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
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	29 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	11 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 10 hours	Wolfdog (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	9 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 9 hours	Beshogur (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	4 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 10 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	4 days, 2 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 7 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 7 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	2 days,	None	n/a	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days,
Ryan T._Anderson	New	Marspe1 (t)	1 days, 17 hours	None	n/a	Marspe1 (t)	1 days, 17 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, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Right Sector

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darouet on 21:19, 23 April 2014 (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 Right Sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darouet (talk · contribs) Dervorguilla (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Right Sector is an ultranationalist and paramilitary political group that formed as a union of smaller far-right groups in Ukraine at the end of 2013. Its ideology, members or constituent groups have been described by some media and scholars as neo-fascist, an appellation not used by others, and contested by a few. The group traces its origins to the far-right Ukrainian nationalists who view themselves as inheritors of the controversial figure Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as opposed to other, more moderate Ukrainian nationalist parties. I've presented newspaper articles (from Die Welt, The New York Times, The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, Haaretz, Time (magazine)) and scholarly opinions explaining their far-right politics, but Dervorguilla maintains that the sources I present are either mischaracterized, not reliable, not notable, or otherwise a violation of WP:DUE. I contest his characterization of each source and believe that the article is beginning to look like a self-description by Right Sector. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed this extensively on Talk:Right Sector, on our own talk pages, and have tried an RfC, which gave mixed results but towards the end favored exclusion of the material. We've also talked about a dispute resolution. How do you think we can help? I think having a neutral, experienced editor to work with us to establish: 1) what the sources actually say, 2) how notable or reliable they are, and lastly 3) what their weight should be would be greatly appreciated. I think this is possible because we've both been cordial. Summary of dispute by Dervorguilla 1. Let’s begin with the topmost material added by Darouet: “Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.” The cited unsigned background analysis has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database. The newspaper does however quote a “well-known Ukrainian researcher” as calling the subject an organization of little “right-wing” groups and gangs. It calls the subject itself a “right-wing” group, a “nationalist” group, and an “ultranationalist” group. See Talk:Right Sector for a lengthier discussion. 2. Darouet started an RfC asking “Do major papers describe Right Sector as neo-Fascist?”. Collect responded “Some do and others don't. So what the Wikipedia best practice is - is to use that term or terms which cover the broad consensus of sources which would appear to be "Right Wing Nationalist".” A few days later Darouet added, in about 3½ hours, all this material: Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.… Journalist Alec Luhn for The Nation wrote that "ultranationalists and neo-Nazis" from Right Sector and other groups took control…. Ishchenko wrote that "previously marginal neofascists from the militant Pravy Sektor" entered into negotiations…. Le Monde Diplomatique's Emmanuel Dreyfus writes that the presence of "neo-fascist groups such as Pravy Sector" in Maidan point to a crisis…. Haaretz has written that members of Right Sector used neo-Nazi symbols…. According to TIME magazine, Right Sector's ideology borders on fascism…. Columnist Conn Hallinan has written that the United States press has "downplayed the role" of Right Sector and other far-right groups, which some media and scholars label as "fascist."… Political Scientist Cas Mudde writes that Right Sector's constituent groups include "various neo-fascists and neo-Nazis" who formed alliances…. Political science professor Alexander Motyl by contrast writes that Right Sector is … not fascist.… Political Scientist Anton Shekhovstov writes that while "Right Sector has indeed a neo-Nazi fringe … the main group behind the Right Sector … is far from neo-Nazism…." Lvivske or I had already presented our concerns about these items at Talk. 3. I believe Lvivske (talk) should be included in this discussion. Meanwhile some of the material added by Darouet can be removed without harm to the article. ___ [Supp. A] Addressing Darouet’s comments that he’s ‘presented sources explaining the subject’s far-right politics’ and that I’ve ‘maintained they’re violations of WP:DUE’ — I’ve been supporting his point that the subject has far-right politics. And I’ve never maintained (or implied) that the sources are violations of WP:DUE. Rather, I’ve maintained that particular sources are violations of PUBLICFIGURE, NEWSBLOG, RSOPINION, or REDFLAG. 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Right Sector discussion I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I'd be happy to assist in discussing this issue, but will wait until Dervorguilla responds before adding further comments. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC) I've contacted User:Lvivske regarding this discussion. To start out with, I have one quick question for both editors: Under what circumstances would you be comfortable with references to fascism existing in this article? Any answer is fine; I just want to clarify what you're each looking to see in the article. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks Theodore!; I don't see any problem with User:Lvivske participating. I think that we should include references to fascism as direct quotes or as paraphrasing from sources in the "history" section, where Right Sector's constituent groups are discussed, and in "ideology". I think that Right Sector's description as a neo-fascist organization (or the description of its ideology) should also be noted in the lead, with a qualification that some researchers, e.g. Shekhovstov, think that while some contributing groups as neo-fascist, the group as a whole is not. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your response! I'll ask a couple other questions and offer some ideas once Dervorguilla and Lvivske reply. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Hi everyone! Is there still a need for further discussion on this subject? If so, I am wondering whether we can agree to discuss the "fascism" allegations in the article, while indicating that these are allegations? E.g., we could say that (Insert source) has correlated the ideology of Right Sector to that of fascist groups, but this claim has been denied by (Insert other source). Or, alternatively, we could just say "(Right Sector has frequently been identified as neo-fascist/ultranationalist/etcetera", followed by as many sources as possible. What do you think? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Darouet and I appear to be making progress on our own now, Theodore! Thanks for your help. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC) There are still problems, but I need another day or two before I can get back to this, sorry! -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Ok. Let's revisit this in 72 hours; if you've made sufficient progress by then, I'll close the discussion. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Dervorguilla, it would be helpful if you would explain these recent changes to the article here. -Darouet (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Is there something in particular that′s wrong? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Following your changes, the article went from having an ordered structure describing its formation, activities in Maidan, and then ideology, to now having a long incoherent ideology section with every statement from every source listed independently, without any flow of ideas, logic or history. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've made some changes, trying to consolidate similar views, or describe related discussions, including for instance disagreement among academics/researchers, within the same paragraphs. Let me know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I can restore and reorganize the content in the "Ideology: Descriptions in the press" section so it’s shorter and more coherent. And we can get some other editors to contribute too. We might as well limit the citations in the lead to what Wikipedia regards as the few truly mainstream news media (MSM). “Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels…. Media organizations such as CBS and the New York Times set the tone for other smaller news organizations … lacking the resources to do more individual research and coverage, [the] primary method being through the Associated Press….” --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not really sure how we should proceed on this Dervorguilla, Theodore!. Should we try to establish a framework within which we can accept sources that are mainstream, reliable enough for the lead? -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) That's a good idea. I think the "mainstream media" idea isn't bad, but we have to look at quality over quantity of viewers/readers. Some news outlets will provide high-quality, WP:RS, WP:V information on events, but might not have the same circulation as CBS or the NYT. We should probably try to balance out information in the lead so that it reflects consistencies between multiple, "mainstream" sources. I'll offer a few more ideas on how to do this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first, if you have some specific suggestions. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I support Darouet's idea as given. Why make it harder to reach agreement on appropriate sources? To my knowledge, neither of us would actually treat CBS as a top-quality source. Nor would either of us suggest that BBC, Time, WSJ, NYTimes, Reuters, AP, AFP, or Der Spiegel aren't top-quality sources as well as top-quantity. Thanks to Darouet's contributions the article as a whole no longer appears to be tilted in favor of the subject group. But several passages appear to be (jarringly) tilted one way or the other. We should attack those vigorously, but let's try do it address those conservatively and piece by piece! --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC) About the BBC interview I removed... I don’t regard anonymous “man on the street” interviews as being particularly encyclopedic, no matter how reliable the publisher. In this case the interviewee may well have been using loaded terminology like “clean” for shock value. The casual reader is more likely to interpret the quote as representing an incriminating admission against interest, wouldn’t you agree? It might be appropriate in a section on Right Sector’s (1) use of attention-seeking rhetoric and garb to garner publicity (and recruit more fight-ready soccer hooligans to its cause) and (2) use of grandstanding self-promotional projects (as in Odessa) to garner more publicity by appearing dramatically out of character. It’s a marvelous quote, though, and I support your having added it to the article, as I presume you were counting on me to edit it if I perceived a problem. If you have time, maybe you could search the scholarly literature for incriminating admissions by the various groups’ leadership or their designated representatives. Such quotations (or paraphrases) would be far more encyclopedic and useful to our readers! In such cases the sources would most likely be low-circulation high-quality *academic* journals or books. Before adding such material to the article, we could let each other *verify* the quality of the publication, the special expertise of the author, and the representativeness of the quoted passage. Moving on, I’m willing to live with the article-body text as it stands now. Should either of us want to make significant additions or deletions (including paragraph reorganization), we could propose them here and then edit together before altering the text. I also propose that we spend more time on noncontentious cleanup. I'm going to start by fixing the BBC cite. (The link doesn’t work.) I see Yobot got to it first! Yobot got it wrong... Fixed it myself. Peace, Dervorguilla (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Idea for lead: Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist". It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev. Its leading group, Trident, had a national conservative ideology. Other founding groups included the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; the latter two groups had ultranationalist or Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideologies. The Associated Press and other international news organizations found no evidence of anti-Semitism or hate crimes by the confederation since its establishment in November 2013. Right Sector has not attempted to compile accurate membership data. Its leader, Dmytro Yarosh, once estimated that it had at least 10,000 members. Sounds encyclopedic to me! What do you think, Darouet? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Struckthrough after reply by Theodore!. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I'm fine with this; it's very well-written and provides a fair categorization of Right Sector's politics. I'm interested to see Darouet's response, but this sounds good so far. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Shekhovtsov is a (1) pre-eminent scholar, (2) a student, and (3) a self-professed conspiracy theorist. The (very interesting) material cited to him is going to have to be expeditiously removed from this contentious BLPGROUP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks both for your help. Dervorguilla, I would support text similar to the one you mentioned. While both Right Sector itself, and also its constituent groups, have been described as "fascist," I don't think that both of these things need to be mentioned in the lead because belaboring such a point will leave the lead unbalanced. Therefore I'd support this option: "Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultra-nationalist." It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev. Right Sector views itself within the tradition of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and their controversial leader, Stepan Bandera. The ideology of Its leading constituent group, Trident, has been described as national conservative. Other founding groups included the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; some of these are described as having ultranationalist or neo-fascist beliefs. etc." I wouldn't support the AP statement in the lead unless we're sure that the statement is actually representative of coverage by major papers. For instance, Haaretz has described the organization as likely handing out anti-semitic literature at events. Lastly, where are we getting this information about Shekhovstov being a "self-professed conspiracy theorist?" I couldn't find any information in the (unreliable) links provided, and the information about Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly was published in an academic book (besides the fact that its tacitly backed up by The New York Times and Die Welt, though they aren't as authoritative sources, despite their quality). -Darouet (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Stephen Velychenko, “The EU as Ukraine’s Lesser Evil,” Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research, March 10, 2014. “During the past months pro-Kremlin opinion concerning events in Ukraine has been espoused by supposedly “liberal” academics … “Some of these de facto politically pro-Kremlin leftists must be considered dishonest because they do not openly declare they are funded by the Kremlin. Anton Shekhovtsov is currently studying these groups ( … anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ca). “This information product is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development.” You have explained how I’m seeking to curry favor with “liberal readers,” Darouet. I accordingly believe that there will be no need for us to make any further unsolicited remarks to or about each other on Article History, Talk, User Talk, Talk History, or elsewhere, in perpetuity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks to everyone for your participation during the last few days. I think that both Darouet's and Dervorguilla's proposed leads are excellent; if we decide to go with Darouet's phrasing, I would imagine that the final comment about neo-fascism will need to be extensively sourced. Additionally, let's be careful about flinging around accusations about political ideologies; these are contentious topics, to be sure, but we can work around ideological differences when resolving this dispute. At this point, I would be cautious about Anton Shekhovtsov, but I am not sure it's a good idea to expunge his material from the article. If his commentary has been prominent in recent months, it may well meet the definition of a reliable source. At any rate, any article content based on his writings could be explicitly attributed to him. What do you think? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Full disclosure of interests Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family has a significant financial interest in any product, service, or entity discussed in her edits or in any competing product, service, or entity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Hi All, sorry for my slowness here. I do have a series of academic articles or book chapters, by Shekhovstov and others, that treat Ukrainian far-right nationalism. I'll see if others mention these groups. -Darouet (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2014 (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.

Here are a number of references. Sorry for the walls of text: I just wanted to give the full quotes.

• EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 2011, 203–228, The Creeping Resurgence of the Ukrainian Radical Right? The Case of the Freedom Party. ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV. "During the second half of the 1990s, the SNPU recruited Nazi skinheads and football hooligans. At the same time, the party decided to reorganise its ‘popular guard units’ to form the Tovarystvo spryyannya zbroinym sylam ta viiskovo-mors’komu flotu Ukrayiny ‘Patriot Ukrayiny’ (Society of Assistance to Armed Forces and Navy of Ukraine ‘Patriot of Ukraine’), headed by Andrii Parubii. However, although the ‘Patriot of Ukraine’ was formed in 1996, it was not until 1999 that it became a full-fledged organisation. Its first convention took place in Lviv in December 1999 and was celebrated by a night-time torch procession through the city streets… [In 2004, the SNPU] the convention disbanded the Patriot of Ukraine, as this paramilitary organisation as such and its overtly racist stances in particular posed a threat to the new ‘respectable’ image of the Freedom Party… The Kharkiv local organisation of the Patriot of Ukraine refused to disband and renewed its membership in 2005. The following year, it managed to register as a regional social organisation, but, from then on, it had no organisational ties with the maternal party."

• From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda. Right-Wing Populism in Europe, chapter 17. Anton Shekhovtsov. "In November 1994, the SNPU launched its weekly newspaper, Social-Nationalist, edited by Nestor Pronyuk, who was also the author of the party symbol - a modified Wolfsangel (wolf's hook), a symbol of many post-war European neo-Nazi organizations. In 1993, the SNPU formed paramilitary'popular guard units' consisting of two subunits that comprised workers and students; these 'popular guard units' became the basis of the Society of Assistance to the Armed Forces and Navy of Ukraine, 'Patriot of Ukraine', formed in 1996 and headed by Parubiy. On 16 October 1995, the party was officially registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine… On 14 February 2004, the SNPU held its ninth convention, which became crucial to the party's political future. Tyahnybok became head of the party, now called Svoboda, and consolidated power into his hands. The convention also disbanded the 'Patriot of Ukraine', as this paramilitary organization posed a threat to the new 'respectable' image of Svoboda, although the 'Patriot of Ukraine' was revived as an independent group and continued to cooperate closely with Svoboda until 2007… Svoboda also seems to benefit from the increasing popularity of extreme-right youth movements and organizations like the Social-National Assembly (SNA), 'Patriot of Ukraine' and Autonomous Resistance, whose aim is to create 'a uniracial and uninational society'. The activities of these groups are not limited to physical or symbolic violence against ethnic and social minorities, as they also take an active part in numerous social campaigns - generally along with representatives of Svoboda - ranging from mass protests against price rises to leafleting against alcohol and drug use. Needless to say, members of these extreme-right movements are often members of Tyahnybok's party. Interestingly, 'street combat youth movements' like the SNA no longer focus on ethnic issues: in contrast to the older Ukrainian far right, the new groups are, first and foremost, racist movements."

