that you are stating that we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history; but it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors (because we are better than television commentators and the equivalent of historians?) But i do also share your concerns that we are basing "historicity" claims from someone who begins their commentary

"Look, I'm no medieval scholar – except on Tuesday mornings, time permitting".

If she herself doesnt consider herself a good historian, why are we using her as a source for claims about history? But that was a situation I was going to address after what I thought was the more straightforward WP:SYN issues.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand my position, I don't know how I can explain it yet again, having done so in several fora. I never said "we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history". Of course TV reviewers can be quoted, but historians are 1000 times better sources for what actual events were. That's obvious to anyone. I never said that "it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors", or anything like it, since I have repeatedly stated that I am referring to verifiable facts citable to historians. Indeed no one who opposes your position has ever said anything like what you are trying to put into my mouth here. The argument of your opponents in this matter is that we do not have to use articles that comment directly on the TV series itself. Many good, and many featured, articles footnote sources that are not directly about the topic, but about background and contextual material relevant to it. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't forget that this quote was moved into the "Historicity" section from the "Critical reception" section in response to your request that critics' comments about the historical accuracy of the series should be included in preference to verification from history books. Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My requests have always been that in this article about the TV show the minimum requirement is that the sources be talking about the TV show. Since there was such huge opposition even to that requirement, I had not even begun to address whether or not the sources that do actually deign to discuss the TV show have been used WP:UNDUE in appropriate manner or are of the quality level that we expect.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apology: I'd like to apologise to User:202.81.243.116 for implying in my edit summary that, in removing the original time stamp from his Summary above, he was trying to make it look as though he hadn't added to the summary a day after he began it. That comment was unworthy of me. Deb (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to comment here if I may. This seems to be rather simple. Should editors be allowed to mention historical differences between the fictional characters and situations of the series verses the historically documented information?

