Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 42

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Michael Servetus

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User Anatoly Ilych Belousov insists on keeping a section in the article titled "New Works" in which alleged discoveries by just one Spanish scholar, Dr. González-Echevarría, are presented as if they enjoyed generalized consensus by Servetus scholars. These works are still under academic review and further studies are needed before claiming that they can be included in Servetus' corpus of authentic works. I respected the new section and wanted to add a POV-section template, but the editor has removed the banner and replaced it with a link to the scholar's own website as enough proof that the information is reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to maintain a civilized discussion in the Talk page, but this editor and his small group of supporters insist on keeping the article as they like in support of Dr. González-Echevarría's views and ignoring what other scholars have published.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the section should be preserved until further proof is obtained that the so-called "new works" are legitimate. Meanwhile, some banner should be visible at the beginning of the "New Works" section, warning readers that the issue is not yet settled by scholars and it is simply an individual's original research (which may be valuable but still needs further investigation).

Opening comments by Jdemarcos

Most of my viewpoints are expressed above. I would like to simply point out that IMO the Wikipedia is not a place to promote original research, and the "New Works" section (actually an oximoron for a 16th-century writer to have "new" works) is a list of publications whose authorship is defended only by one researcher. I would expect more academic consensus. This may be extended to other references to this original research elsewhere in the article, although they might stay if they do not contradict established scientific views on the topic. Thanks. --jofframes (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov

A.I Belousov.

I have no intention of keeping this discussion. Users talked in the talk page, it is just De Marcos who did not like it. By the way , it was not me who removed that " not neutrality" label, and that user waited for more than a month, after the voting in the talk page. Too long,for a clear consensus.

The banner should be then of course as well in the identity and birthplace of Servetus. Which is not mentioned, at all. And for there is a growing theory, it has to have the banner. So, if there is in one place, ok, fine, but in the other as well. I am out of this discussion, I will react to editions , and I guess other users will.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 1

Old discussions (opening case, users' behavior)
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I am not opening up the discussion yet -- we are waiting for the Opening comments by Jdemarcos. -- but while we wait we need to correct a few things.

First, The Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov are 5,829 characters long. Please trim the comments to 2,000 characters (about a third of the size it is now).

Second, multiple statements in the above violate the rules at the top of this page, which say "This noticeboard is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." and "Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors." Please go back and delete all comment that are talking about other editors rather than discussing article content.

This discussion section will remain closed until these issues are fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed the comment "this editor and his small group of supporters." Should the member of the small group of supporters be added to the list of involved editors and notified? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no group of supporters, there are different users who think the same, actually just De Marcos thinks differently, I think I can remove the explicit mention to the website in the works section. I think that is fair enough. The rest of references should stay

that's it, removed explicit mention in the new works section of that website, just cause it is uncommon to have links in the middle of the sections. The other 3 remain, and the works section now has the references of the organizations that passed it. that is what I accept.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No issues with it now. Still waiting for opening comments by Jdemarcos. The dispute overview should be a neutral and factual description of the dispute. The opening statement is the place to explain why you think your pref erred content should be in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also a DRN volunteer. Awaiting 2 opening statements before we can begin. Electric Catfish 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am opening this up for discussion. This would be a good time for any other interested dispute resolution volunteers to weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the following recent edits by:

Jdemarcos: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Servetus&diff=506447020&oldid=506354322

Anatoly Ilych Belousov: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Servetus&diff=506578742&oldid=506447020

Please note that the differences are easier to see if you click on the triangle at the bottom.

On what basis was a notice that says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2012)" removed? Clearly the dispute is not resolved. Why was the instruction "do not remove this message" not followed?

Why are there now some links in parenthesis at where the notice used to be? Wikipedia is formatted as text with supporting citations, not citations with no text. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The links were for showing this information was published in

  • More than 10 academic journals, some such as:

Vesalius ,

Pliegos de Bibliofilia,

TK

Historia 16, (2)

Roots Jewish Magazine of Culture, 2

Aki Yerushalayim

Abstracts of RAMC,

and ISHM(1),(2), an example of a congress in Galveston 3 and

SSHM

The International Society for the History of Medicine, the Spanish Society of History of Medicine, the Royal Academy of Medicine of Catalonia, and Jewish academic journals.

  • Not new. It was communicated more than 15 years ago.