• Russian Politics and Law, vol. 51, no. 5, September–October 2013, pp. 59–74. ISSN 1061–1940 (print)/ISSN 1558–0962 (online) DOI: 10.2753/RUP1061-1940510503, Viacheslav Likhachev, Right-Wing Extremism on the Rise in Ukraine. "The main extrasystemic ultraright group in Ukraine in recent years has been Patriot of Ukraine (led by Andrii Bilets’kyi). The core of the organization was formed in Kharkiv in 2004, when a group of activists belonging to the SNPU’s paramilitary youth wing of the same name refused to accept the leaders’ decision to disband the militarized organization while “rebranding” their party. By 2006, Patriot of Ukraine had become a public movement with branches in many regions of the country. Activists appeared in camouflage uniform with neo-Nazi symbols. Many public actions were organized—targeting migrants, political opponents, and others. Violence (including the use of firearms) was repeatedly used against political opponents and members of ethnic and sexual minorities. In 2011, during the investigation of several criminal cases (one charge concerned the preparation of a terrorist act), almost the entire leadership of the organization in Kyiv and Kharkiv ended up behind bars; this paralyzed the movement and caused it to split. Other notable ultraright groups in Ukraine include the Trident named in honor of Stepan Bandera (based on the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists), the Brotherhood, and the informally structured groups of the Autonomous Resistance (which grew in part out of the Ukrainian National-Labor Party). Salient among pro-Russian ultra right groups are the aggressive Odessa group Unity (Edinstvo) and the For Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia movement, which employs anti-Semitic rhetoric. Members of almost all the organizations listed are known to have engaged in ideologically motivated violence."

• Diversity and Tolerance in Ukraine in the Context of EURO 2012, MRIDULA GHOSH, May 2011, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. "An analysis in 2008 stated that, police investigation reports of the growing number of hate crimes after the year 2005 against foreigners and visible minorities showed that in the majority of cases the perpetrators were radical youth groups. The analysis covered such groups as Patriot of Ukraine, Ukrainian Peoples Labor Party, Ukrainian Alternative, National Action "RID", Sich, Character Kozatstvo, Svyato-Andriyivsky, Kozachiy Kurin and others. Police patrol in Kyiv alone revealed 86 spots and 55 meeting places of far right groups… Notably, in 2008, during a congress of nationalist parties and movements, the following organizations – UNA-UNSO, All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda, Tryzub, Ukrainian Party, Banderivets, National Alliance, OUN (m), OUN (r), Youth National Congress, and Patriot - for the defense of homeland – agreed to cooperate. But the Ukrainian National Labor Party and Patriot of Ukraine were not invited. After several rifts, one part of UNA-UNSO clearly spoke out about their stand against racism and xenophobia in their documents, while the other group remained more radical, closer to Patriot of Ukraine and UNTP. They demand total ban on migration, are against refugees and asylum seekers and the concept of tolerance. Groups such as Skinheads, followers of Hetman Pavel Skoropadskiy, Fans of the Third Hetmanate, Movement against Illegal Migration and Delegation of the Right from the Regions are those who support similar ideas."

• Fighting Fences vs Fighting Monuments: Politics of Memory and Protest Mobilization in Ukraine. Volodymyr Ishchenko, Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. "By “far right,” I mean the “Svoboda” (“Freedom”) party (ideologically oriented toward European far right parties like the Freedom Party of Austria, the National Front of France, or the Hungarian Jobbik party combining conservative values and a neo-racist anti migration position together with social populism) and rightist non-partisan groups including overtly racist “autonomous nationalists” (http://reactor.org.ua) and the neo-Nazi “Patriot of Ukraine” (http://www.patriotukr.org.ua/). For the far right sector politics of memory actions comprised 29.2% of all protest actions with their participation, this was larger than the shares of social-economic, political struggle, and civic rights protest issues (Table 7)… After the notorious death of Maksym Chaika in a fight with antifascists in Odessa in April 2009, Yushchenko unambiguously supported the far right interpretation of the accident claiming the victim to be “an activist of a patriotic civic association” consciously murdered by “pro-Russia militants” ignoring Chaika’s connections with rightist football hooligans and his membership in the “SICH” (“Glory and Honor”) organization, a participant in the Social-Nationalist Assembly (http://sna.in.ua/) together with the neo-Nazi group “'Patriots of Ukraine.'"

• The Extreme Right in Ukraine’s Political Mainstream: What Lies Ahead? Mridula Ghosh, in book Right Wing Extremism in Europe, eds Ralf Melzer, Sebastian Serafi, published by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2013. "In its own internal flows of communication and control, Svoboda has always been a top-down organization that does not permit dialogue or encourage critical thinking and dissent. Yet it has made good use of “open” forms of grassroots exchanges, communicating with the public and attracting new recruits via social networks like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and VKontakte. In this context, special mention should be made of the relations that Svoboda has maintained with what may be called the “informal” far-right, a category that includes the neo-Nazi underground, radical football fans, and hooligans. Members of these groups constitute hidden reservoirs of support for Svoboda and its ideology, Among them are those who openly propagate intolerance (e.g., by supporting total bans on immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers), including one part of UNA-UNSO; the Ukrainian National Labor Party and Patriots of Ukraine; skinheads; followers of Hetman Pavel Skoropadskiy; Fans of the Third Hetmanate; and the Delegation of the Right from the regions. There are also those who do not champion racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, but nevertheless harbor other radical ideas, such as the moderate wing of UNA-UNSO; Tryzub; the Ukrainian Party; Banderivets the National Alliance; both moderate and radical groups in OUN; the Youth National Congress; and Patriot: For the Defense of the Homeland."

We also have newspaper articles written by a number of the above academics, and those could be helpful. I haven't checked for references to all of the other constituents of Right Sector. -Darouet (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Erpert on 06:14, 27 April 2014 (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 Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Erpert (talk · contribs) Richhoncho (talk · contribs) Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One user thinks in articles about songs, the article in question should be listed in both the SONGS and SINGLES categories. Two other users disagree with this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was going to start a thread on Richhoncho's talk page about, but upon realizing Lil-unique1 already did that, I just added to that discussion. How do you think we can help? I think we can try to find a consensus on whether both categories need to be listed after all in all cases (personally, I only list both categories when the song was recorded and then released in different years). In addition, Richhoncho's definition of "single" appears to be original research (it isn't defined as such in the Single (music) article). Summary of dispute by Richhoncho Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are only three key points here:- Epert objects to me applying the guideline WP:SONG#Categories and has been removing categories contra to that guideline and therefore against community wishes. There has been a long conversation on my talkpage where I have pointed out to Erpert if he wants to change the guideline, then he should take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. and not on my talkpage as I can only give my opinion - obviously I do not own the guideline (even though I thoroughly approve of it). Therefore dispute resolution was not the place to come but to WP:SONGS as already suggested and ignored by Erpert.--Richhoncho (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lil-unique1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Richhoncho undid my edits when I removed the song category from articles that were about singles. Personally, I feel like there isn't a definitive guideline and there's some half-baked discussions about the whole thing. I think I under Rich's point of view but it based on his own original research about the definition of a single is. Something which editors of music articles cannot agree on themselves. Its an issue that goes beyond the problem of categories to be honest. I respect Rich's edits but I think he's wrong to assume that he has a consensus for his point of view and I think its a bigger problem than this small dispute. IMO the infobox single and infobox song merged with different types e.g. "single", "promotional song" and "song". I really think its pointless classifying something as both a single and song when it cannot be a single without being song. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll add that I said to Rich that I didn't want to push the issue because I felt like he didn't understand my POV and it was discussion that was way beyond either of us, that needed more editors to get involved and some kind of technical opinion tbh. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. SN: Rich keeps mentioning WP:SONG when I think he really means to mention WP:NSONG (WP:SONG is a WikiProject). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) No I emphatically mean WP:SONG. However, if you read WP:NSONG it starts "Songs and singles are..." which is the crux of my argument - they are not the same thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) As suggested above in the template. I have re-opened a new discussion on my talkpage regarding this matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) We don't need the same discussion going on in several different forums. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Also, it would probably be best if you didn't continue adding the categories in question while the dispute discussion is still active. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Which part of "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." don't you understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC) ive said everything ive wanted to say and my two pennies at Rich's talk page. I dont have anything else to say and I dont want to be part of this DRN anymore. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Hello! I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. My apologies that it's taken so long to open this case. Lil-unique1 has indicated a desire to stop discussing this matter here. Given this, what are the other parties' stances on continuing discussion? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Theodore!, your help is most welcome. At this moment I do not think I can add anything over and above my short summary above, there are two long conversations on my talkpage which go into depth and should bring into focus what the dispute is and why. There is a shorter discussion on Erpert's page which I find illuminating. The next step must be for Erpert to respond here. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. In this case, I will close this discussion thread. If you and the other parties fail to reach a resolution at Erpert's talk page, you are welcome to return at a future date. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Theodore!, there was/is no ongoing discussion with Erpect except, possibly, here. Because I want closure on this, I have left a polite note on Erpect's talkpage asking him to comment here as he opened the DRN and I really don't want to continue avoiding categorizing articles because he is claiming ownership, as I am having to do at present. So I would ask you to give Erpect a reasonable time to respond just to close the matter out and not have to bring it back here because somebody "forgot" to comment. Again, thanks for your help. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Claiming ownership"? Sorry, I don't do that. Anyway, no one disputed that songs and singles are different, but the way you distinguish between the two seems to be just that: how you distinguish them, not necessary decided by any consensus (you keep stating there's a consensus but you never actually point to one; a diff would help...BTW, why do you spell my name differently every time?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Apologies for getting your name wrong. Purely accidental and no other reason. I have repeatedly pointed to the consensus, but you refuse to accept it. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC) To clarify, are you still interested in continuing this discussion? Although it's up to you, I think participating in this process could help to resolve your dispute. If you would like to continue discussion, I will add a few more questions/comments in a little bit. If not, please let me know and I will close the thread; again, I think there is a good chance that we can work things out in this forum. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Be good to close this discussion once and for all, but I guess it's Erpert's choice. My view remains the same, as the dispute is over a guideline, the discussion should have been opened there and discussed among those with a vested interest and understanding of the guideline and I did suggest this course of action to Erpert several times. If the guideline had been changed in accordance with Erpert's ideas, then I would followed the amended guideline. The only thing I can add is that about half of all new articles now come with the same categorization that Erpert objects to, and that is by many different editors. So guideline and practice are converging as much as they are likely to at Wikipedia. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2014 (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.

Traditional Chinese medicine

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

Filed by Mallexikon on 04:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mallexikon (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Herbxue (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Jim1138 (talk · contribs)
• Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs)
• 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Middle 8 (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is strong sentiment among several editors to include the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience" into the lede of the TCM article. The source used for this statement is an editorial in Nature ([1]) saying: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."
I'm against adding "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede. "Pseudoscience" is not a verifiable attribute or fact, it's a derogatory judgement (it basically means "bad"). TCM theory is obviously superstitious bullshit, but "pseudoscience" includes the allegation that TCM is not effective - which we don't know with certainty yet, since research is ongoing. I tried to work towards including "TCM has been labeled both a protoscience and a pseudoscience" to the lede, but ran into steep opposition from the anti-quack crowd.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've argued my view in several talk page threads: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: Pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Pseudoscience, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Protoscience. There also was a previous thread before I stepped in: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article

How do you think we can help?

Give neutral input towards a compromise

Summary of dispute by QuackGuru

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

With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[8] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[8] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]

The text in the WP:LEDE is a summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:ASSERT. Stating "TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is WP:OR and does not properly summarise the body. The source for protoscience was written by the trade. WP:FRINGE demands we should use independent sources for controversial topics. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Herbxue

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

The term pseudoscience is a derogatory term that relies on the premise that the subject holds itself out as a science. TCM does not - it is called "Traditional Chinese Medicine" - clearly stating that it comes from a specific tradition outside of contemporary bioscience. Protoscience is more accurate, but both are outside judgements, not clear descriptions.

Beyond that, I do not believe the case has been made that the scientific and medical communities are in unison in labeling TCM pseudoscience - only a few missionaries for science vs. superstition, people that are on a mission to make a point. That does not mean that the general medical consensus has been formed. It is more responsible for us to include this opinion/label, but state who is doing the labeling. Herbxue (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu

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

The material in question is fully justified by the source given, which is impeccable in accordance with out policies and guidelines. Our policies also require that we clearly identify non-conventional and fringe positions, and treat them in context with prevailing scholarly opinion, which in this case is overwhelming negative.

The argument that we cannot use the word "pseudoscience" because it is derogatory is absurd. It clearly applies in this case, and if TCM practitioners are offended, that is not WP's problem.

The OP has been trying to argue from the standpoint of "cultural sensitivity", which has no basis in WP policies or guidelines.