There are a few ways to look at this. As fiction, we are supposed to summarize the content without interpretation or analysis. The same is true with non-fiction. However, with historic docudramas I believe the community has allowed for notes to contain "explanations" of the major differences. Such explanations do not belong in the plot summary, but may contain explanatory notes to refer to. I have also seen separated sections on historical inaccuracies, but these do get challenged if not summarizing reliable sources. Generally, given time sources will begin to appear. However this show is very new and it is doubtful such sources may be found at this time. The article is not finished and I would assume no where near ready for a GA rating. For that reason editors still have the option of ignoring a policy if it improves the article and I am willing to support such an ignoring of the rules here as long as it doesn't lower the current rating and importance of the article. I would prefer notes and sources for analysis however. As a C class, low importance article...it doesn't seem as though it would do much harm to ignore a rule here and simply make note in the prose itself within the actual plot summary, however it does pose an issue when attempting to raise the rating above the C rating or for GA and FA. For that reason it is always best practice to just add explanatory notes and/or use create a section using RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding based on working with WP:FILM is that we generally do not include such lists of "differences" (differences from the novel, differences from historical fact, differences from earlier versions of the same film...the principle seems the same to me) unless sources took note of the differences. Wikipedia articles should not include trivia, and a list of differences that only Wikipedia editors took note of, IMO, falls afoul of that concept. How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Doniago, a project guide is not MOS or policy/guideline and cannot override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To what wider community consensus are you referring? DonIago (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference." No, absolutely not. Film reviewers will commonly pick up on matters of great triviality, because they are interested in entertaining readers as much as anything, so noting that actress X is wearing lipstick while playing a Neolithic peasant is typical of just the kind of thing that "third party sources" do comment on, along with "bloopers" and endless other examples of trivia. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Which may be the reason, Paul, that this Historicity section might not ought to exist at all. (Again, I'm speaking theoretically, not commenting on the actual section and sources.) The entire historicity issue, as I argue below in my note to Deb, is really only important enough to be in the article if it was significant to the notability of this show. That importance is not shown, in my opinion, by individual critics commenting about it, even if those critics' opinions are considered reliable sources for other reasons (and it could perhaps be mentioned in a criticism section). The historicity issue only rises to a sufficient level of importance to be independently discussed in the article if is is discussed as a topic itself in reliable sources, in my opinion. That is, the fact that critics A, B, and C mention or analyze or criticize it is not enough, there must be a third-party source D which says something like, "The historicity of the White Queen has been called into account by individuals X, Y, and Z." If no such source D exists, then the existence of a historicity section at all may be violation of the synthesis policy. I express no opinion about the actual section in the article, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're arguing that a critic mentioning a difference doesn't establish non-triviality for that difference, then it seems to me far less likely that a WP editor in general is in a position to state that a difference is non-trivial. I'm open to a discussion of what means we could use to establish such a difference short of relying on third-party sources though. DonIago (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should refer you to Wikipedia's definition of trivia: Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections. Deb (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Deb: I believe both of Red Pen's examples, above, would violate the synthesis policy. They both contain a comment about the show, followed by a historical comparison from a source which does not address the show. Under the synthesis policy, the historical material is inappropriate for the article because it intentionally invites the article reader to draw a conclusion about the show not made by a reliable source. SYN says, in so many words: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis added.) The implied conclusion in each of those examples is "therefore the show was historically inaccurate." To which, in any non-entertainment article, say one about dogs or buttons the reaction of Wikipedia should be so what? How is that historical inaccuracy relevant to Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the notability of that show? It is like including a "Biologisity" section in The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) describing the Munchkins and the winged monkeys and then quoting the Catalogue of Life to show that they never really existed. Does the fact that Munchkins and winged monkeys never really existed somehow make that film more notable or important? No. What makes the historicity issue at least marginally relevant to White Queen is that the show was criticized for it, at least to the extent that can be shown via reliable sources, not the fact that the show was actually inaccurate. Whether the critics were wrong or right is unimportant and the fact that people who read the article may wonder whether or not the critics were right or wrong is unimportant from the point of view of Wikipedia's mission, which is to describe — not analyze, but describe — the show through verifiable and reliable sources. Thus, it could not be plainer; indeed both of RedPen's examples are virtually identical to the first example given in SYN. There is no interpretation of SYN involved or needed. That being the case then you'll need a consensus, which you say that you have, to introduce the material into the article as a IAR local exception. Would you please say who supports that consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well - once again, I would refer you to the discussions that have taken place on other talk pages, which would give you the answer to your question. I do not think it's possible to come to a fair assessment of what has caused this dispute without doing so, and I'm disappointed that you are trying to "adjudicate" here rather than trying to resolve the dispute. It is essential to read the section on Historicity in total in order to assess whether it belongs in the article. As User:Mark Miller points out above, listing differences between historical fact and the adaptation (and note that some of these differences are introduced in the adaptation rather than in the novels on which it is based) could still be relevant to a historical drama even if everyone agreed on what constitutes "trivia" in the context of an action film. Also, if you were familiar with the reputation of Philippa Gregory, who is a somewhat controversial figure in UK history circles (especially at the moment, with the increased interest in this period because of the discovery of the remains of Richard III), you would recognise that the mere inclusion of this section has been seized upon by the anonymous contributor involved in the dispute as evidence that I have a personal interest in destroying her claim to historical accuracy in her fiction. Just as he openly questions my motives, so I may question whether he is really viewing this dispute from an impartial standpoint. My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical "accuracy" displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction. At the same time, I am not writing an essay on the topic of historical fiction or the art of screenwriting, and I have taken on board some of the less hypercritical points made by RedPen and had acted on these long before the debate reached this page; he has made it clear he is not interested in compromise, only in the enforcement of his own black-and-white view. The wikilawyering that has gone on over this issue is positively shocking, and is in danger of forcing two groups of contributors into entrenched positions. Deb (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to my colleague, Mark Miller, I disagree. While I'm so-so (for reasons too complicated to go into here) about over-vigorously removing longstanding material from Wikipedia which does not conform to policy on the basis of the "no real harm" argument article, I do not believe that nonconforming material should ever be knowingly introduced without a showing that it benefits the encyclopedia more than adherence to the rules do. To do so weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and unreliability are what cause harm. Properly footnoted and accurate information is what gives credibility to the encyclopedia. The irony is that the interpretation insisted on by Red Pen and preferred by youself actually encourages the trivialisation of article content in this area, because articles will be written on the basis of what TV reviewers say about shiny teeth and seeing zips in fake-medieval dresses, along with their often garbled ideas of what "medieval" life was like based on populist assumptions. That's what "weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm", not the position adopted by Deb and myself. What we should be basing our content on is the work of serious historians of the era, giving readers a sense of what they say about the topic. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Your analogy with Munchkins is frankly utterly silly. No-one over the age of 5 ever believed they were real, so writers do not need to explain that they are not any more than they have to do so with other blatantly fictional creatures. That's the job of parents talking to their children, not scholarship. Departures from historical fact in historical drama and literature are, in contrast, a standard topic of debate both among viwers and in scholarly literature on popular and dramatic reworkings of history. If you are not aware of the huge body of literature on this issue and its significance to understanding the way history is continually reinterpreted, you have no grasp of this issue at all. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree that if a serious historian of the era has noticed an issue with White Queen then that would be appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people consider Philippa Gregory to be a serious historian. Not to make light of your comment, though, Michael Hicks is among the critics quoted in the section. Deb (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

and your historians view? "'[ http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen As with Philippa Gregory's source novels, they've done their research]" the historian seems to be OK with the "historicity". if we bring in the giving appropriate weight to the views of the academic mainstream on top of the WP:SYN, i really dont see how ignoring the rules is going to help improve the encyclopedia, which is the requirement for doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you over and over and over, no one is advocating "ignoring the rules". The debate is about how they are best interpreted for the benefit of the project. Your link is so utterly irrelevant to the issues under discussion that I really wonder whether you are even hearing what is being said. This is not a matter of giving the show marks out of ten for accuracy. It's about noting instances of departures from fact. Such departures may be done for a whole host of sensible reasons. In The Tudors the names of some characters were changed simply to avoid having too many people with the same name which might confuse viewers. In Inglourious Basterds the whole of the Nazi leadership is killed in a Parisian cinema. We know, of course, that that's not an "error" on Tarantino's part. You seem to think this is about giving our stars for historical accuracy. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"noting instances of departures from fact", if the noter is a WP editor, is WP:SYN. It's not notable that a work of fiction departs from fact anyway, and listing all the tiny ways it does is purely a parlour game. IMDB welcomes that kind of stuff, Wikipedia does not. 202.81.243.116 (talk)

You can repeat that over and over until you are blue in the face, but repeating it dogmatically does not make it any truer. You have been given many reasons why your interpretation is disputed. Just failing to a acknowledge legitimate disagreement by repeating the same mantras incessantly is not helpful. You comment on goofs again demonstrates that you have not understood, or perhaps even read, the points made. The project is harmed by editors who prefer to diminish articles to affirm their dogmas. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge your disagreement; that is obvious since I have disputed it in detail. I understand what you want to do. You think you have a special dispensation to ignore policies because you have to tell everyone about some error you saw. You don't. "Historical errors" in a drama are no more than goofs. The article is diminished by that trivial point scoring. Really, submit it to IMDB. That's the "project" where it belongs. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deb said, "My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical 'accuracy' displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction." As I commented above, the "concentration" is not relevant to this article unless someone in a reliable source commented on that concentration. We do not get to observe that there were a lot of people saying something about a topic here and then count heads and say "many people believe". While the interpretation of history in a work of fiction may be a serious matter, it's not a serious matter for purposes of this show unless someone in a reliable source says that it is. As for wikilawyering, wikilawyering is the misapplication of policy to obtain a result not intended by that policy, not merely the recitation of policy in the way it is intended or advocating for one reasonable interpretation of policy over another. I've seen nothing here that I can clearly identify as wikilawyering. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I be frank, TM? You're not actually doing anything to help achieve a resolution to this dispute; all you're doing is adding fuel to the fire. If you have an interest in resolving it, then please go and read the discussions before making any further comments. If, on the other hand, you're here because you consider yourself to be some kind of legal expert, carry on arguing but please don't expect anyone to take any notice, because I don't actually agree with a single thing that you said in the above paragraph. There is no such thing as an expert on wikipedia policy and guidelines, and this is because they are created by consensus, a consensus of human beings. Just like actual laws, they are open to interpretation and liable to be imperfect, as indeed we all are. Deb (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what TransporterMan disagrees with me on, but I will use this analogy: Where exactly was Caesar murdered? Interesting question. Many would assume he was murdered in the senate house or the capitol from the varying productions starting with Shakespeare. Well, we do mention that Caesar was actually murdered in the meeting hall of the Theatre of Pompey and in stating this fact in the article about the production, we clarify an important encyclopedic bit of information. I do not see it as trivia or trivial. It all depends on the differences. We need not mention that the time period between when the Bad Queen landed and when she was captured was not accurate but we may want to clarify some more important points, and this is actually common in many docudrama articles. I do not see this as being against policy when done in the proper manner. In fact I believe some freedom is given summarizing some content. Let me look into that.

In trying to decide which direction to take or which to exclude we do need to verify actual MOS, guidelines and policy are adhered to, but if there is nothing that strictly rules it out and consensus cannot be determined.....editors are going to need to work together and come up with some compromise to move forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. MOS seems clear:

Real-world perspective (see WP:Real world)

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include:

• Careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
• Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)
• The presentation of fictional material
  • particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects
  • for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique
• Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
• Making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real-world perspective. However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles.

--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

and in the exemplary articles the "real world perspectives" are brought in by third parties discussing the work and its impact and creation, not by Wikipedia editors doing so or making implications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that "real world perspective" means details of how the show was produced in the "real world". The actors, not the characters; the sets, not the places depicted, etc. Actually, analysing the events in the show as if they were real history is doing the opposite: applying "in-universe perspective", which is discouraged by MOS. And in any case, no one was saying that a "Historicity" section was impermissible per se, only that the current one violated WP:OR in the majority of its entries. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Having now been chastised at least twice by Deb for having not read the talk pages, I've now gone back and done so. Some observations:

• Nothing I've read significantly changes my opinion about anything I've said above, except that my comment at 19:39, 18 September about the historicity section as a whole (as opposed to the "show-said history-says" additional examples in that section) is more clearly off-topic than I thought.
• I see that my comments about the additional examples really only repeat the positions already taken by the opponents of the edits represented by Red Pen's examples.
• I did note that in the comments made at the NORN noticeboard and NOR talk page that everyone who weighed in who was not already involved in this dispute did so with the position that the current SYN rule prohibits this kind of material. Some (John Carter, Luke Warmwater101, perhaps Dougweller) were at least to some degree sympathetic to the idea of modifying the rule so as to allow them, but others (Masem, Someguy1221) were less friendly to such a modification. What was not there, outside the editors involved in this particular dispute, was any support for the idea that the proposed material does not violate SYN as it now stands.

I've spent a lot of time since my last post here thinking about this. While I have to say that I do think that SYN prohibits the additional examples, I also must admit that Paul's statement here is not entirely without merit:

"If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being 'sythesised'. It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year."

As I said, above, SYN is a subset of NOR which is a subset of V. At the end of the day, a SYN is objectionable because it creates an unsourced implied or actual assertion in the encyclopedia. And that's objectionable because, per V, everything in the encyclopedia which is challenged or likely to be challenged must have a reliable source. What Paul is saying is, in effect, that when a film unquestionably says a one-day event happened in 1805 and real history unquestionably says that the same event happened in 1815 that there is no reasonable chance that the actual or implied assertion that the film is not accurate is likely to be challenged.