As far as I am concerned, the matter has been resolved. There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jim1138

I agree with Adam and D.V. The matter is resolved. I would argue that the "pseudoscience" label should be in the first sentence, and not the last sentence, of the lede. BTW: there are more discussions in the archives then what is listed above in the "...resolve this previously" section. Jim1138 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy

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

What Adam said. It's not Wikipedia's job to fix the fact that TCM is largely based on refuted concepts. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Middle 8: You're misreading it. There is no substantial body of scientific opinion that supports the concepts identified as pseudoscientific, including humours, meridians, qi and the like. Those concepts are justly characterised as pseudoscientific because there is faux-scientific inquiry into them (e.g. the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies - how can you study meridians given the fact that they do not exist?). What we say, as I see it, is that TCM is based in significant part on pseudoscientific and pre-scientific concepts. That's an accurate statement of the situation, not a philosophical position to be put up against the position that qi exists, with the NPOV lying somewhere between them. TCM is not, itself, pseudoscience, but much current study of it, is, because it starts form a position of assuming the validity of invalid concepts. See the difference? Guy (Help!) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Adam Cuerden

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

Per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE we have to properly contextualize Traditional Chinese Medicine, and that means that the judgement of mainstream academic medicine - a few promising treatments, but mostly pseudoscience - has to appear. This is not a discussion of a historical treatment regime, after all: We are discussing something that is being actively marketed right now, and not just in China. This is not something like the completely-abandoned treatment Theriac, or even like Trepanation, where a historically common treatment with some reasonable uses is largely abandoned outside of a very limited list of valid conditions, or by an extreme fringe, quickly dismissable. In contrast, the name Traditional Chinese Medicine is itself a marketing term, and the construct defined as TCM is a combination of many historical, modified historical, and questionably historical medical practices from China. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 76.107.171.90

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

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

We have a good source which refers to the "obvious" fact that TCM is largely pseudoscience; so should Wikipedia. Seems fine in the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Middle 8

(tl;dr) This couldn't be simpler: just say "some, such as X, consider TCM to be pseudoscience" and move on. The Nature editorial is one of many sources, and not the best. See WP:ASSERT and WP:FRINGE/PS and (e.g.) the Shermer source below.

(a bit more) Weigh the better sources. Look to experts on the demarcation problem, i.e., what is and is not science. Acupuncture, the best-known modality of TCM in the West, is addressed by Michael Shermer, in a chapter from Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and M. Boudry (2013). Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. Shermer and Pigliucci are well-respected scientific skeptics.

The demarcation problem is extensively debated among experts, and subject to varying criteria and conclusions. Exercises like the one below (about the nature of TCM and so on) are fun and interesting, but we should follow sources in light of WP:FRINGE/PS (which is based on NPOV). That tells us that as long as we have a significant view that a topic is other than outright pseudoscience, it falls under "questionable science", which should "not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific". All that's needed, for statements about TCM being pseudoscience, is to present them as sourced opinion rather than fact. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by bobrayner

Adam Cuerden makes good points. However, I'm a little concerned about labels like "the anti-quack crowd". Certainly there are several editors approaching this problem from a similar perspective, but let's try not to lump people together - I think that's part of the problem rather than part of the solution, as wikipedia's most intractable disputes are based on tribal editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine discussion

Please try to answer the questions below, if we are to try for consensus, its good to know what we are not arguing about. Your DRN volunteer. --Bejnar (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This was actively being discussed on talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience Jim1138 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am a DRN volunteer. You have asked for help resolving whether or rather to what extent "pseudoscience" should be mentioned in the lead (lede). From reading the article, and a good sampling of the discussion, the problem seems to lie more in the article than in the lead. The lead is to summarize the article, but the there is no real organized discussion of the extent of successfully proved, still contested, and proved unfounded treatments. Where mentioned, usually under efficacy, the article is a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. It is possible that energy spent on improving the article in this regard would help resolve the lead question. There also seems to be occasional confusion between treatments and physiological concepts. Lets see if there are some areas of agreement. For that purpose please answer separately under each question. Keeping discussion brief and to the point (focused on content only). Disclosure: On 14 April 2014, I commented on an Afd at Chinese Herbal Extract Granules. I believe that my statements there are neutral with respect to this DRN, but if you believe otherwise, or have another basis to question my neutrality, please use the subsection below to request my recusal. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the continuing changes in the lead (lede) with regard to the placement and emphasis of "pseudoscience", this dispute still seems to be active. I note that while quotations are rarely appropriate in the lead, that the current version contains one dealing with pseudoscience. --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The "dispute" is "active" in as much as the filing party will not accept any answer other than removal of the phrase he dislikes, however many experienced editors, admins and what have you, point out that it's verifiable, accurate, well sourced and true. To put it bluntly: the "dispute" can best be resolved by telling the one editor who insists on removing the text against overwhelming consensus, to shut up. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. There are multiple editors that believe the phrase is not appropriate, and we are not trying to whitewash the article of the very prevalent opinion that TCM is pseudoscience. There are legitimate concerns with the neutrality of making a POV conclusion in the lede of an article based on one editorial and the fact that some of you think that it is "obviously" pseudoscience.Herbxue (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Trying to delete well sourced text from the lede at TCM did not work. So what is the next step. Rewriting the text at the various articles to bring doubt to the term pseudoscience. When the idea is to undermine what the reliable source says by whitewashing term pseudoscience when you or another editor can't delete it from the lede, that is not a content dispute. That is a battle ground mentality. The same thing happened to the lede at TCM. There is no point to having quotes in the lede or adding "has been described as". The text largely pseudoscience was correct before. This has been escalated to ANI. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that QG wants to use a source speculating that TCM probably is just pseudoscience to include an assertion that TCM is pseudoscience. This would be violating WP:ASSERT. On top of that, WP:FRINGE explicitly says that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources". However, QG got quite some support for his edit, since there is a number of anti-TCM editors working on this article who are extremely eager to include the term "pseudoscience" as often as possible to the article's lede, even if they have to base their assertion on an inadequate source. And I don't even want to say that they are totally wrong - TCM has elements of pseudoscience. But bending the rules to make a POV point is unworthy of WP. And we want to be a great encyclopaedia, not Quackwatch.

We've been hammering out consensus about this "pseudoscience" edit at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience. Please take a look. My rationale seems to have been accepted by other editors, and we followed the compromise (suggested by Richard Keatinge) to continue using the source but change the text to "It has been described as 'fraught with pseudoscience'".

I see it with much concern that anti-TCM editors like Dominus Vobisdu ("There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again") and Jim1138 ("The matter is resolved") don't seem to understand the basic concept of WP:DRN, and don't seem to even try to understand the point of view of others (in this case, that'd be Richard Keatinge, Herbxue, Jayaguru-Shishya and me). And I find it very interesting that QG is on the one hand backing up JzG here, who's idea of compromise is that everybody who is not following QG's controversial edit should "shut up", while QG on the other hand accuses everybody who is not following his controversial edit of "battle ground mentality"... Seriously, who is the one displaying battle ground mentality here? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nature source is not speculating that TCM probably is just pseudoscience. The source says it is "largely pseudoscience" but you personally don't agree that TCM is largely pseudoscience. There is no reason to violate assert because you disagree with the source. You haven't shown there is a serious disagreement among reliable sources. The disagreement must be among reliable sources not editors.

When you are continuing to violate WP:ASSERT by adding weasel words not found in the source that is more evidence this is not a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nature source is an editorial and shouldn't be depicted as fact or general consensus; see WP:RS/AC. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out the obvious, there is no love lost between me and QuackGuru. Apparently anybody who supports inclusion of what is, after all, a widely discussed problem with TCM, is somehow acting in concert. I don't buy that. TCM is based on refuted theories of anatomy, and that much investigation of it embodies the assumption that this refutation does not exist - including a "journal of acupuncture and meridian studies" which includes "scientific" discussions of qi and meridians, despite the fact that there is zero empirical evidence for the existence of either. The sources for the claim that it is considered to embody much pseudoscience, are appropriate to the claim, in prominence, reliability and expertise. Reasonable people may differ on the exact wording, but exclusion is not really an option. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording should reflect the standard NPOV approach, and say that "according to X and Y, TCM is pseudoscientific". It's a common stance, but there isn't (yet, anyway) general consensus to that effect. If there were, prominent skeptics like Shermer wouldn't be hedging: that should be apparent to informed, objective people, I think. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Note -- but it is factual that "TCM theory" (meridians, qi etc.) is pseudoscience (factual enough; if there is no significant minority of RS's disagreeing then that's adequate). And this can be presented as fact. But to say TCM as a whole is pseudoscience (or to say something vague like "fraught with" or "largely") should be attributed. (per my below remarks) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Does Shermer mention TCM specifically? And does he address the question of whether or not it is "largely" (of "full of" or "mainly") pseudoscience? This is an obvious fact, sourced, and not in serious dispute. We should avoid attributing it so as not to give a false impression that it's contested information, as that would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't assume Shermer would agree with all that. Read the source and you'll see he considers acupuncture as a whole, including its testability (aka falsifiability). He doesn't ask whether acu is more "full of" science (testability) or pseudoscience (meridians, qi, etc.); his approach -- which includes multiple, incommensurable criteria -- precludes such a question.

Shermer is obviously a significant view, at least as weight-y as the Nature editorial, which means we should use attribution. Since he doesn't include acu under pseudoscience, we can't assume he'd include TCM, of which acu is a major subset, and herbs another testable subset.

A comment regarding our different approaches to demarcation: Alexbrn, I've noticed that you've tended to focus almost exclusively on meridians and qi and the like, and it's usually someone else who says, "but wait -- testability can be a criterion as well" (e.g., [2]). Since you've tended to disregard the latter, I'm not surprised you say it's so obvious that acu and/or TCM are mainly pseudoscientific, because you're focusing on the parts like meridians and qi that really are. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 16:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The source Middle 8 is discussing has no bearing on this discussion. This is off-topic. The source is not even about TCM.

At the Acupuncture talk page Middle 8 alleged: This edit improved the lede by using language according to the source.

Using in-text attribution is a violation of ASSERT and "has been described" was not found in the source. Adding quotes to the lede was also rubbish.

There is evidence that Mallexikon is edit-warring. And since Mallexikon continually add material at TCM and Acupuncture without consensus, he's not very persuasive there is a consensus for the change.[3][4][5][6][7] He also violating assert at TCM because there never was a serious dispute. He dumped this source at the acupuncture page against consensus and he personally thinks it is speculating that TCM is probably just pseudoscience. It seems like he is editing according to his personal belief and not according to reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement that "TCM is fraught with pseudoscience" is too vague, and should either be attributed or improved upon.

• Saying "TCM includes pseudoscientific concepts" without attribution should be fine. There's not much debate over meridians and qi being pseudo.
• Saying "TCM is pseudoscience" without attribution is going too far. (Extant sources don't meet WP:BURDEN, and cf. scholars who note the falsifiability criterion vis-à-vis efficacy).

The best thing when writing without attribution is to be specific. Saying something like "TCM is fraught with pseudoscience" is borderline and vague. It's better and easier to say that "TCM theory" (meridians, qi) is considered pseudoscience, and for anything further, just use attribution. I know some editors will claim not to understand this, but I think it's a pretty straightforward application of WP:ASSERT (NPOV). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You claim: Saying "TCM includes pseudoscientific concepts" without attribution should be fine.

That's not what the source says. I prefer the text to be clearer and more accurate according to the source.

The "TCM theory" is a separate issue. You are conflating different issues together. The lede should be clear on both issues: the theory as well as the herbal treatments. The text can be more specific in lede and clearer on the different issues. You know how I edit. I can make it extremely clear in the lede and body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that's not what the source says, but it's a fact, whereas the source's wording ("fraught") is vague and verging on opinion, which is why I suggest it should be attributed. The "TCM theory" is exactly what is undisputedly pseudo about TCM per multiple other sources, and refuted by few if any. So that's fine to assert as fact. Not the other wording. That's my perspective; I understand yours; we disagree, and are unlikely to change each others' minds, so let's focus on compromises. I thought Richard Keatinge's solution on Talk:TCM was perfectly reasonable, as did multiple others. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer is to use the text, "According to [author of Nature article], TCM is largely pseudoscience."

I've read a lot of studies that evaluate TCM in a scientific manner. What they usually find is that the TCM does treat the condition in question, just not as well as modern medicine does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Uniary or not

Do the physiological concepts underlying TCM treatments constitute a consistent whole?

No, merely a conglomeration

No, there are several distinct parts of it, including acupuncture and herbalism. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As a science

Does TCM holds itself out as a science?

For those who believe pseudoscience should be in lead

It presents itself as medicine, and pseudoscience is generally used for medicine as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

In lead but attributed unless claim is specifically related to "TCM theory" (meridians, qi) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TCM currently presents itself in China and in the West as medicine —an applied science— but it does not follow the scientific method. The description and categorization as "pseudoscience" is granted by this fact, and it must not be minimized by reducing it to a person's opinion, but to its obvious lack of scientific methodology. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BatteryIncluded and Adam Cuerden on this point, but apart from whether or not it's pseudoscience, we have to consider emphasis - and something which undermines the very basis of TCM surely deserves a prominent place in the lede. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience through and through. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It presents itself as a field in which there is active scientific inquiry, e.g. the journal "Acupuncture and Meridian Studies". Quote how you're supposed to study something like meridians, for which there is no good evidence to suggest they even exist, is not explained. There are also many papers seeking to explain how acupuncture works, starting from the premise that it does, whereas if you ask does acupuncture work, you tend to find the answer is no, or at least not beyond non-specific (i.e. placebo) effects. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Treatment s as science

Are treatments a science?

Testability of claims to treat is a hallmark of science (See: falsifiability). So in that respect, TCM is not pseudoscience. That said, I don't think it's our job to demarcate TCM; we should look to RS's. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Concepts vs. treatment

Would a distinction between TCM physiological concepts and TCM treatments help?

Efficacy

Does efficacy of a treatment make the alleged basis for a treatment science?

Testability is indicative of science, but something can work and still have pseudoscientific aspects (e.g. traditional acupuncture for pain, when the explanation is qi and meridians). But again -- demarcation isn't our job. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Is the DRN volunteer neutral?

Disclosure

Editor QuackGuru has made comments on my talk page, and I have responded with respect to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and the purposes and procedures of DRN. I do not believe that my responses are less than neutral, but please feel free to read them. --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey

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

Filed by Talteori on 07:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Talteori (talk · contribs)
• Djsasso (talk · contribs)
• Nymf (talk · contribs)
• Permafrost46 (talk · contribs)
• Archon 2488 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There seems to be great difficulty in achieving consensus on what system of measurement should be used for hockey players. Several users want to use United States customary Units (feet, inches, pounds) for all hockey players in all countries in all leagues. Other users (myself included) have proposed other methods such as players use the system in the country they are currently playing in, or players stick with the system in the country they are born in regardless of where they are currently playing since many players jump between leagues. We find it unreasonable to use inches and pounds for a Russian player playing his entire career in Russia which is a completely metric country. The opposing view is that it is easier to use one system of measurement for all players and that it should be united states customary units since most of the readers of Wikipedia are North American. This view however contradicts the wikipedia manual of style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement which says that Wikipedia should use metric for all non US specific cases. The debate started when I was editing the Swedish Olympic athletes which all use metric and other users reverted it back to united states customary units saying that all hockey players should use united states customary units.

The issue has been debated extensively without any real progress: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been extensive debate on the talk page and messages to other users.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

How do you think we can help?