The problem is that in this particular case that assertion has been challenged by the assertion of SYN and the rule under the verifiability policy is "challenged or likely to be challenged," not just "likely to be challenged." There has been quite a bit of discussion over at the verifiability policy talk page through the years about whether an editor must justify a challenge in order to remove an unsourced assertion. The conclusion has always been, though many editors have not been happy with that conclusion, that justification is not necessary. Paul's argument can only then become the assertion that such a challenge cannot have been made in good faith, but policy requires us to assume good faith and that requirement is one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason, that a justification requirement for challenges has always been rejected.

Still, in a case like this where there is no reasonably possible doubt that the assertion is accurate and true, the fact that an unjustified objection is enough always feels very thin and unsatisfactory and wikilawyerish, but examined in that light the bare objection is indeed enough. It is not a matter of interpretation or wikilawyering, but, instead, years of discussion at V has established the right to make the unjustified objection.

Dispute resolution volunteers are not free to negotiate whatever compromise which will settle a dispute. We can only assist reaching those compromises which are in the best interest of the encyclopedia or, at the very least, those which are not against its best interest. In this case, the established consensus of the community in the form of the verifiability policy, as particularized in the synthesis section of the no original research policy, leaves no room for a compromise which would allow the additional examples of non-historicity to be included except through an IAR local exception derived through consensus. If the proponents of the material believe that such a consensus already exists, they may apply for a consensus evaluation through the administrator's noticeboard. If they are less than certain about that outcome — as they should be, in my opinion — they may file a RFC at the article talk page to try to confirm such a consensus or simply continue discussion there toward that end. Either way, it must be bourne in mind that verifiability is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee, and I believe that there is a further and substantial discussion about undue weight which must follow even if they should succeed in obtaining a local exception against SYN. It might be well to combine both issues into an RFC.

Unless the disputants want assistance from DRN in negotiating the terms of such an RFC, however, I cannot see any further reason to continue discussion here and feel that this listing should be closed as resolved against the inclusion of the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I too feel that the listing should be closed, as it has been a complete waste of time. However, there is no justification whatever for your statement that it is in any way resolved. You state that "that assertion has been challenged". No, the assertion has not been challenged at all; it is merely the inclusion of that assertion in the article that has been challenged. I am very surprised that you can't see the difference. Perhaps it is due to your relative inexperience as an editor of articles. Deb (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, perhaps I did not say it clearly enough, but that is exactly what is challenged in a verifiability challenge: the inclusion of an unsourced assertion in an article. The substance of a challenge is that the assertion in the article cannot be sourced through a reliable source, not that the assertion is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, because the purpose of the verifiability policy is to avoid discussion about those matters. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The example "If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate" is bogus, in the same way as "Caesar on a moped", mentioned earlier. Important, blatant, anachronisms ARE noted by reviewers. They will be citable without WP:SYN. Here is a real example, not a made-up one: Ip_Man_(film)#Historical_accuracy: a film with many completely made-up events. The article notes these, without synthesis, simply by quoting a reviewer. Those who want to confirm that errors are "factual" as well as verifiable can easily do so by looking at the linked articles on the real history of the period. That's how it can and should be done, without any need to ignore existing WP:OR policy. Instead of looking at fake examples, look at the actual "inaccuracies" that this is about. A minor character (Jane Shore) is portrayed as several years younger than she should be. Other secondary characters were in the wrong place. A plain has too many trees. Most absurdly, "Baron Rivers ... and Anthony ..., a real life sophisticate, appear naïve, even a little crass"? How a critique of an actor's style relates to "Historicity", I don't know, but any objection is swiftly reverted. This is fiction, drama, not a documentary. These quibbles aren't notable and certainly not notable enough to justify making the "Historicity" section larger than any other section of the article, and of course, ignoring WP:SYN to do so. This is a group of WP editors saying "The writers of the show made a bunch of mistakes that only we noticed, and we're going to list every single one", and that section is now the focus of the article. This sets a terrible precedent. Every editor who notices a character with the wrong coloured hair will feel empowered to add it to the list. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Ykantor on 09:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria Syria diversion plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• dailycare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

user:dailycare deleted my edit. During weeks of discussion, he raised content objections of all sorts, sometimes returning tp previously discussed issues. I spent a lot of time in order to reply and have the proper RS quotations, but to no avail. Eventually he stopped with the content disputes and return (again) to the editing size issue. I do not like endless discussions. We have to stop and compromise somewhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed it in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To assist us reaching a compromise

Summary of dispute by dailycare

Hi guys, we've had a three-week discussion on the talkpage during which we've ageed on some changes to the article text. YK seems to persist in wanting to additionally introduce some quite specific material to a summary section in the article, the problem being in the main that the connection to the subject-matter of the article, and to the summary section in particular, is tenuous. Further issues with the proposed texts have been undue weight and selective simplification. In the past few days however a few previously uninvolved editors have weighed in in the discussion, so things seem ok. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Armenians in Cyprus

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Neo ^ on 11:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Armenians in Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Neo ^ (talk · contribs)
• PantherLeapord (talk · contribs)
• Seric2 (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)
• Ishdarian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello. The article "Armenians in Cyprus" has somehow attracted unwanted attention. A while ago, I was told it was too long, so we decided to create new pages for some sections(Armenian religion in Cyprus, Armenian education in Cyprus and Armenian monuments in Cyprus). Very recently, some users decided on their own that the article should not include much information from the three other pages. So, according to what they wanted, we decided to include only books and published articles in the bibliography, and I added only a paragraph for each of the other items (churches, monuments, schools). You should also know that they used offensive expressions, like "shame on you" and "watch out your tone", while it was their tone that needed attention... I tried speaking to them, but they only cited wikipedia policies and I somehow feel they have made this issue very personal, like a personal crusade. Then, some users (you can see who they are from the history of the page) reverted all the changes, without seeing that I added only the minimum. Without giving any explanation, even though what I added was considerably smaller than the original, they undid what I added and then I reverted it and so on. As a result of that, I have been blocked until tomorrow. The issue, however, remains. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with adding the basic minimum information, together with a link to the three other articles. Please help me, I don't know what else to do. Thank you. My only concern is to have correct, accurate and comprehensive information on the article... And I seem to have lost faith in wikipedia now that I realised that it's an oligarchy... Alexander

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than trying to contact them, we also discussed this on their and my talk page. One of the users went on to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neo_.5E_and_Armenians_in_Cyprus just like that...

How do you think we can help?

I received comments regarding that it's not right to repeat what is in other articles, which I completely understand, so I tried to add the minimum that should be added, so that - on the one hand - the three sections are not just 2-4 lines long and - on the other hand - they only contain the basic information. However, these users refused to even selectively edit, only to delete. Some of what I added must stay, I believe.

Summary of dispute by PantherLeapord

Firstly to give credit where it is due: Thanks to Neo for not resuming their reverting. After they continued trying to insert the already rejected material I withdraw that statement.

I saw Neo's continued edit warring after the ANI thread and decided to stay out of it until this revert which to me demonstrated a continuing WP:IDHT problem that ultimately led to Neo's 24 hour block and will lead to more blocks unless they stop edit warring. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Seric2

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kintetsubuffalo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Neo just keeps bloating the article and inserting his own POV, and what now six other editors say about it be damned, he's going to get his way because the rest of us are somehow not as smart as he is. I would support a complete topic ban of Neo until he cleans up his act.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ishdarian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Armenians in Cyprus discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I sincerely believe that instead of just 2-3 lines regarding the monuments, the churches and the schools, the basic minimum (a small paragraph for each) should be there. Anyone who is interested for more, can go to the main articles. However, some users disagree. Neo ^ (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a small clarification and a small expansion on another section (none of which are disputed) and immediately one user (PantherLeapord) reverted my changes, stating "STOP trying to put in your POV edits that were rejected already!". He didn't even bother to see what they were about and, as I repeat, they have nothing to do with the disputed sections. I think this is harassment, plainly telling me "no more editing the article"... Neo ^ (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Vashti on 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vashti (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Robsinden (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over at Death Note, I've been trying to decide on capitalisation for various in-universe terms which, while capitalised in some primary material, are often not capitalised in academic sources. I asked for help at WP:MOS and a dispute ensued.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm not sure it's really a dispute, though it did get a bit heated. But since reversion of the non-capitalised version is common, I wanted to establish a consensus on whether the primary or secondary sources should take priority. At the moment we really only have two editors with opposing views.

How do you think we can help?

While some advice was offered, it wasn't sufficient to resolve the dispute, and we really need more opinions to break the tie.

Summary of dispute by Ryulong

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I simply think that they should be capitalized as they are unique to the work of fiction. If its officially capitalized we should not rely on 4 English language academic papers to define how we format the words "Death Note" and "Shinigami (Eyes)" within the context of the work of fiction.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robsinden

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I came to this somewhat impartially, to try to break the deadlock but I am unfamiliar with the source material - However, as an outsider I think the terms in question are probably proper names in the context, and thus should be capitalised, but willing to be proved wrong. "Death Note" is more of an clear case that "shinigami" mind you. One thing I will say is that we should not be following the outside sources for style - this is why we have a MOS. "Shinigami" should probably be italicised as it isn't a loan word though, especially if it isn't treated as a proper name. I have sympathy for both of the editors involved - it is a little difficult to know what to do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This is not an easy answer because the official English manga is written in an "all caps" format and secondly, the introduction of the "death note" is given a proper noun by context as the "THE DEATH NOTE... IS THE BOND BETWEEN LIGHT THE HUMAN AND RYUK THE SHINIGAMI." Is that a proper sentence? Doubtful, but the context of "the" versus "a" is pretty clear.[16] The usage is consistently a proper noun despite numerous "Death Notes" existing at once, while it is a macguffin, it is used in a context as a proper noun and should remain one. Swap the term with "Gun" and you arrive at the same place, but the proof comes from the scripts themselves, even the earliest draft (nod to Gwern) shows explicit proper noun usage. Also, proper nouns can be both capitalized and plural, given that no item bears the same name and is not "common" the word should remain capitalized. Many "Enterprises" exist, real and fictional, but "A Enterprise" or "The Enterprise" can be both proper nouns owing to its identification. As silly as it seems, a "Death Note" is a proper noun because its identification is not "death" and "note", but "a Death Note" and its later usage as "the/a notebook/s" is indicative of the former's status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a slap in the face. I was hoping the uncapitalised peer-reviewed sources would carry the day, but it seems not. I do appreciate your help, though - that spat at MOS can't have been fun to wade through. Any input on "shinigami" so we can get this wrapped up? Vashti (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The usage in the official materials often wins the day, but in Death Note's case Shinigami is defined as a race and imply capitalization like "Chinese" or "Arabic" or "Korean". They may be shinigami, but the race is Shinigami. In the official materials, the choice for the author's notes is "Shinigami" not shinigami. All of this can be found in Death Note: How to Read 13 . With that being said if it doesn't sit right with you, make a note about the names and explain to the reader why the words are capitalized as a footnote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. I'll follow your advice. I do regret this decision, though, as I genuinely feel this call is going to make the pages awkward to read and unencyclopaedic in tone. Vashti (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad

– New discussion.