I hope to be able to get outside help in order to set a policy on what system of measurement should be used for which player. Currently those engaged in the debate have firm beliefs and little progress has been made towards reaching consensus. Since this is a policy decision that effects thousands of articles I think it is good to get an official stance with the help of a neutral party.

Summary of dispute by Djsasso

Permafrost46 below sums it up quite nicely. Since both sets of numbers are there anyways, why would we make it harder on not only the editor but the reader (for comparison purposes) to have order changed based on the page. By changing the order based on the nationality (or any other reason) it makes it considerably harder to be maintained, as well as for readers comparing two players at a quick glance. I agree with Permafrost below that the current status quo and the state of affairs for a large number of years is where we should remain. This "dispute" only arrised because Talteori began changing tens if not hundreds of articles to his preferred format. Even when he was unable to gain consensus for his changes as linked to above he continued. The discussions linked all clearly indicated there was no consensus for his changes. The problem with least astonishment as mentioned by Archon is that most (not all) of these players play in a league (NHL) where the majority of people who are going to be reading their pages wouldn`t use metric for height and weight. So for them it would be significantly astonishing to have those numbers instead of imperial. Even then it is moot because we present both sets of numbers. So all this debate really is about is the order of them. Personally I think we should make it easier on the reader and keep the order consistent. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11:, @Echoedmyron:, @Resolute:, @Ravenswing:, @18abruce:, @184.52.8.162:, @67.215.143.118: Pinging others who were involved in this discussion/dispute. There may be others that I missed so feel free to let them know. But it would be incorrect to exclude some of these people. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nymf

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

Summary of dispute by Permafrost46

This is a tricky situation, as both stances can be justified. Like another user wrote on Talteori 's talk page, "having a consistent format across all biographies on NHL players makes it easier for editors to maintain the articles". In the light of this, I see no reason to switch every NHL-related article from US customary to metric (regardless of the nationality of the player) since the metric info is there anyway (because of the convert template which shows both metric and US customary. The only difference is which is displayed first). I'm really just going with the established consensus here, if it is decided to switch everything to metric first I'd support it, but not a mix of metric first and US customary first. For instance, I'd say it's easier to have Henrik Lundqvist and Martin St. Louis stats both in the US customary first format since they both play for the New York Rangers of the NHL. The other parties would prefer Henrik Lundqvist to be metric first since he is an European-born player and Martin St. Louis to be US customary first since he is North American. But again, this would still be arbitrary since St. Louis is Canadian and the metric system is used there as well. To sum up, I think for NHL-related articles it is better to display everything in US customary first (since it is the current norm). The other alternative would be to switch everything metric first, but not a mix of both. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: To add more context, the dispute actually stems from Talteori beginning to change stats of Swedish players to metric first and others editors, me included, reverting said changes. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Archon 2488

In principle, WP:MOSNUM says that an article should broadly prefer metric units unless it is a non-science US-related article, in which case US customary units are used (with metric conversion in parenthesis). This implies that articles on US players should use USC units, but not articles on players from other countries. In case of disputes, the convention is to follow local consensus: an article is (primarily) US-related when talk page consensus says it is – this applies to cases of ambiguity such as players from other countries who play or have played in US sport leagues. The principle of least astonishment would imply that articles on Swedish topics, for example, should use metric units rather than US customary units. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion

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

This discussion has not been opened by a volunteer. Please refrain from discussing the dispute until the filing has been opened

I would like to make a small clarification to Archon 2488's post to note that heights and weights in Canada use typically uses imperial rather than metric, and Great Britain, if I am not mistaken, tends to use imperial for height. So this is a bit wider than US vs. the world. That said, I tend to ride the fence on the issue as I (being Canadian) certainly prefer the current format, but I also recognize that this is a situation where the relevant articles cross multiple projects, each with competing standards. It is also one of those cases where there I believe some guidelines can be applied in either direction. i.e.: I think POLA could justify the status quo given the most interest in NHL players will come from North Americans who expect imperial measurements to be given as the primary. That, however, creates an issue where you'd then expect to swap everything around depending on where an athlete plays, and I find the idea of changing the formats when a player goes from North America to Europe or vice versa to be the more disruptive solution. I would generally be supportive of using the base nationality of the player to determine the primary unit of measurement. Ease of editing the infobox itself could be handled by having someone with better template coding ability than I add a parameter that defines the primary measurement, so that even if I use the "height_ft" and "height_in" parameters, it still sets the metric result as primary in the template. Further, I wonder If the {{convert}} family of templates could be modified to auto choose a primary unit based on a user's custom settings, such that all measurements using these templates render in the format preferable to the local reader. That goes well beyond the scope of this dispute, however. Resolute 16:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The proper format to use, for consistency throughout the ice hockey project, is imperial measurements. Although written to address concerns regarding date format, I would think that the principles of WP:STRONGNAT should also apply for this situation, that being: “Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation.” Substituting “height/weight” for “date” in the previous sentence, the only English-speaking countries which have strong-ties to numerous professional ice hockey players are Canada and the United States, both of which commonly use imperial measurements for such purpose. Editors for articles with strong ties to non-English speaking counties, each of which have their own-language Wikipedias, should not force their country-specific or preferred formatting policy upon the editors and readers of English-Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Why is the proper form united states customary units? IIHF uses metric, most countries that play hockey use metric and the players use metric. Metric across the ice hockey project would be more in line with the fans and wikipedia. Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Latvia and Switzerland disagree with that Hockey is mainly an English speaking sport. Some of the users seem to equate hockey and the NHL but that isn't the way hockey is viewed in many hockey playing nations. There are three countries that use united states customary units for body measures and 200 that use metric. All but two countries that participate in the World championship and the Olympics are metric. The two non metric Hockey nations shouldn't force their system of measurement on the entire hockey playing world. These arguments could be apply to nearly all Wikipedia articles and we still use primarily metric. There aren't very good Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian/Czech articles for a lot of the players so many people from Europe use the english articles.Talteori (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think he was saying that hockey is mainly an English speaking sport. What I think he was saying is that this wiki is an English wiki and that all of the main ice hockey playing English speaking nations use imperial for body metrics so per the principle of least astonishment and per WP:STRONGNAT most readers would expect to see imperial. We should be catering to the most likely reader of articles. And for NHL players especially that is going to be people from the United States and Canada because that is where those players live and play. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Instead of changing the English-Wikipedia articles to your preferred format, perhaps you could help improve the Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian/Czech articles, since you state that they are not very good. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) As DJSasso has stated, this "dispute" only began when Talteori started changing multiple articles, primarily Swedish NHL ice hockey players who represented their country in international play at the Olympics, to his preferred format. Both the U.S. customary units and metric units are present in the infobox for a hockey player; the only "dispute" is which is displayed first. I think that the current format should remain in place, having a consistent format across all NHL players’ articles, regardless of a player's nationality. I agree with Dolovis, that editors for articles with strong ties to non-English speaking counties should not force their country-specific or preferred formatting policy upon the editors and readers of English-Wikipedia. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The articles should retain the existing format as it was prior to this edit war, per MOS:RETAIN and WP:DATERET, for now. The pages have evolved using predominantly one format, and there is currently no consensus to change it, including whether there a strong national tie between one's birthplace and one's current country of employment. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note from a volunteer. I am not going to be taking on this case (others may wish to) and suggest that it may not be the proper venue for this. The WikiProjects create their own standards and style guides. This is not a content dispute. This is a project dispute. --Mark Miller (Maleko Mela)

• I understand your concerns regarding this being a WikiProject dispute. Nonetheless, it pertains to a "content" issue: whether or not to use certain measurements on regular-namespace articles. Disagreements over editing are mentioned in the parties' statements; given the broad nature of this topic, I think it's fine that it's categorized as a WikiProject-level dispute. I would be happy to commence discussion per these reasons. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem Theodore. We are open to all here. I just feel uncomfortable trying to take, what I believe is a project discussion, away from the project itself. There may be a project coordinator who should be notified, but at least the project itself should have a DRN notification in my opinion. What do you think?--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This debate is a bit meta since the players are in several categories that use conflicting measurement systems. The dispute didn't start on the hockey page it started when I was editing other categories according to their project standard. Also there seem to be very strong opinions varying from United states customary units on all hockey pages to that hockey should use the same system as soccer. I think it would be best if outsiders came and helped reach a good policy decision.Talteori (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've perused the discussion thread above, and have also looked at the thread at the WikiProject talk page. I've noticed an argument that measurements should accord to the format most commonly used for articles on each respective nation. Out of curiosity, how would you feel if we did this, but listed the equivalent non-local form in parentheses? For example, the Swedish athlete might have "X meters (Y feet)", and the American athlete might have "X feet (Y meters)." Is there anything especially objectionable about this? If so, why would you prefer to have stronger standardization? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am proposing. I think it is the most reasonable solution2.71.17.135 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! If anyone else has thoughts on this, feel free to share. If you object to this idea, feel free to do so; my goal is not to impose a resolution, but to find common ground and work from there. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The infobox for ice hockey player's uses the convert template and already provides both the U.S. customary units and metric units. I believe there should be a consistent format across all articles on NHL players, regardless of a player's nationality, and the current format should remain in place. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What 184.52.8.162 says basically sums up my thoughts. As does what I said above. What Theodore suggests is actually what the debate is about. We already list both forms with one in parenthesis. Basically the disagreement is the order of the two (ie which one should be in parenthesis). As has been argued above having them always in the same order would be more helpful than the reader than switching them back and forth based on nationality. Especially since an equally strong case can be made for the fact that the players live and play in one nation and the majority of their fans/readers will be from that nation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree here, the solution proposed by Theodore is basically going with one of the sides of the debate, in other words going against the established consensus. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a very USA centric view with the NHL in the middle of hockey. For most countries the Olympics and world championship are much more important. If the players only played in North America I could understand it. What about this compromise. Metric (USC) for players currently playing outside the NHL and USC (metric) for NHL players. There is no reason at all to use USC first for players in the KHL, Bundesliga, SHL etc. It is just strange to look up a player who has played his entire career in Europe and see measurements in American units. Talteori (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But you aren't just seeing American units, both are listed. It seems very much like an anti-American effort to be honest. Why make it harder for everyone anywhere in the world just to make it look less strange to you. What we could perhaps do, I am not sure what the code looks like but I think its possible is remove the brackets around the one value and just put a slash between the two values so they both have equal prominence. But I really think that the values should stay in the same order for players for maintenance and for reading ease because having the order different depending on the individual makes comparisons and maintenance so much more difficult than it needs to be. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The argument that putting American units first for everyone makes it easier for everyone is nonsense. It could make it easier for Americans, but the USA is one of only three countries in the world that hasn't metricated. (The other two are Burma and Libya, and the former has now begun the process of metricating.) So, if any units were to always come first, it should probably be the metric ones. That matches worldwide conventions and trends. To even suggest that the figures for a non-American player who doesn't play in America should be shown in US units first is a sad example of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

While I understand you point, that isn't quite true. Many countries that are metric still use imperial for height and pounds for weight. The UK and Canada are examples. And the actual argument wasn't that everyone should be one way or the other that it should be based on where they play. Talteori didn't like that compromise so instead I still think its best that we are standard throughout as they currently are since there hasn't appeared to be any consensus to change. And my point was that it would make it easier for everyone because it would be in the same place. In other words people accustomed to feet would always look on the left, people accustomed to meters would always look on the right. How is that not easier for everyone than switched sides based on where the player was born for everyone involved not just Americans. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not true. 1. The UK does not use pounds for people's weight. It uses stones. 2. Europeans, when looking at details for a European person who plays any other sport but ice hockey, e.g. soccer, would expect to see only metric figures, or metric figures first. (And 3. They spell it metres.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Being that the participant teams are of international nature, Wikipedia should use the international system, e.g: metric. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The teams involved are actually domestic teams not international teams. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pounds are part of a stones measurement ("11 stone 4" (11 stones and 4 pounds), rather than "72 kilograms"). And metres was actually a typo on my part. Well if there are sports where they are only displaying metres then we should definitely fix them so they show both as part of the MOS requires that. As for the side they are on for a given sport that is not hockey that is rather irrelevant because you wouldn't likely be comparing the heights or weights of a player in two sports which was my point about keeping them on the same side. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If they had played their entire career in the USA it would be one thing. These players have played professionally in their home country and have competed in the olympics and other international tournaments for their country. The NHL might be the biggest tournament where you live but it isn't the biggest tournament in many parts of the world.

We also have the issue of the European teams. It is not at all sensible to have United states customary units (metric) for a German player who has played his entire career in Germany. If you look up a European player playing in Europe it is very strange to see united states customary units first. Most people in Europe don't even know what a pound is.Talteori (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

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

Filed by MdeBohun on 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MdeBohun (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Suzannah Lipscomb is separated from her husband and getting divorced. The Red Pen of Doom consistantly adds that her book Visitors Companion to Tudor England is dedicated to her husband Drake despite being asked to desist. Prior to that he tried to show the marriage by referencing to a page that another editor said was not appropriate. No reference is made to whom her other books are dedicated, so it is clear that The Red Pen of Doom clearly has an agenda. He is now threatening that I will be blocked, using formal writing as if he is Wikipedia, when it is he who should be blocked. The subject does not wish information on her failed marriage to be public knowledge.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The Red Pen of Doom

How do you think we can help?

Stop The Red Pen of Doom from consistently entering information that is disingenuous as it implies that the subject is married, when she is not.

Summary of dispute by TRPoD TheRedPenOfDoom

The introduction by @MdeBohun: is incorrect about at least one item, in that I was the editor adamantly removing inappropriately sourced content about the marriage/divorce [8] [9] [10] . The IP eventually produced Lipscomb's own verification of the marriage in a reliably published and editorial over-sighted manner.

To the point of the dispute: Marriage is a significant non trivial aspect of a persons life that is standard for inclusion. We now have a reliably published source, by the subject herself, and so there is no valid reason not to include it.

We are not here to provide a promotional blurb reflecting (what is claimed to be) the subject's whitewashed version of history. WP:NPOV .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy

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

Suzannah Lipscomb dedicated a book to her husband. This trivium is easily verifiable and accurate. One editor, The Red Pen of Doom, wants the fact included because he believes it to be sufficiently significant. One editor, the filing party, who has no history on Wikipedia unrelated to Suzannah Lipscomb, wants the fact removed on the basis that Ms. Lipscomb now wishes to distance herself from the person to whom she unambiguously and verifiably dedicated the book.

Whatever the merits of the argument for inclusion (which I think are weak given the preference of the author), the argument for exclusion is simply not grounded in policy. This argument, grounded as it is in WP:IDONTLIKEIT not on policy or sources, has necessarily been unpersuasive and will remain so.