Filed by Iadrian yu on 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Novi Sad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iadrian yu (talk · contribs)
• No such user (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is either to remove or to include the pushpin map of the Vojvodina at the article of Novi Sad.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried 3rd opinion on the talk page, but no success.

How do you think we can help?

Since this is a "yes" or "no" problem I don`t know how. The current version of the article (without the pushpin map) is unacceptable to me but I am willing to accept the solution provided by an uninvolved party, whatever that might be.

Summary of dispute by No such user

The issue is not just on Novi Sad article, but on any article of Category:Municipalities and cities of Vojvodina, where Adrian was bold to add {{Location map Vojvodina}}, created by himself. Take, as an extreme example, article Ada, Serbia: the infobox starts with a tall image, then pushpin map of Serbia, then pushpin map of Vojvodina, then come the contents. This is contrary to any usability guideline; imagine a poor reader on a mobile device who opened the article just to examine basic data (the purpose of infobox), and ended up scrolling four screens down. Not any piece of information on the topic is worth including, and particularly not if it is already presented in a slightly different manner. We are currently having an arbitration case on infoboxes, due to the dispute where some editors tried to impose infoboxes into articles whose primary authors didn't want them. I don't reject the infobox, I only reject two near-identical maps in it, which just produce visual clutter, and I particularly reject the arguments that it's needed because "everyone does it". I haven't seen, like any other editor but Adrian at Talk:Novi Sad#Vojvodina pushpin map, any added value in that template, and I have a strong sense that Adrian pushes that template recklessly into articles just because it is a creation of his. Thanks, I believe in your good intentions, but it is superfluous.No such user (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Novi Sad discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sarower Sigh Bhati on 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sarower Sigh Bhati (talk · contribs) NeilN (talk · contribs) Yunshui (talk · contribs) Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Respected Dignities, I am the father of the subject of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati". The subject and me were degraded, insulted or personally attacked in a impolite manner many times by the Wikipedian editors not only at the talk page Sections of the article but also at the talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article. The name of the few of the respected editors are NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso. Instead of replying to suggestions/concerns/sections/questions in a polite manner they attacked me, subject, others personally by degrading us. Instead of replying to us politely they dictated their terms and tried to prove us foolish, incompetent, emotional, lack of knowledge, notoriously eager etc. I as the father of the subject tried my level best to provide latest/recent development about subject but it was discouraged again and again. Even Yanshui, Ihardlythinkso made fun, insulted the subject at their respective pages. Please Check there user pages to know the same. In fact they all are doing the same in a team. The motive is the user Sudeep Gangal who might have hurted their individuality. Even i have appealed to block him. Further the subject also appealed in section of talk page that he believes in Wikipedia and Sudeep Gangal etc should not try to become his well wishers. But why subject or his father should be punished for same. Respected Wikipedia dignities these editors has not tried their level best to listen to suggestions on new sections of the talk page. They even ignored valid suggestions, concerns, issues on new sections on talk page of the article that too replying in an insulting manner. I am afraid to mention Yanshui sir even mentioned on his talk page about subject whose abstract was I am lazy so accepting subject and might delete later on and even insulted subject that too in a team with Ihardlythinkso. Even subject and Father of the subject were left with no stamina hence appealed to delete article Have you tried to resolve this previously? Respected dignities I and Subject tried our level best to resolve this dispute by following steps. We always put our point with respect. Many times we communicated/begged to them to stop insulting us for god sake. Subject left forever from Wikipedia as per suggestion by NeilN from updating Wikipedia talk page. NeilN even suggested the subject to forget Wikipedia. Subject followed it. Subject even appealed to delete the article but stop it. Even i begged to stop it or delete article. Regards. How do you think we can help? Step 1: Please analyse anything related to the subject in talk page of the article or talk page of people involved in the dispute to know the dispute Step 2: Please do justice to article by taking care of all Sections of Talk page of the article. Step 3: Punish the people involved in the dispute, if they are not following Wikipedia norms. Step 4: If Subject is not worth then please delete it. But if it is notable then editors must understand degrading subject or insulting father is shocking. Summary of dispute by NeilN Unfortunately I don't think this noticeboard can accept this as this is a straight behavioral dispute, not a content dispute. The filer's contributions start here. It is obvious that he is only here to promote his son and does not or will not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If this were the proper venue, I would recommend a topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 10:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Yunshui I no longer have any interest in pursuing this matter. I have repeatedly tried to help Sarower Sigh Bhati and co. to understand Wikipedia's policies, but it's like banging my head against a brick wall. This was pretty much the last straw. At this point, I see no merit in discussing the matter further, since it is clear that Sarower has no intention of listening to those who are trying to help him. Were I not already involved, I would block his account as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. However, I've reached the limits of my tolerance here, and wash my hands of the affair; I'm dewatchlisting the page and will not comment here or on the article talkpage again. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ihardlythinkso Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is loaded with false accusations of a personal nature including claims of persecution and degradation to him and the article subject (his disabled son). This editor should be blocked for disruption and ongoing fictionalized personal attacks. Three editors have conducted themselves helpfully and professionally to no avail. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Subject himself Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ultra respected Authorities of Wikipedia. Yes i agree with my father. But the dispute can not be resolved in a justified manner unless the past track of the article talk page and talk page of all involved in dispute is analyzed properly. Moreover many points, sections are already deleted/edited/modified later on. For example I still remember there were at least 2 sections on the talk pages of Yunshui Sir and Ihardlythinkso Sir, where the remarks were really discouraging/degrading/insulting for me by these people is not existing now. One of the section was " A Difference". A lot of efforts has already taken place to cover the points raised by my father in a well anticipated manner in advance. Even at dispute resolution platform they are united as team (See there statements). Respected Authorities of Wikipedia I appeal to all of you to please analyse this article talk page history verbatim to know the reality. Yes Sirs this is a difficult job but the only way out to sort this dispute is to, " I Request with both my hands folded in front of you all to please analyse each and every word of the talk page of this article. In addition please analyse each and every word of the talk pages of all the people who are involved in this dispute" Then only the dispute resolution will be able to find the people who were wrong. Yes i am sorry today and i said it earlier also for having bit faith in Sudeep gangal for some time but later on i openly stood by Wikipedia editors and asked Sudeep to keep away from it forever. For this NeilN sir appreciated me also. Last but not the least Sirs, Why are we fighting? After All It is your article. Keep it or remove it is choice of Wikipedia editors. But if they have accepted me as a Subject Please do not insult me Please do not insult my father. After all the article is property of Wikipedia and I am its subject. Why we want lose-lose situation. This article is not my fathers property but he is only related with the subject. As far as promoting me, Ask yourself who will not do the same for a disabled son with limited breaths But my father did not promoted me but was assertive as he is sure i am deserving. But agony of a father of a son with such grim medical conditions is also to be handled in a human manner. Finally if Wikipedia is not convinced about me as the subject of article please remove it immediately but please stop making fun of me, degrading me, insulting me. RegardsHridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've read over the talk page and I don't see any personal attacks or otherwise made by the editors here. This is a plain and simple conduct issue, and it seems that all the experienced editors involved have tried to provide guidance and advice to no avail. I'd suggest admin intervention for this one. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The filer has declared his intention to leave Wikipedia. I will be archiving that mess of a talk page unless anyone objects. Suggest closing this. --NeilN talk to me 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Respected All: Yes it is my last message to all of you: I will never LOG IN to Wikipedia nor the subject will ever LOG IN to Wikipedia. As far as dispute is concerned I had already put my points. God Bless All of you. Best Wishes to all of you. Though as far as i know i always respected the individuality of all people by Writing Respected, Ultra respected, before every person but Still i am sorry to those, who got hurt due to me but believe me it was unintentional. Anyway my best wishes for all of you. Finally i am leaving Wikipedia forever along with the Subject of the article. RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hinduism and other religions

– New discussion.

Filed by Justicejayant on 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hinduism and other religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Justicejayant (talk · contribs)
• Saddhiyama (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited this article for 2 days, as the version of the article is very poorly written, unorganized and included a very less amount of knowledge, with many grammatical errors. My version is comparable to "Christianity and other religions".

Once i added about 10,055 bytes of the content, by some "Blackguard SF", who didn't show up, then again i saw my edit has been reverted, and this time over 12,000 bytes. In discussion, the editor named as Saddhiyama made about 3 suggestions that i accepted, but what's with removing the whole sourced content, i asked, the answer from this user was, "Volney lived 200 years ago so can't be added", "[17] is a dead link", "you copy pasted from earlier version of wikipedia", since none of these claims are relevant or coherent to the wikipedia's guidelines, they were refuted, so the user replied back with "i didn't knew where you copy pasted from"...

According to me such assumptions have been made by this user, because he or she don't like the content, and doesn't seem to be responding to this issue anymore either. Although i made a example page here[18] which would helpful to understand the version, that i have agreed on.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

By letting know what should be added or removed at [19], such version can be posted at the main page.

Summary of dispute by Saddhiyama

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

To keep it short, Justicejayants massive edit was a mess of unattributed copypasting from other articles (including unidentifiable citations only stating author surname and pagenumbers), undue weight and WP:SYNTH. I am not sure which "3 suggestions" that JJ has accepted, because I made several (as can be seen from the talk page) and I have yet to read a response from JJ adressing or even acknowledging any of the issues I raised. The standard reply from them seems to be "it is a legitimate edit" and nothing further beyond that. It is btw funny that you mention the Volney-issue. I vaguely recall discussing that particular author in a similar edit in connection to another article some time ago, I forget which article it was, but I assume it was the article from which JJ copypasted that particular segment. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism and other religions discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Once again Saddhiyama, the article is simply not "copy pasted", because it's original, not a duplicate article. You figured out 1 book source of Mary Boyce, and i had given the title of his book at talk page, but still you didn't agreed about the edits. But now it seems like you didn't read it, or you are in denial. The 3 suggestions of you, were related with income, a quote of Zaehner, it already clears that there's no more WP:SYNTH in the page, and the last one, the quote of Kushwant Singh. None of the theories of "Volney" are refuted, or he's disrespected that his arguement can't be counted, his references has been used in over 110 articles of wikipedia, which speaks enough, but if you still have issue, you can bring the sources that would prove the his theories wrong in the sense that he never wrote them, that may work instead, not any unknown claims "i forgot which article" that you just made. Justicejayant (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit most certainly does contain numerous parts copypasted from other Wikipedia articles, you have yourself admitted as much (though most likely much less than the actual truth). That you provide the titles of the sources mentioned in the copypasted cites does not remedy the situation of the copypasting itself in anyway. I think you should once more read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which I provided on the talk page.