If Ms. Lipscomb now wishes that she had not dedicated a book to her former husband, then unfortunately she will need to avail herself of a time traveller. I can put her in touch with someone, but he's only done it once before and her safety is not guaranteed. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GRuban

We've got one item of info, one line in a book dedication. We don't have a last name, or anything else to identify the husband. We don't have a date they got married, or a date they got divorced. If we had all that, then, yes, we should include it, marriages are generally important to people (certain pop singers excluded). As is, though, the information is being challenged (bolded, as WP:BLP would have it) and that one line just doesn't meet the standard of the "high quality sources" that WP:BLP demands in general and especially in the case of such a (bolded) challenge. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Suzannah Lipscomb discussion

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

• - there are four objections to this addition with the available reference in this talk page chat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Typically the name of someone to whom a book is dedicated would not be considered significant enough to mention, unless perhaps the "dedicatee" had played a significant role in creating the book. No one has explained why this should be an exception. (Also, the comments here and on the talkpage about "different life choices" and "a time traveler" are completely unhelpful.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• this is not about the "dedication". it is about the significant life event that the subject of the article self documented and made public and that for some reason people think that history should be whitewashed and re-written to remove the evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• So, mention that she was married in a Personal Life section. Include that fact (although it is very incomplete information) and use the dedication as a reference in the footnotes. But to have a separate section of the article composed of a book dedication is not done for other authors. In fact, I don't think I've seen book dedications quoted on Wikipedia or even mentioned in the body of an article for a living author. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

as far as I am aware there has never been a separate section for "the dedication". the content was included in the personal life section [11]. And the content was phrased as "dedicated her book to her husband" to avoid any accusations of WP:OR on what has been a contentious issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cher

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by FraDany on 17:48, 3 May 2014 (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 Cher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved FraDany (talk · contribs) Boris Karloff II (talk · contribs) Lordelliott (talk · contribs) Light show (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Boris Karloff II and I proposed to replace current Cher's infobox picture with a more recent one because the current one has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment. Lordelliot and Light show disagree with this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed this extensively on Talk: Cher and on edit summary. How do you think we can help? I think we can try to find a consensus. Summary of dispute by Boris Karloff II Last year, a brief discussion of the subject ([12]) ultimately led to User:Light show placing a 1970s publicity photo (source: "Original photo from Light Show") in the lead, although far from everyone involved was completely contented. There was general consensus that we did not have a perfectly adequate picture at disposal at that moment, so the lead remained like that. More recently, in the course of Cher's current tour, I imported a string of new photographies from Flickr, suggesting this one for the article's lead. It displays her in one of her characteristical costumes; complying with the general requirements for lead pictures. I was promptly detained from suiting the action to the word by Light show, who eagerly insists on utilizing a picture from an earlier period of her career. After briefly arguing with Light show on the talk page, User:FraDany jumped in, supporting my argument. User:Lordelliott showed his preference for the current 1970s portrait. It must be considered that Cher had her acting breakthrough not until 1985 and her commercial peak as a musician in 1998. She is not only still active, but released her highest-charting solo album just last year and is currently touring the US; selling out arenas. Having considerably changed her public appearance multiple times throughout her career, she does not at all look like she does on the Casablanca photo anymore. In view of that, I hold that a rather recent picture is most adequate for the discussed article's lead. Besides the afore-mentioned tour photo, I suggested this image, too; although I would rather favor the first one. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lordelliot Quoting Light show from this discussion: "This is supposed to be a full biography of a singer and actress, covering a 50-year period, not an article focused on recent newsworthy appearances with candid images more suitable for today's tabloids, where papparazzi swarm and click away. A photo representing the biography and more closely relevant to her notability would be one like File:Cher - Casablanca.jpg, which shows her as she appeared during a key period in career [...] Hence, the rationale given by an editor, more current photo generally preferred to antediluvian image, is wrong on all counts: It is not generally preferred, except for news stories, not a biography. This is especially true of people in the entertainment field." Lordelliott (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Light show There's not much I'll add from my comments on the talk page. But I'll simply say that that the entire issue began when Boris Karloff II decided to change the lead image with their rationale, dif: New, recent photo from her Dressed to Kill Tour, which I reverted for the reasons stated in the previous link. A few hour later, FraDany chimed in with, "the current one is ancient and has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment. . . she is on tour right now. Boris Karloff II. is right the current picture creates the impression that the person is a "has-been" or "dead". None of those arguments seem valid as explained on the talk page. --Light show (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Cher discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. all parties have now joined the discussion 48 hour closing notice Hello, I am a volunteer here at the DRN. This dispute has become stale from a lck of participation. The DRN request cannot move forward until all the listed participants have come forward and it appears the article talk page discussion has also stalled. I have left a not on the article talk page and request that Lordelliott and Light show please add input unless you are declining to participate within the next two days. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Hello, and welcome to the DRN. My first question for participants is, how many editors are for the inclusion and how many are against the inclusion. This question regards straight up numbers and not the arguments made for or against the image. Bear with me here. This is not to count !votes just to get an understanding of the situation for a clearer picture.--Maleko Mela (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) As of now, it's two for keeping the existing portrait image and two for adding a recent stage image. FWIW, Lordelliott, also for keeping, has been by far the major contributor to her article, with nearly 1,200 edits. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I am reviewing the dispute and the images involved and will begin a discussion shortly.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Volunteer assessment This is a common issue. What image of the freely licensed, Wiki Commons pictures should we use? All of the images being suggested pass criteria for image use and licensing and each side has an argument they are passionate about, as many fans or admirers or even just interested editors might. This is what I know about lead images. You can put some on articles and never hear a thing, and maybe even get a thank you...and you can put some on that will absolutely not fly by those interested. Jerry Brown is one image dispute where I wanted to use something newer to replace the older portrait. The portrait remains there. That specific discussion had about as many or less editors but had a rough consensus. I can live with the older image,it isn't horrible. So, unless editors are able to live with one of the other editors "version" or you continue on the talk page with further discussion with, perhaps,an RFC to attract a larger community input. Trust me, if you put "Lead Image discussion" on the RFC title, it will probably draw some editors. I am going to go ahead and refer editors back to the talk page with these basic suggestions. Lead images can be a very interesting, or more accurately, have a more interested group of editors on Wikipedia. Sometimes editors will create the consensus discussion and then invite editors who have participated in similar discussions on other pages. Notable artists for major comic books have a pretty sizable group of articles with editors who randomly select the last group that discussed a lead image. You have to invite every editor from the last discussion with a neutrally worded request, regardless of their !vote, it's a random selection of editors based only on a lead image discussion on another articles. But not everyone wants to go through all that trouble so, there is the RFC same thing really but you just make one post correctly formated and random editors interested will come. If the RFC fails, any editor can request DRN at that time. I will be doing a general close shortly, nut shelling the above in comment.--Maleko Mela (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2014 (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.

Template:Islam

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Peaceworld111 on 20:37, 3 May 2014 (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 Template:Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Peaceworld111 (talk · contribs) Wiki id2 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Wiki id2 considers that the Ahmadiyya sect should be regarded as a non-Muslim religion/sect and therefore be removed from the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim sect world over except a few countries such as Pakistan where the Ahmadis by law are not permitted to call themselves Muslims. Essentially, Wiki id2 considers that a country and its "scholars" have some copyright over the religion of Islam and that for some reason (that I struggle to understand) their view somehow over-rides the view of the rest of the world. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tons of discussion. This discussion has cropped many different times over different pages and has been resolved various times. See for example Talk:Ahmadiyya. How do you think we can help? I don't think that there is much dispute in this per WP:Self-identification. The Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. User Wiki id2 thinks that self-identification is a weak case. Summary of dispute by Wiki id2 PeaceWorld111 considers the Ahmadi sect/religon to be a part of islam and therefore remain in the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim by Ahmadis. But there recognition is disputed by countries such as Pakistan (where they face discrimination) butalso countries where they do not have established population centres such as Saudi Arabia (centre of Sunni Islam) and UAE, Qatar, Egypt. While in other western countries such as UK and canada they are regarded as Muslims. Template:Islam discussion Hi. I am a DRN volunteer and I'd like to open discussion with a couple of questions, so that we can see what we do have agreement on. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) What is the purpose of having an Islam template? The same purpose as of any other religion based template, such as Template:Christianity.--Peaceworld 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Please state the purpose. --Bejnar (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) I don't know what to say here except that it should give a really brief overview of Islam. --Peaceworld 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) In terms of including or excluding Ahmadiyya from the template, what is the most important Wikipedia policy? WP:Self-identification is pretty clear. The Ahmadis identify themselves as Muslims and thus should be regarded as such by Wikipedia. The same is the case with Mormonism and various other denominations in a variety of faiths. The Ahmadis are discriminated against by the government in Pakistan (e.g. if Ahmadis are subject to 3 years imprisonment if they call themselves Muslim), Saudi Arabia (e.g. Ahmadis are deported for being Ahmadis), UAE (e.g. the Ahmadiyya central site alislam.org is banned) and Egypt and hence the opinions of such countries cannot be considered as WP:NPOV. In fact reputable sources such as Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam 1, or 2 or 3 or 4 or any news article which mentions Ahmadiyya, whether it be NY Times, LA Times, BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post or any other mainstream media, you will find that they are always discussed in the context of a Muslim sect. I have previously requested Wiki id2 to find half a dozen reputable sources, free from state intervention (which excludes Pakistani media, as calling Ahmadis Muslims will be breaking the law of the land), which discusses Ahmadis in the context of a separate religion, but he has not been able to provide any. WP:ASSERT is pretty clear that we should "avoid stating opinions as facts".--Peaceworld 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) WP:THIRDPARTY is a useful one here. It is clear, by bullet point 2 above, that Pakistan is in no position to undertake an independent review of the case whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not.--Peaceworld 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Are some or all of the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya derived from Islam? Totally all. The Ahmadis believe in all the fundamentals of Islam, namely the Islam#Articles of faith and Islam#Five pillars. The article Ahmadiyya is pretty clear on the issue: "Ahmadi thought emphasizes the belief that Islam is the final dispensation for humanity as revealed to Muhammad and the necessity of restoring to it its true essence and pristine form, which had been lost through the centuries. Thus, Ahmadis view themselves as leading the revival and peaceful propagation of Islam." I don't any further explanation is required. However, just for the sake of it, let me explain the difference. The Ahmadis believe that the Islamic prophecy concerning the coming of the Mahdi and Jesus have been fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whereas the Sunnis are waiting the return of the Mahdi and Jesus. If there are any other differences they are too minor to mention and therefore not so relevant. However, the one thing that Wiki id2 will probably mention is that Ahmadis do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet. However, this is debatable because the Sunnis do believe that Jesus, regarded a prophet by the Muslims is yet to descend after more than 1400 years of death of Muhammad.--Peaceworld 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) If the Ahmadiyya are heretical, are there other heretical sects of Islam? I do not think Ahmadis are heretics. I think they are good people. They are religious folks. But I believe that self-identification is not a rational enough reason to declare someone a Muslim. It has to be supported by objective and rational facts. The Ahmadi reject the traditional notion of the Seal of the prophets and their "interpretation" - which I consider to actually be a seperate religious viewpoint - worth respect. Because, aside from the Ahmadi sect, no other major sect, fiqh or school of thought in Islam has said that the Ahmadi "interpretation" is actually backed up by Islamic theology, eschatology or a valid (beyond reasonable doubt) Quranic exegesis or the appropriate scholarly consensus - which acknowledges minority interpretations, except in the case of Ahmadis. Some other users remain unnamed, have unfortunately accused me of bigotry. I comprehend their concerns given that they passionately and religously consider Ahmadis a part of Islam. However, I think it is unfair to accuse me of hatred as I have clearly shown respect to them as human beings - but disagree, as do the overwhelming (all but Ahmadis ie. 99.9995%) of Muslims not due to blind faith but do you the appropriate clear scholarly consensus throughout Islamic thought, theology, literature and Quranic exegesis along with Hadithic exegesis that Ahmadis might have religious beliefs derived from traditional Islamic thought - but that they constitute a seperate religon. Just like Islam has derived principles from christianity and judaism. It is not considered a sect of Judaism or reformed christianity. Even though it believes in Jesus. But because it rejects Jesus' resurrection and being the son of God, it disagrees on fundamental Christian theological and Biblical tradition, henceforth is regarded as a seperate religion. Peace world.(Wiki id2(talk) 21:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)) It will be difficult to find any reputable source which describes Ahmadis as heretical. What is true, however, sources do tend to say that "Ahmadis are considered heretical" by some Muslims, which is a totally different to saying that "Ahmadis are heretical". Equally, Shias are considered heretical by some Muslim, as are most other sects. It will be incorrect to label Ahmadis as heretical per WP:No Original Research. Note, however, if Ahmadis were to be regarded as such we would have to label pretty much every other sect as heretical.--Peaceworld 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Just a response to Wiki id2, it is totally incorrect to compare Ahmadis-Sunni/Shia relationship with that of Islam-Christianity. In terms of the fundamental beliefs, the Ahmadis totally agree with the rest of the Muslims, namely, the Articles of Faith and Five Pillars of Islam, as I stated earlier. There is no comparable similarity with Christianity and Islam. Trinity, is probably what defines Christianity. Do the Muslims too believe in Trinity? What's more, the Holy Books of the Christians and Muslims are the Gospels and the Quran respectively. Do the Ahmadis have a different Holy Book? NO. It is the Quran. The modes of worship are totally different between Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, it will be impossible to tell the difference between the prayer of Ahmadis and the rest of the Muslims. No one is claiming that you have shown hatred. Again, you have portrayed the image that Muslims universally consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. That is totally incorrect. Something which I did tell you earlier is that according to a survey conducted by Pew itself, on page 93, it states that 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia, 12% Indonesia, 7% Pakistan. Bare in mind, however, these countries are among the countries that most fiercely oppose Ahmadiyya in terms of human rights. There are specific cases where countries and Muslims recognize the Ahmadiyya sect. The National Peace council of Ghana consists of 13 members representing the various religious, social and academic structures of the country. Of those 13, 3 are Muslims, 1 Ahmadi (representing the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement, since Ahmadis represent a large minority and 2 others representing the rest of the Muslims). Note the word Muslim. Another example: The Dutch Muslims recognize Ahmadiyya as Muslims. Note also that we cannot use the theological based argument, that since there is a "scholarly" consensus that Ahmadis are non-Muslims, they should be recognized as such. First of all it totally incorrect to say that there is such a scholarly consensus. scholars are not just non-Ahmadi Muslims. There are Ahmadi and non-Muslim scholars too. And secondly, if we were to use the theological based argument, we would have to declare religions such as Judaism, Sikhism as infidels, as there is a consensus among Muslims regarding it too. --Peaceworld 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure if my last point is clear enough: My point was that if Catholics began to define the faith of Eastern Orhodox church, the Protestants of Mormons, the Sunnis of Shias and Ahmadis, the Orthodox Jews of the Reformed Ones, Hindus of Sikhs and Jains, Shias of Bahais, Buddhists of Tibeten Buddhism we would have a total collapse of the Religious and Philosophy section of Wikipedia. To further support my points above, however, let me give further examples: Why does Obama refer to Ahmadis as Ahmadiyya Muslims, Why does the Candian PM refer to Ahmadis as Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, why is there a Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus in the United States, why is there a Ahmadiyya Muslim Parliamentary group in the UK, why is it in Germany For the first time in Germany, a Muslim community has been granted 'corporation under public law' status.--Peaceworld 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Is there any reason to believe that the DRN volunteer is not neutral with respect to this issue? I, Bejnar, have not edited the Islam template nor the Ahmadiyya article, nor previously participated in this discussion. I have edited and created other articles dealing with Islam, but to the best of my knowledge and memory none of the edits were related to the Ahmadiyya. --Bejnar (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) It's not appropriate to accuse a DRN volunteer of being non-neutral just because you don't like the way the discussion is going. If you have valid reasons then state them and ask the volunteer to recuse. He/she will then step aside and allow another volunteer to take the case, although in my experience what happens is that a new volunteer doesn't arrive and the case just stalls and is closed. Your choice. But don't make allegations unless you have good objective reasons and can state them clearly. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Also, Peaceworld111 you need to dial it back and allow the moderator to lead the discussion. It's not appropriate for you to be making new section headings and dominating the page. This page is for moderated discussion. So please allow the moderator to do their job and allow time for other involved users to respond to one of your comments before making new statements. Thank you. Bejnar please carry on. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Dear User:Keithbob, I think you are mistaken. The section headings were created by the volunteer, and all I did was that I responded to them. User:Wiki id2 hasn't responded and that is why it looks like this way.--Peaceworld 18:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I did indeed create this section as part of opening discussion. Based on past experience, I wanted to disclose my past in regard to the issue, see above, and to provide a place where parties could challenge my neutrality, if so inclined, as they are entitled to do. --Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Peaceworld111, I jumped the gun and I owe you and apology. Bejnar, I'm glad you are here and if your unorthodox style is working, I support you! Thanks again and my apology for misinterpreting the situation. Peace out! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) General Discussion Just to weigh in here. 1) This would seem like an easy subject to RfC. 2) Looking at RS and the preference of the group (something WP:BLPCAT lets us look at for BLP's at least) Ahmadiyya might reasonably be called a denomination of Islam. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC) And I think that to do anything other than call it a denomination (whatever word we use) of Islam would be a violation of WP:NPOV - which an RfC IMHO can't overrule. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) @Dougweller: We could always set up an RfC to see if this really is a violation of NPOV.  :-) NickCT (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) @NickCT: Actually I would have taken this straight to WP:NPOVN myself to get a wider input. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC) @Dougweller: - Ah. Well regardless of what the correct strategy is, I hope User:Bejnar brings this to a quick resolution. The answer here seems self-evident. NickCT (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2014 (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.

Oscar Lopez Rivera

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

Filed by Rococo1700 on 17:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Oscar Lopez Rivera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rococo1700 (talk · contribs)
• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Jmundo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Oscar Lopez Rivera is in prison. I am trying to insert facts about his conviction, using a report from the House of Representatives citing Department of Justice documents. They initially insisted wrongly this is a primary source, and now I do not know what they claim.

I believe the article should give an inkling as to the conspiracy that the members of the FALN were convicted. That information should ultimately reflect the wording of the decision of the court of law, not only what others who disagree claim of the conviction. If you wish I can get into details: the article as it stands states that OLR was never convicted of an act of violence. First of all, that is not true. use of force to commit armed robbery is a violent crime.

But I have left that statement stand awaiting resolution by some other arbitration board. Instead, rather than make statements, I have entered information based on a US House of Representatives report that cites the sentencing reports, UPI stories on the conspiracy that served the basis of OLR's conviction. Just the facts. JMundo and Mercy11 delete this. This leads the article to read as if OLR is a nonviolent political prisoner. There are facts that contradict this, and they are not being allowed into the text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This discussion goes on and on. Other editors have expressed similar dissatisfactions, and likely tired of the dispute. Previously there was a dispute about whether his nationality was Puerto Rican or he was a US citizen. I agreed to one resolution which avoided including either statment in the text. But here the other editors refuse to allow verifiable facts into the text. Talk page discussion does not help.

How do you think we can help?

My sense is that in controversial articles, there might be portions of the article that are restricted to certain authors, or that certain authors are restricted. For example, if this article has a section titled OLR is a political prisoner I would not be able to edit. But a section titled OLR was convicted as a violent criminal would not be open to MERCY11 and JMUNDO. If not the article becomes a battleground that individuals with an agenda can win, if they persist enough. I am not interested in making the article a screed for anything, but balance calls for the inclusion of information as to why OLR is jailed, if the other authors are going to pour in information of why others think he is a political prisoner, unjustly jailed, etc.

One obvious solution is to have an external author edit this entry. I wish that had been me, but someone had to start the process of inserting at least some of the facts, and find an irrational agenda driven focus by Mercy11, Jmundo.

I think controversy in this subject are bound to arise. I compared this article to the Mumia of Puerto Rico; and wish some of the balance found in that article would apply in this circumstance. I surmise a similar problem occurred in writing about Mumia and other politically-tinged convicts. I would like to see the same balace applied to this article.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

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

Rococo has been pushing an American ultranationalistic POV in this BLP article with a relentless lack of interest to compromise. Rococo is trying to saturate the article with what he calls "facts" but engages in the use of WP:PRIMARY sources for his "facts". This is a WP:BLP and we follow a stricter set of rules when we edit BLP articles. He is arguing HERE that "None of the legal documents list sedition..." Again, we don't use Primary sources, he needs Secondary sources.

The infobox in THIS revision shows -with appropriate sourcing- that OLR was charged with "Seditious conspiracy,[1] weapons violations,[2] conspirancy to transport explosives[2]". However Rococo reverts that edit HERE to push his "forced robbery/violent criminal" WP:SYNTH and in his edit summary HERE accuses another editor of "using spurious logic to justify deletion of material that is appropriately sourced." Simply stated, Rococo makes no sense: accusing others (baselessly) of doing precisely what he is himself guilty of.

Now Rococo is trying to argue that OLR is not a political prisoner. Wikipedia is not the place for ADVOCACY. In Wikipedia we don't attempt to prove or disprove what a person is. Instead we report what others say the person is - and this article cites numerous reputable sources citing reputatble authorities (like Congressman Gutierrez HERE and Bishop Tutu HERE) who state he is political prisoner.

Rococo also argues that a House of Representatives report is not a Primary source. But, per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that...offer an insider's view of...a political decision". An HR Report is not subject to the same level of independent editorial scrutiny that secondary sources such as published books and newspaper articles are. Such HR report does not belong in a BLP article. Rococo uses primary sources because, unlike Secondary sources, they allow him to create "novel interpretations" that work to support his personal political agenda.

Also, after a consensus buildup against his POV in the OLR article became evident, Rococo yesterday engaged in WP:Canvassing at THIS page, so that his wikibuddies would come to his support of the OLR POV. That act is more evidence that Rococo is here pushing a personal POV.

Rococo's truce proposal above (barring Mercy11 and Jmundo from editing a section on "OLR convicted as a violent criminal" in exchange for his self-imposed barring from a section on "political prisoner") shows how far he is willing to go to push his POV. In Wikipedia all editors are expected to be neutral and impartial: we don't ban any editor from editing only selected sections of an article. Each one of us is expected to follow WP:NPOV.

Finally, I am not sure why Rococo is suddenly using this DR/N to continue to push his "violent criminal" agenda. That matter was closed HERE, 14 days ago, because he was using PRIMARY sources. Typical of Rococo, he offers no secondary sources; his intent is to manipulate primary sources to accomplish his American ultranationalist agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jmundo

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

Oscar Lopez Rivera discussion

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

DRN is not a replacement for the talk page. Wait until a DRN volunteer takes this case before engaging in any further discussion. Thank you.

The fullest, and most important record of this entire dispute, is in a DR (dispute resolution) which Rococo1700 himself filed on April 8, 2012. The volunteer mediator gave Rococo1700 every opportunity to substantiate his failed argument. When Rococo1700 failed to do this, the discussion was Closed as stale after 12 days on April 20, 2014. Here is the archived record of the entire discussion: [13] If you read that DR, you will see that Rococo1700’s “concerns” were completely addressed with authoritative publications, secondary sources, and direct citations. Please read the mediator Wikishagnik’s comments, and those of the closing administrators. Rococo1700 clearly had his answer; he just doesn't want to hear it. Now on May 4, 2014, Rococo1700 has filed a “new” DR discussion, which essentially re-litigates the same issues all over again - and with the same lack of secondary sources from Rococo1700. He simply wishes to assert his version of history (without providing any secondary sources) and to override nearly every other editor who has contributed to Oscar Lopez Rivera, over a period of several years. To date, he has not addressed the following set of facts – which were fully credited by the administrators in the prior DR which he filed, and which he continues to ignore. Facts submitted in prior DR: Oscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court’s decision said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. 111). With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of "seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [14] In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote: “Oscar Lopez Rivera is imprisoned for the “crime” (his quotation marks) of seditious conspiracy: conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial justice…My Nobel Peace laureate colleagues Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and I expressed our deep concern about the highly irregular and tainted parole hearing that had just taken place. Testimony was permitted at that hearing regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing in the first place.” See: ‘’Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance’’, p. iv. You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.” Rococo1700 continues to ignore these facts, these sources, these citations - even though they were fully credited by the DR mediator. On April 17, 2014, at 12:02, Rococo1700 made this comment on the Oscar Lopez Rivera talk page: "I need to see a consensus for your changes to be acceptable." It is profoundly ironic for Rococvo1700 to issue this advice. If he continues ignoring other editors, ignoring facts, and ignoring the results of DRs filed by him, then at the very least...Rococo1700 should follow his own advice. The consensus of editors, and his own prior DR, have rejected his "I'm right and everyone else is a biased fool" manner of editing. Sarason (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Please by all means, if they want me to pointedly reply to the statements above and show where they are in error, I will certainly oblige. I do not particularly approve of the ad hominem attacks by Sarason and Mercy11. Oh I have now inserted a suggestion for a consensus paragraph 2 in the talk page for the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) OK, so first you were targeting Jmundo and Mercy11 as editors. Then you entered into an edit war with Jmundo that led to the article getting protected. Now you are targeting Sarason and Mercy11. Even when the article was protected, on that same day, Rococo, rather than entering into a dialogue with the other editors, you requested that an admin make additions to the article claiming that OLR was responsible for the 1977 Fraunces Tavern bombing; your request, Rococo, was declined and the admin advised you to seek consensus. When Sarason created a consensus entry, rather than presenting your point, you attacked Sarason's consensus approach. What exactly is your goal here? Your currently-ongoing and nonstoppable walls-of-text at the article's Talk Page makes it virtually impossible for the other editors to follow your objections. In addition, you are shooting a stream of new complaints about the article on a daily basis without giving editors the opportunity to carry on any sort of productive dialogue with you because before an editor has commented you have already shot out another unrelated dispute on the article. And acting, if you will, in loose cannon fashion, you have at times fired out several Talk Page subsections when your various disputes could have been written up more concisely and with better formatting following established Talk Page Guidelines. At the article's Talk Page it was proven yesterday that you were acting disengeniously with your "I was traveling" excuse on your first DR/N submission of some 2 weeks ago. I made suggestions to you on how you could improve your chances of carrying on a productive dialogue but you have, in practice, ignored them for the most part. At least another uninvolved editor has also advised you. You appear intent on just having the article read your way at any cost. In fact, you appear to have a vested interest in proving that OLR is personally, solely, and individualy responsible for the 1977 Francis Tavern bombings; your first edit in this article sought to do just that. One might even think you are somehow closely associated to Joseph F. Connor, "the son of one of the dead at Fraunces Tavern, [who] has played an instrumental role in blocking the release of [Oscar Lopez Rivera], a man he considers in part responsible for his father's death" as your entry here so conspicuously states. If so, you would be in violation of WP:COI, and this would appear to be a personal or vendetta on your part. Gee, you were even found to be editing from a PC in the Chicago area, Oscar Lopez Rivera's old neigborhood. It seems to me that your basic goal is to have the article say that "Oscar Lopez Rivera is a violent criminal", yet this is not supported by any reliable secondary source. Mercy11 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Here is my recommended text for the second paragraph: (see modified paragraph below) As you can see from the talk page of the article, Mercy11 and Sarason do not reach a consensus with my editing. Sarason has threatened that if I inject primary sources or original research, that I will answer for it. I am confident that my text recommendations are accurate. I would like to alter the second paragraph to read what I place below. It includes most of their text but changes the statement that OLR is non-violent to an opinion. Now that the block has been raised. My recommended temporary compromise would be to delete the present second paragraph in the text, and then block the editing again, and to revise that paragraph. Then we can move to the third paragraph. This is going to be a long and arduous process. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Will someone please let me know what do I have to address from Mercy11's statements above. Perhaps place it in a bulleted fashion.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Reanalyzing Mercy11's posting and Sarason's prior note, I am concerned about threatening insinuations by these two editors, I know this DR/N has to do with content. I would not strongly urge the administrators to blank the second paragraph and place a neutrality dispute. When two editors use threatening language, and one of them seems to want to say that he will find out by IP adresses where you have been, and when the editing involves a long-term jailed terrorist/freedom fighter, whose last jail term was prolonged by years for attempting a violent break-out out of Leavenworth, resulting in the jailing of 4-5 other persons. I think the Wikipedia administration needs to take this seriously. I do not back down from my text above, and that should be the main thrust of this discussion, but the stakes have changed for Sarason and Mercy11.Rococo1700 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Rococo's use of WP:PRIMARY sources is resulting in his WP:OR violations. Some 5 editors have told him that his interpretations and edits are invalid. As for your complaint of threats or uncivility, Rococo, you are in the wrong forum. This forum adresseses article content disputes only. I also have a continued concern that Rococo does not understand the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia. Rococ, have you read - and followed - WP:DISPUTE? You don't just come here and ask that the an article be modified to read the way you like it and that then the article be blocked from editing. You need to engage in a civil discussion. So far your tone is belligerent. That's not helpful. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) The latest entry by Rococo1700 (please see above) is a valuable and accurate illustration of the bad faith he brings to the Oscar Lopez Rivera page. On May 7 he willfully mis-characterized my fair warnings regarding bad faith editing, and tried to misrepresent them as a "personal threat." I promptly clarified that point, and he acknowledged the clarification. Please note the time of my response and his acknowledgment. They precede his subsequent (and entirely dishonest) anxiety on this page, about "threatening insinuations" and "threatening language." "Oh by the way Sarason, what does your threat he will answer for it entail? Are your going to get physical? Are your going to use bolded capital letters? Are you going to boot me from Wikipedia? Please be specific. Also next time do answer directly how the text above is inappropriate, rather than personal threats."Rococo1700 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC) "There is no threat in reminding you, and giving you fair warning, that continued bad faith editing is subject to consequent review and potential administrative action. It's all up to you." Sarason (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) "Thanks for the clarification, your prior warning was more vague and therfore more ominous in tone. That type of behavior is subject to consequent review and potential administrative action. Now you need to find a consensus edit, I have fowarded my suggestions, and I have called for the second paragraph to be removed if we can not reach a consensus, until one can be reached that is satisfactory to a consensus of editors. Stop with warnings and get to nitty gritty of the paragraph." Rococo1700 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC) As you can see, Rococo1700 now comes on this page, 10 hours later, and attempts to deceive the DR mediators -- alleging "threatening insinuations" and "threatening language" that was fully and respectfully clarified for him 10 hours earlier. With nearly every edit, Rococo1700 appears to be trolling for an argument, escalating disagreements in a dishonest fashion, opening DRs and then ignoring them when they don't go his way. It is a huge waste of editors' time...and now, unfortunately, the mediators in this DR will have to invest time, as well. Please read the prior DR which Rococo1700 filed and then ignored. [15] Now, if this current DR does not go his way, he will probably ignore it as well. For the sake of many editors' time, which is being hugely wasted, I hope that someone, at some point, intervenes to resolve this chronic behavior on the part of Rococo1700. Sarason (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I am not sure Rococo is processing the significance of what he is doing. His behavior significantly muddies the dispute resolution process. It appears to me that there is a pattern of continuous and now, also, increasingly deteriorating intentional bad faith being practiced by him. ...First a relentless interest in labeling OLR a "violent" criminal, then a bad faith (perceived, at least) avalanche of a multitude of other content disputes fired without any opportunity for dialogue, then his dubious travel allegation claim, and now also stabbing a fellow Wikipedian in the back? Seems to me that once the seemingly ambiguous statement by Sarason was clarified by him, plus the clarification even accepted by Rococo, that he shouldn't be using than same matter against Sarason again 10 hours after the whole thing was settled. If anything, Rococo failed to assume WP:AGF from the getgo and now continues to feed his frenzy with an accussation that never was. Mercy11 (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) @User:Mercy11 & Sarason - You two gotta calm down. The tone of your comments approach personal attacks. Let a fresh set of uninvolved eyes take a look at this. NickCT (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) My Consensus recommendation Rococo1700 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Neither of you addressed the consensus paragraph I suggest with even more citations. It remains a cascade of personal accusations. Again, I urge that if we have no consensus, that the second paragraph of the article be deleted until consensus can be reached. Here is my suggested entry: President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Oscar, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives (311-41) and Senate (95-2) While President Clinton and others defended the clemency offered to Oscar stating that López Rivera was never convicted of specific crimes that resulted in deaths or injuries. and that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. Others point out that Oscar Lopez was convicted of violent acts, including armed robbery, which is considered by the Department of Justice as a violent crime.. They consider as additional evidence that he is a violent criminal, that the conspiracy for which he was convicted included being: key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, (with) literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, ... and the proceeds of the armed robberies. I'm sorry, but since this is a DR page, I believe we should let the DR volunteer consider the issue that was filed by Rococo1700, and the responses that were given. Any other discussions should be reserved for the Oscar Lopez Rivera talk page...or else this DR will become unreadable and unmanageable by the volunteer. Sarason (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Volunteer Marek on 18:30, 4 May 2014 (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 Angela Merkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) IIIraute (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute concerns the inclusion of a photograph of Angela Merkel's grandfather. On right. This image Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Help users involved work out the relevant issues, and come to a compromise solution. What makes the dispute difficult is that an inclusion of an image is essentially an "either/or" kind of situation which makes arriving at compromise difficult. You can't "include two-thirds" of the image nor can we alter the image in some way to satisfy everybody. Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IIIraute Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Angela Merkel 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.