And no, Volneys theories are certainly not representative of contemporary scholarship on comparative religious studies, and it really doesn't matter whether he is used in "110 articles in Wikipedia" (though I would very much like to see that list) as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. But again, we have been over this some time ago on some other article, which you could perhaps be so kind as to point out, with regards to investigating the extent of the copypasting going on. I can't check the amount of synth still present, since I have problems identifying many of the citations. You linked a book by one Shalomim Y. Halahawi, which is a self-published book and thus not a reliable source (and the claims made in that book so outlandish that it is obviously WP:FRINGE).

You have yet to provide identification of the "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110", instead you provided yet another copypasted citation (""Dundas, Paul: The Jains, second edition, London 2002, p. 160; Wiley, Kristi L.: Ahimsa and Compassion in Jainism, in: Studies in Jaina History and Culture, ed. Peter Flügel, London 2006, p. 438; Laidlaw pp. 153–154.") from God knows which article containing a repetition of one of the unidentified sources ("Laidlaw"). I am really amazed at the lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and the aforementioned copyright policies going on here considering that you should by know have had plenty of time and opportunity to familiarise yourself with them, not least when they were pointed out to you during your many disputes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are repeating same nonsense now, and wasting time. Because you have already failed to proved that the article is copy pasted or not. So it's not even a point, go on calling any article "copy paste" and never show the real article, what type of gibberish that is?

Simply you just said that you don't like Volney, so he should not be added, but point is, that's a childish argument. You can use the search bar of the wikipedia anytime to know, that how many refs mention Volney and his literature. And in fact there are number of reliable sources, that certainly says the same thing as he did. So what's your point now? As about the self published book, instead of criticizing source, you can better try to figure out that how common the info is, as the same information can be backed by multiple sources[20], [21],[22] and especially [23], [24]. And these are reliable source, not self - published either.

WP:FRINGE can't be applied either, because WP:FRINGE would be when some claim has been made which is just opposite or 100% different compared to the official statement(for eg. 9/11 inside job). Here, nothing is official or prove any of the statement of these known writers, such as Osho, Steven Rosen, and others to be incorrect, as they only wrote the similarities.(similar to china and japan are asian countries)

As for the source, how it's a "copy pasted citation"? And how it's violating the policies? You can definitely find alternative sources, and the same information that the book of Laidlaw, Jindal, Tahtinen is backed by numerous sources[25], [26]. Your attempt clearly shows, that if you read some fact like "Washington D.C. is capital of USA", you would simply blank the whole summary, just because you don't like the source, instead, you can add the better source, or just use common sense. Justicejayant (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Remington Model_870#Washington_Navy_Yard_Massacre

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 216.81.94.68 on 19:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Remington Model 870#Washington Navy Yard Massacre (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ROG5728 (talk · contribs) Thomas.W (talk · contribs) Dainomite (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I tried to add the Navy Yard attack to the "See Also" section of the Remington Model 870. This was the primary weapon used. Another editor tried to enter a lot of information but I felt only adding it to the “See Also” was most appropriate as that is how it was done for the JFK weapon and other articles. I feel this is the most neutral way to do this vs not having anything again another that wanted a entire part in the 870 header. This not only keeps it small but the same style done in other articles at Wikipedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted on the talk page and showed this was done at other articles. How do you think we can help? Offer a outside look. Summary of dispute by ROG5728 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a frivolous DR by an IP editor who did not even make an attempt to discuss his changes on the talk page. He has already violated 3RR (4 reverts in 24 hours) and succeeded in getting the article locked. The content he's attempting to add to the article is not relevant or noteworthy to the subject. ROG5728 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Thomas.W Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There has been no discussion on the talk page of the article, only a lot of accusations about uncivility being made by the IP-editor. Including the IP-editor (who uses multiple IPs all leading to the same government agency, including but possibly not limited to 216.81.94.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.81.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.81.81.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see the ANI-link for the connection between them) filing an ANI-report against me, falsely accusing me of uncivility. So this is just part of the IP-editor's forum shopping, trying to portray himself as some kind of abuse victim. Summary of dispute by Dainomite Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Outside opinion of Mark Miller I think there is a possible COI issue with the filing editor. They have also opened an AN/I complaint I believe. Two venues opened almost simultaneously could be seen as forum shopping. The discussion on the talk page is almost all from the IP editor complaining about another editor and not the actual issue at hand. No extensive discussion. Recommend declining this request.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Talk:Remington Model_870#Washington_Navy_Yard_Massacre discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.