asmallworld

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

Filed by Mostlyoksorta on 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Asmallworld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mostlyoksorta (talk · contribs)
• IIIraute (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute as to whether or not asmallworld is invitation only. There is an application page on the asw website. There are multiple sources saying they take applications, and asw employees who attempted to edit the page never controverted that it accepts applications. On the other side there are older sources saying the site is invitation only, which it was in the past, no argument from me on that. Me and IIIraute have been having an overly intense back and forth on this point.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A long, extensive, excrutiating talk page back and forth that got very personal on both sides.

How do you think we can help?

Give your opinion of whether or not asw is invitation only or not after weighing the sources.

Summary of dispute by IIIraute

Concerning: "very personal on both sides"

The ASMALLWOLD website clearly states: "We are an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com

One can apply - "to be considered" for invitation → Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

Further sources:

Melanie Chan, Virtual Reality: Representations in Contemporary Media, A & C Black, 2014, p. 91:

"ASmallWorld is an exclusive social network that operates by invitation only and consists of wealthy and influential members."

Business Insider: "ASmallWorld, the invite-only social network..."

New York Post: "...the invitation-only site A Small World..."

The National: "The exclusive, invitation-only social networking site..."

(I could add another fifty.)

--IIIraute (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mostlyoksorta

I am sorry that IIIraute began with the personalities as that issue was resolved on my talk page(you can read the discussion in the history section of that page), and shouldn't be continuously pounded on. It is certainly worth noting that IIIraute has been blocked from the German version of Wikipedia [16][17] for personal attacks and is currently engaged in a similarly hostile back and forth with Volunteer Marek which you can see parts of in the dispute above. Furthermore, he is the subject of a pending outing hearing.

Be that as it may, I admit that the sources cited by IIIraute were valid, until October 2013, and that he could also easily quote 50 more such sites. However, asmallworld changed from invitation only (it's status prior to October 2013) to an invitation or application membership process in October 2013 as these cites indicate. It should quickly be noted that the first citation link included by IIIraute is incorrectly stated to be www.asmallword.com, when it is in fact a link to https://www.asmallworld.com/membership-features.

First, and most obviously, here is the current asmallworld application page - which clearly is an application for membership - [18]. This is the cite I would use in the article.

Second, and also obviously, the asmallworld about us page states "Membership requires an invitation from an existing member or an approved membership application by our international committee of trustees." [19]

Third, here is an announcement of the change to accepting applications of membership on the Facebook [20]- I know that IIIraute has told me this is not a reliable source, it should be viewed as supporting the primary cite above.

Fourth, "To compliment the re-launch celebrations, ASMALLWORLD was also excited to announce the launch of it’s new Membership Program, thereby extending Open Application in India for interested candidates. Swayed by the overwhelming demand that has remained constant over the last decade, ASMALLWORLD finally decided to accept member applications. A first in ten years, the travel & lifestyle club is ready to begin vetting interested candidates."[21].

Fifth, "Previously by-member-invite-only, ASMALLWORLD is excited to welcome applications from qualified individuals to join its community." [22]

Finally, I find this argument disingenious as IIIraute's own edit of the page states "To join, one must receive an invitation from an existing member, or apply online to be considered for membership" [23]

The continued citation of pre-October 2013 sources and the bold denial of asmallworlds own application and about us page makes me doubt IIIraute's good faith on this topic as does the fact that he began this discussion with the link to disciplinary warning on my page. I want this simply resolved as a content issue. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

asmallworld discussion

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

Comment by uninvolved Admin

Note: I'm not involved in the content dispute, but am merely an uninvolved admin and in that capacity I have warned Mostlyoksorta several times on his page for personal attacks against IIRaute. Normally of course I wouldn't come here to mention such a thing, but after MK's poisoning of the well against IIRaute above, in the first section of their "Summary of dispute," I just want to give a link to the discussion between me and MK which both the users refer to above, and which neither of them gives a usable link to it. I don't altogether agree with MK's description of it as "resolved", but please check for yourselves if you think it matters, DR volunteers. (IIRaute has given a vulnerable dynamic link, now dead; MK doesn't link to the section in question at all, but merely gestures at the history of his now blanked talkpage.) P. S., IIRaute and MK, both of you please take a look at the instructions here for how to produce permanent links to page sections, whether they're still on the page or not. You won't believe how simple it is! That said, it would be much better if both parties focused exclusively on the content issue here on this board; it's what it's for. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC). Note: Thanks Bishonen, just so I understand your intervention here, since both IIIraute and I referenced your warnings, above. How is it that I 'poisoned the well' in my discussion, but IIIraute's discussion (which was posted prior to mine) directly linking to your warning, in the first line, is not 'poisoning the well'? I am only curious so that I can continue to guide myself according to your warnings, because it would seem to me that his linking to your warning, and my statements are either both 'poisoning the well' or both not 'poisoning the well.' What made my actions offensive enough to get your reprimand on this content focused page? I just want to know that so I can continue to guide myself appropriately. Since your warning, I decided to stop engaging on the talk page with IIIraute and bring our content dispute here so a neutral person could here the evidence. I believe that was appropriate. Just trying to learn. Thanks. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)) If you don't see any difference between on the one hand posting an uncommented link, as IIRaute did (which you refer to as "continuously pounding on" an issue which you claim has been "resolved" at your talkpage), and on the other hand your own description of events at the German wikipedia, of another thread on this page, etc, I really don't think I can help you, and I'm not going to be drawn into further discussion here. We'll have to hope your virtuous protestations that you only want to learn impress the DR volunteers. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

NOTE: This discussion is still awaiting a DRN volunteer to act as a moderator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

water fluoridation

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 79.182.151.40 on 06:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. PROCEDURAL QUESTION: Can an IP editor, with an address from which no edits to Wikipedia have ever previously come, validly claim to have discussed this on a Talk page. There is no way other editors can check this, nor see what comments this editor has already made. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) On the water fluoridation controversy i was all the IP starting with 109 and 79 (my internet provider has a dynamic IP) Actually I'm the only IP editor concerning the "Additions" sections. The last line of the section "Note to Israeli IP 79.* and 109.*" i wrote "Small note :I have registered to wikipedia (the original IP editor), with the following signed nick. User:LarryTheShark" Then i started discussion in the water fluoridation article under that username. Unfortunately my registered user account was blocked during the talk page discussions, in what seemed to have a very strong censorship flavor to it. (same ip editor)79.182.151.40 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC) So, you are editing here as a blocked user. I see no point in discussing this any further. It's up to an Admin to action this now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware this was forbidden (hence my willingness of full disclosure). I have just requested an unblock on the registered account. I ask the supervising admin here, to please wait for a short while, to see if this block is lifted, so i can continue this important DRN. thank you (same ip editor)109.65.115.20 (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC) ADMIN NOTE. I have declined LarryTheShark's unblock request. Larry, please read my reasoning on your page. You'll have to continue this DRN if and when you succeed in getting unblocked in the future (I've suggested waiting at least three months before you try again), or rather, you'll have to open a new DRN, because this one should be closed now. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC). Location of dispute Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yobol (talk · contribs) Guy (talk · contribs) LeadSongDog (talk · contribs) Zad68 (talk · contribs) Doc James (talk · contribs) Daffydavid (talk · contribs) HiLo48 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The scope of the dispute also concerns Water fluoridation controversy article. The core of the dispute I believe revolves around WP:WORLDVIEW. There is a systematic bias in those two articles towards the pro water fluoridation view of the heavily water fluoridated nations; USA and Australia, to the point that it looks like an advocacy advertisement. (WP:PROMOTION) Any information that sheds negative light or doubt on the practice is immediately reverted. And thus WP:Undue is being misused as an excuse to censor mainstream information that doesn't conform to these two countries perception of public water fluoridation. In the water fluoridation article, multiple scientific references contradicting facts in article are shunned. The European Union official position on public water fluoridation is ignored. etc. In the Controversy article, it is impossible to even mention the most notable group against water fluoridation, even a current health minister in a western country that recently decided to end fluoridation is shunned. Just to put things in perspective - the vast majority of the world does not practice water fluoridation including 95% of Europe. some countries that had water fluoridation ended it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i had an RfC on the water fluoridation controversy talk page How do you think we can help? The additions made on the water fluoridation article by me are legit and important and give the full view of water fluoridation practice in the scientific literature https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=602718307&oldid=602716678 Two additions I made in the Water fluoridation controversy strikingly conform to WP:RS and WP:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=602449209&oldid=602446383 Summary of dispute by Yobol Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JzG Mediation should be rejected per WP:FORUMSHOP. An anonymous editor wants to add a political act in order to imply a scientific conclusion. The problem has been patiently explained, but he does not like the answer - at least, not as long as it remains "no". They have tried several ways to insert this, and consistently failed to achieve consensus. The claim that the water fluoridation article is advocating fluoridation, is specious. The scientific consensus is that fluoridation is safe and effective. There have always been those who rail against "polluting our precious bodily fluids (see especially List of conspiracy theories#Water fluoridation) and we have an entire article on the fluoridation "controversy" (it is politically, not scientifically, controversial). There will always be a steady stream of editors who want our content on water fluoridation to more closely reflect a conspiracist and scientifically untenable world-view. There will always be, as we see here, a decent number of Wikipedians who will explain to them why that will not happen. The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy. As the IP acknowledges, he has been beating this drum for a long time. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LeadSongDog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zad68 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Doc James Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Daffydavid Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HiLo48 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. water fluoridation 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.

Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910

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

Filed by RedVictory356 on 11:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RedVictory356 (talk · contribs)
• Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I work for Professor James Crawford, an international lawyer. He has asked me to remove material from this page that misrepresents his views. The material is not in Professor Crawford's own words. It appears to have been translated from two second-hand accounts that only exist in Japanese (which I do not speak), so I cannot verify the cause of the inaccuracy. There is no English source. Professor Crawford is a well-known academic who publishes widely. It seems inappropriate for views to be attributed to him from a second-hand account translated from a foreign language rather than from his own publications. In any case, Professor Crawford can confirm that the material is inaccurate and wishes it removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have deleted the material a couple of times and have tried to explain myself on the Talk page (my edits were made as 131.111.156.24, but I have now registered formally as a user, RedVictory356). Another user, Phoenix7777, has reinstated the material each time and has also given reasons on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Phoenix7777 has suggested that I did not follow proper procedures and that I will be blocked if I delete the material again. I apologize if that is the case (I am not a regular Wikipedia user). I have left the material intact pending resolution of the dispute. But Professor Crawford feels strongly that this inaccurate material should be deleted. I would be grateful for any advice about the correct process or if anyone is willing to intervene to ensure the material is deleted.

Summary of dispute by Phoenix7777

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

We are discussing this issue by email with a Professor at Cambridge university Dr. Clawford, and a professor at Kobe University Dr. Kimura. Please wait for a consensus we may reach.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 discussion

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

Sabiha Gökçen

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

Filed by Sekarca on 21:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sabiha Gökçen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sekarca (talk · contribs)
• EtienneDolet (talk · contribs)
• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)
• Theobjektivist (talk · contribs)
• Teykell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is regarding the "Early Life" section of Sabiha Gökçen. Armenian editors are persisting on having it say that "her origins are in doubt", because an article in a nationalist Armenian newspaper that was published after her death said so. Just because there are claims made by an Armenian newspaper article shouldn't mean that Gokcen's history begins with "her origins are disputed". There are claims that the Armenian Genocide and 9/11 are false, and many publications argue so. Do the Wikipedia pages on the Armenian Genocide and 9/11 start with "the origins of 9/11 are disputed" or do they have a separate section for claims. The same should be the case on this page. Thank You.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a discussion the the talk page. In response to the academic publications posted that date to AFTER 2004 when the Armenian article was published, the Armenian response has been to post news articles about the Armenian news article and claim them as scholarly sources pertaining to Gokcen's origins. And now they want to delete the names of her biological parents, and are very rude and uncompromising when it comes to discussion. I repeat, they want to delete the names of her biological parents, the people that she clearly states as her biological parents in her autobiography, "Atatürk'le Bir Ömür"!! This is tantamount to rewriting history and deleting facts to fit your desires. Her own words are disregarded while unsubstantiated chauvinism from a single, Armenian publication that has been rejected by her family is made into fact.

How do you think we can help?

Claims should be in a separate claims section, like on the 9/11 page for example, and not involve starting her early life with "her origins are disputed". Otherwise it's just double standards.

Summary of dispute by EtienneDolet

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Theobjektivist The users above, with the exception of MarshallBagramyan and myself, are sockpuppets. I suggest closing this discussion and deferring all outstanding disputes to the talk page of the article in question. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MarshallBagramyan

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

Summary of dispute by Theobjektivist

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

Summary of dispute by Teykell

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

Sabiha Gökçen discussion

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

Autism Research Institute

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Neuroresearch on 05:31, 10 May 2014 (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 Autism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nchs 89 (talk · contribs) Alinoé (talk · contribs) MrBill3 (talk · contribs) Bhny (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Updates by unbiased third parties are not being permitted. Legitimate research organization is being slandered by editors with an agenda. They have no current citations that link their assertions to evidence, but they delete and override legitimate updates, tagging the page as an "advertisement" and writing statements about what the organizations "subscribes" to and "believes" without citations that quote the organization. A past president of the org - Bernie Rimland (d. 2006) did explore vaccine causation and chelation theories surrounding Autism treatment but he is long-deceased - current leadership has explained its commitment to following research wherever it leads. This page could have a "past history" section that explores the history of it's founder, but it links to the founder's wiki page. Perhaps repeating that information on the organization site is redundant. Other organizations have reformed with new information - can a shift in opinion in light of new facts be facilitated on Wikipedia? Have you tried to resolve this previously? It appears several well-meaning editors attempted to update with facts after a COI occurred in March. Unfortunately, the COI appears to have created animosity. Perhaps everyone needs to hit the 'reset' button and update the page objectively. How do you think we can help? Assertions need proper attribution. If editors assert an organization espouses a philosophy - particularly a controversial or risky one - they need to include links that prove the individual or organization said so. As written, this entry attributes a number of "beliefs" to this group without linking to documents that show the leadership of the organization subscribes to them. If links documenting the past leadership's perspective are to be included that would be appropriate "history" Summary of dispute by Alinoé Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MrBill3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bhny The article had been fairly stable until this edit-[[24]] where an employee of Autism Research Institute started removing criticism and making the article mirror the company's website. I pointed out the COI problem and the editor eventually ceased editing, only to be replaced by a few more single purpose accounts. Bhny (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) slanderous statements 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.

talk:Oathkeeper#Clear violation

– New discussion.

Filed by DonQuixote on 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Oathkeeper#Clear violation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DonQuixote (talk · contribs)
• Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs)
• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

‎Darkfrog24 is attributing that a novel doesn't contain a specific scene to the novel itself. I think that this is a gross misuse of citation because the novel doesn't explicitly state anything like that. He's also misinterpreting WP:PRIMARY where it states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" as being every factual statement about the primary source rather than factual statements made by the primary source itself (the point of citing the source).

Similar misuse of citation have been discussed at talk:Breaker of Chains#Novel itself as a primary source

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the previous discussion talk:Breaker of Chains#Novel itself as a primary source, a third opinion was requested.

How do you think we can help?

An clear explanation of what citing a source involves and an explanation on using primary and secondary sources properly would probably be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Darkfrog24

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

There are actually a few disputes here: 1. DonQuixote keeps deleting reference tags to sources I've used. 2. DonQuixote keeps accusing me of OR even though the content I'm adding contains no analysis, synthesis or interpretation of the source material—it's from a primary source.

The issue is text reading, "Content in this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y and Z of the novel."[25], which I've restored to three articles. In most cases, I've cited the novel A Storm of Swords and the web site Westeros.org as sources. DonQuixote keeps deleting the tag for the novel, sometimes the whole passage, claiming that it is OR to use the novel in this way.

WP:Primary explicitly states that novels can be used as primary sources about their own plots so long as they are only used for "straightforward descriptions of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source" with no interpretation or analysis. The text I've added seems to fit this very well. There is precedent for using a novel as a primary source in a "differences from the book" passage.[26]

In the article Oathkeeper, I also restored the text, "The scene at the end of the episode, which shows what the White Walkers do with Craster's sons, does not appear in the novel." This is also a straightforward fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to the novel and so is permitted under WP:Primary. DQ keeps insisting that I must cite a page number or else that "proves" that I am "using the source improperly." I don't see it: If this were an article about the novel Johnny Tremain, I would be able to say "This book is set in the 1700s" and "Paul Revere appears in this book." It is no less straightforward to say, "This book is not set in the 1900s" or "George Washington does not appear in this book." The only issue is whether the statement is relevant; it is not original research.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When DonQuixote claimed OR, I reworded the passage so that it no longer claimed that the episode was "based on" the novel but only "contained content also found in" the novel.[27] DQ continues to argue that the reference to the novel must be deleted on OR grounds. I feel that this is not OR and that the reference to the novel should be kept because the novel is where I actually found the information and because it is more reliable than Westeros.org.

I suggested rewording the section so that it reads, "[specific event occurs] in chapter X" and letting the readers see that the episode and chapter had the same content on their own.

DQ requested a third opinion, and the respondent agreed with me, citing MoS:PLOT and WP:FICTIONPLOT.[28] A fourth participant did not. EDIT: Fourth participant was Jack Sebastian, who has contributed below.

How do you think we can help?

These seem to be the core questions:

1. Does WP policy allow the use of a novel in an article about material adapted from that novel? If so, does it allow statements like, "This episode includes content also found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel"? I'd love it if WP:Primary addressed this issue explicitly.

2. Is required to continue citing the primary source if another source is available? Is it required that the reference to the primary source be deleted if another source is available? If neither of these things is required, then which is better?

3. Does WP:Primary permit negative statements such as "This scene does not appear in this book" and "This character does not appear in this chapter"?

Summary of dispute by Jack Sebastian

Darkfrog and Diego (another involved contributor) have been consistently argue that they can compare differences/similarities between the aforementioned episode of Game of Thrones to the source material contained within GRRM's book, A Storm of Swords. The contention that Darkfrog makes is that since the Storm of Swords is a primary source, we can use that to source differences between the episode and novel. Additionally, he proposes using as a source Westeros.org, which has been found, via enquiry at RSN, to be less than reliable, as a veritable treasure trove of fancruft. When these malformed additions are removed as per policy, Darkfrog adds them back again (about least five times over the past three days). (S)He thinks that the comparison (s)he wants to make is free from the citation requirement. Imo, the user cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It has been pointed out several times to both Darkfrog and Diego our way of applying sources as well as the definition of reliable sources and the problems posed by edit-warring. While the users haven't been rude, they have certainly proven resistant to recognizing our guidelines and policies, and Darkfrog had to be made aware of the end consequences of edit-warring in the article.
The matter pivots, imo, on Darkfrog's understanding of sourcing. The comparison he wants to make needs to be cited to a reliable source explicitly making that comparison. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

talk:Oathkeeper#Clear violation discussion

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

Dinosaur Train

– New discussion.

Filed by CharlieBrown25 on 05:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dinosaur Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CharlieBrown25 (talk · contribs)
• FilmandTVFan28 (talk · contribs)
• Mz7 (talk · contribs)
• Slightsmile (talk · contribs)
• SummerPhD (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It has been a long time. I have been frequently attempting to convince several people that the character "Shiny" has romantic attraction to the character "Gilbert". There are several instances of this in the program itself, but no one agrees with me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have said that there is no other possibility other than the fact that they are romantically attracted to one another, (or at least she is attracted to him). But they still don't see my point

How do you think we can help?

Provide a reliable source to prove or disprove my point. Or make a statement yourself that proves or disproves my point.

Summary of dispute by FilmandTVfan28

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

I disagree with CharlieBrown. It doesn't help if he keeps adding that statement to the article without waiting patiently for an answer. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mz7

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

The dispute revolves around the character description for Shiny, a fictional character in the television show Dinosaur Train. CharlieBrown has repeatedly added information about a crush by Shiny on Gilbert, another Dinosaur Train character (example diff), and FilmandTVFan has repeatedly reverted CharlieBrown (example diff). A thread exists at the talk page for this issue: see Talk:Dinosaur Train#Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot.

My stance in all of this is that the information is a) only important to a small population of enthusiastic fans, b) CharlieBrown's original research synthesizing trivial elements of Dinosaur Train episodes, and c) not necessary to serve the purpose of the character description. CharlieBrown asks that this noticeboard provide them with a reliable source "to prove or disprove my point". Per WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Thus, DRN cannot help him on that point, and I do not think there is any action necessary at this noticeboard. As SummerPhD mentions in his opening statement: there is a consensus against including the information. Perhaps it's time to drop the stick. Mz7 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC), revised 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The page has just been fully protected by Ymblanter for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slightsmile

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

I don't see why it's such a big deal who Shiny does or doesn't have a crush for. As the series progresses maybe CB can revisit that issue in a few months but for now I think it's time to drop the stick and move slowly away from the horse. SlightSmile 16:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SummerPhD

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

I am one of several editors who disagrees with USER:CharlieBrown25 on this. To my knowledge, no one has agreed with them. I have repeatedly asked for independent reliable sources for this supposed "crush". CharlieBrown25 has not supplied any. The WP:CONSENSUS is against including the material. I have asked for an independent reliable source, per WP:V. Failing the addition of such sources or a shift in consensus, I see no further action here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur Train discussion

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

England, the Kingdom of England

– New discussion.

Filed by HWallis1993 on 18:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HWallis1993 (talk · contribs)
• Rob984 (talk · contribs)
• Theno2003 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am contacting the board concerning the removal of the Royal Banner of England, the removal of the motto, the removal of any governmental information and the removal of the date of the unification of England. All of these things are widely accepted and are in wide use, however through a period of unchallenged editing by Rob984 the damage wrought on articles concerning England, particularly national symbols and items of heraldry, is simply unbelievable. I am very upset that an individual who has even questioned the status of England as a country has been able to erase so much wonderful history. Single-handedly, Rob has reduced the England article from a colourful and informative Wikipedia page to a bland and boring entry that displays England more as a region or subdivision of the United Kingdom rather than a country in its own right with a vast and wonderful history. It is not just the current article on England, but also the pages on the Kingdom of England, the Protectorate, and several more have suffered vandalism from Rob. Rob's arguments for the removal of these items are that they were not sufficienctly well established (in his opinion) to be able to represent England on the Wikipedia Page. What Rob does not understand is that with England nothing ever is established, and the country has never had a written constitution, never had de jure flags or motto's, and that the country is/was one with the reigning monarch in its representation. In these discussions Rob has failed to acknowledge these arguments, even admitting at one stage that he did not consider England a country with a significant heritage or heraldic history - and he has gone to great lengths to ensure that readers of Wikipedia believe this.

I would like to quote an article from the England discussion page:

'The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The outcome of discussion is that England is a country.'

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Rob has taken an undemocratic approach and embarked on a campaign to enforce his view of England, one which I and others have found not only theoretically vague and incorrect but also very offensive. I am unable to reverse his edits and therefore I am requesting some kind of intervention.

How do you think we can help?

I am not the only one to question Rob984's despairingly aggressive editing, with other members chipping in and questioning this users domination of English articles, and his attempts to erase England's wonderful history and heraldry. I am unable to contest Rob's editing as I am unable to edit myself for some reason unbeknownst to me but as an Englishman and a big fan of Wikipedia I am requesting an investigation in the user Rob984 and his actions, and am wholeheartedly recommending intervention.

Summary of dispute by Rob984

The removal of the motto and Royal Banner from the infobox of England is per WP:NOR.

The removal of the government section of the infobox of England was not done by myself, although I support the removal, as England has no government. However this has not been discussed.

The removal of the exact unification date of England from the infobox, and body of Kingdom of England and England was agreed per this discussion.

The removal of the motto from the infobox of Kingdom of England is per WP:NOR.

The removal of the flag from the infobox of Kingdom of England is per WP:NOR and I have began a discussion here on the issue with little response. In essence, sources are needed to determine what flag/banner was the primary flag/banner to represent England in the 17th century.

I don't understand the reasoning for this dispute resolution, as I am not aware I am in any on-going disputes on any of these issues with the other 'users involved'.

The other 'users involved' should be aware WP:NOR is a unreserved policy, and it is not my wrong doing that there desires don't adhere to this policy.

Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 20:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Theno2003

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

England, the Kingdom of England discussion

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