The claim of Jaume de Marcos is not true. It is passed by many academic journals and peer review systems. For it is clearly referred after, I can remove the references in the title, which could be not proper. Anyway, if banners are remaining even with consensus in other directions, perhaps I should add my banner to the first years, education, and arrest sections of Servetus article, for I do not agree. The reason for Jaume to try to say it is not accepted in academic world is cause he is a member of the Michael Servetus institute, and the same researcher that discovered this new works defends Michael has another birthplace, and Jaume de marcos is a member of tha institution, which is located in that birthplace of Michael. He says it is not academically accepted, but he cannot give more than one reference and nof from an academic Journal which would say the contrary. I gave about 10. And all peer reviewed , but it does not matter, he will say " it is not certain", cause he wants it not to be. I just present the academic journals, which he claims not to exist, and he says " it is needed further study", not true. The Consensus was stablished by much bigger organizations. Whole list of references of publications on the new works can be found in many other places online, ( as well as the evident whole list in the scholar's website1). It is very certain, also passed by the American Society for the History of pharmacy, what happens is his intitute does not accept it , cause it would mean to give support to that researcher, who defends Michael was not born in the place of that institute. He would say "scholars say".. but he would forget tha there are Scholars in the specific fields, of Bibles, Materia Medica, pharmacopoeias, grammatical treatises, and Lyon printers, who accepted all this, and they are many more than those scholars he talks of, and that he cannot refer talking on this issue of the new works, ( but one). I wont discuss anything with a person in a conflict of interests, which makes false statements. the proofs are there, 10 academic journals. More than enough for any wikipedia article. I wont discuss anymore, I will simply remove that reference to teh RAMC and the ISHM and the SSHM, in the title. That should be enough. Yours sincerely. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So your argument for removing the notice is "because I am right"? No. You don't get to remove the tag because you think you are right. As long as one other editor has a good faith disagreement the notice stays.
As far as I can tell you failed to answer my second question. I appreciate you willingness to remove the material in parenthesis at the top of the section, but I am more interested in why it was put there and in helping you to understand why I am saying that it was formatted incorrectly.
Regarding your statement "I wont discuss anything with a person in a conflict of interests" I have already told you once to comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, because we talked on that, on the talk page, and because, out of 7 editors he was the one who said so. So I thought a dispute it was a consensus stuff, and , it was not me who removed it the first time, last week, it was Bernstein, after a Month, I removed it the second time. if it is not a consensus issue then don't worry, I will put it myself, and also in the biographical sections. The reason for talking of the editor it is cause it is gross. And it explains many things. But you are right, I don't have to do it. So, apparently a dispute has nothing to do with a consensus, that is ok then. Ok, done, that user banner is on the section he considers not neutral, and mine is in those I do not consider neutral, from a start, but that I did not add, cause of consensus. I am done.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a question for Jdemarcos. It looks to me like content dispute resolution has failed because one party refuses to cooperate with the ground rules at the top of the DRN page. Do you concur, or do you think that further discussion might be able to resolve this dispute? If you concur and no other volunteer thinks that they can resolve it, I am going to point you in the right direction to get this dispute resolved, and then close this.
In my opinion, the next step would be WP:WQA. post a calm, cool, and fact-based description of the behavioral problems that you see here, including a reference to what happened here (refusal to stop talking about other editors).
Be prepared for the basic fact that WQA does not actually solve any problems. What WQA does do is this: first, they might identify any behaviors of yours that may be making things worse. And they might inform you that they see no misbehavior. Either of those would be good to know.
Second, they will try to get everyone to agree to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards. Do not assume that just because the talk page discussion and the DRN case did not help that WQA cannot help. I have seen misbehaving editors turn around when someone says the right thing to them.
If WQA does not do the trick, I think the next place to go should be WP:RFC/U. Again, a calm, cool, and fact-based description of the problem is what is needed. Include references to the DRN and WQA cases. And again, give it your best good-faith effort to come to a conclusion. RFC/U is also a good place to ask "what should I be doing here? How can I make this better?" This would be a good time to stop following my advice and to instead follow the advice you get at RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to stop talking of other users? didn't I stop? there is a pending case in Conflict of interest issue on that user. I mentioned Bernstein who was not invited here, and who removed the banner in the first place. Apparently you try to make us agree. I do not agree. I presented the academic journals. And I know they will not convince this user. He will keep saying the same thing. He was listened in the talk page, and half of the article was arranged according to what he though , even after it was other way during more than 6 months. Good faith?. You are totally wrong. There has to be more in the disputes than just agreement. Data. If not, anyone can just ask for a dispute, and act as if they have good faith, and not to present any data, simply saying they think differently. Good faith has who listens. And collaborates, and contributes, not who is trying to destroy other contributions. Wikipedia has a serious problem of data checking. Most, if not every issue is based on opinion, and there is no really attention in anything else. There are the academic journals. the facts that proof my opinion. I wont discuss endlessly this issue, based on the opinion of someone, and not data. There are better things to do than wasting my time, it was also talked in the talk page, several times but that user, basically has a conduct from one ear to the other one, and nevermind how many sources of academic nature, or huge organizations you name, he utters " not enough", not certain, further study, and he has the same worth than my sources? When did wikipedia turn into " politics". That user was listened too much in the talk page, too polite and considered all users were with his changes. But he aparently thinks we do not know what goes on, even if he calls his director baches Opi, the next day, for him to edit wikipedia and try to revert in a clumsy way , any information that would affect the institue. Clear confict of interest, and planned edition.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you to comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Your reply was "Nope" and "The reason for talking of the editor it is cause it is gross" Then you did it again ("And I know they will not convince this user. He will keep saying the same thing.") That is refusal to follow the rules.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
The next time you break the above rules your comment will be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to assume from the following comment that Anatoly Ilych Belousov is now willing to focus on article content. I am going to wait to see what Jdemarcos's response is before commenting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If Mr. Belousov is willing to discuss the contents on the article and not intentions, I am happy with that and conversation may go on to settle the dispute. I am concerned by sentences such as I "was listened too much" in the Talk page. I have never said that I have "listened too much" from Mr. Belousov or from any other editor who is not trolling but exposing disagreements and alternate viewpoints in a civilized manner. So unless we can go into frank and open discussion on issues, please follow the standard procedure for resolution. Thank you. --jofframes (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Part of talking about article content and not about user conduct is not responding when someone else talks about other editors rather than what is in the article. I advise dropping the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be happy to concentrate from now on debating my original request rather than in users' etiquette. I think that the "New Works" section, as it is written today, goes against WP:POV because it is one-sided, and also WP:SOAPBOX because its purpose is to promote the original research made by one individual. Rather than presenting a balanced view, we find only a list of alleged "discoveries" made by this scholar. My previous attempts at flagging the section for POV were reversed, e.g. this one. Now the banner is back but still the section is totally one-sided, with over 14 footnotes referring to the work of just one individual. Perhaps the whole section should be rewritten in a more balanced way, pointing out that this research needs further academic discussion and is not generally accepted, or the section might be removed until further secondary sources are published that either confirm or refute these "discoveries". --jofframes (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(lets see if this time I get to do it in a right way..)I said what I wanted to say, it is false to say it is not recognized in the academic world. I provided 10 academic journals, plus abstracts of the SSHM and the International Society for the History of Medicine. So that reasoning is just not true. It is the important thing I repeatidly said. That is the key here, according to the rules. And it shows what it was said was not true. Isn't that clear?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help parties build policy based rationale. The relevant policy for this dispute is Neutral point of view, and the particular application of this policy depends on the following factors:

  1. Was the view of Dr. González-Echevarría cited in academic sources?
  2. Did it receive any recognition or opposition?
  3. Were the opposite views discussed in academic sources since the emergence of view of Dr. González-Echevarría?
  4. What other information would allow one to judge on this view's prominence?

Also note: though one of the editors may have a conflict of interests, such conflict does not automatically invalidate his position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make a few points about Mr. Belousov's claim that Dr. González-Echevarría's work was cited in 10 "academic journals". One of the journal is Vesalius, the journal of the International Society for the History of Medicine, the same organization that has been hosting Dr. Echevarría's speeches on his original research. "http://www.ramc.cat/revistes.asp" is a link to covers of the journal of the Royal Academy of Medicine, an affiliate of ISHM and another forum where Dr. Echevarría has been invited to speak, therefore they are just reflecting the academy's programs and activities, therefore the quote. Other sources quoted above refer to the "Librarians' Association of Navarra", which can hardly qualify as a scientific source. "Historia 16" is a popular history magazine, not an academic journal. In the article, all notes from #53 to #66 refer exclusively to Dr. González-Echevarría's book and speeches, with no references to other authors or materials that could be quoted to confirm or contrast his claims. My attempts at flagging the section with a POV banner have been repeatedly reverted, and I am told that Out of 7 users, it is just u, therefore my editions are not accepted. In sum, no contrasting view is allowed that could contradict or nuance Dr. González-Echevarría's original research as promoted by Mr. Belousov and his supporters. This, in my opinion, is not presenting a balanced view but a way of promoting the work of one person, which IMO would break the editing rules of Wikipedia not just regarding WP:POV but also WP:SOAPBOX. --jofframes (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 2

I just spent 20 minutes going through the history at Michael Servetus and I am having trouble figuring out exactly what article text these alleged citations in academic journals are attached to. Could someone quote the exact text that is under dispute?

In the meantime, let's look at those references:

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/busquedadoc?t=francisco+javier+gonzalez+echeverria&db=1&td=todo

503 error: "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." Will try again later.

http://www.miguelservetinvestigacion.com/enlaces.html

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Life of Michael Servetus." References other documents which may be usable, but this page is not an academic journal or a reliable source. Don't use it.

http://www.revista-raices.com/sumarios/suma.php?sum=49

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Roots, a magazine of Jewish culture published in Spain by SEFARAD BOOKS, SL, 1986." Not an academic journal. Not an article: link just goes to table of contents that does not contain the word "Servetus."

http://www.revista-raices.com/sumarios/suma.php?sum=40

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Roots, a magazine of Jewish culture published in Spain by SEFARAD BOOKS, SL, 1986." Not an academic journal. Not an article: link just goes to list of articles. One item on the list translates as "Article: The Jewish origin of Servetus."

http://www.aki-yerushalayim.co.il/

Website language is Judaeo-Spanish, looks like an online magazine, no use of the word "Servetus", certainly not an academic journal.

http://www.ramc.cat/revistes.asp

Another Spanish language list of articles, this time from the website of The Royal Academy of Medicine of Catalonia. Come up with an actual citation to a journal that talks about Servetus. and you might have something.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/vesalius/VESx1999x05x01.pdf

Document from the journal of the International Society for the history of medicine. Mentions Servetus, so I need to see what text the citation is alleged to support.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/vesalius/VESx2001x07x02.pdf

Document from the journal of the International Society for the history of medicine. Mentions Servetus, so I need to see what text the citation is alleged to support.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/eng/galv/prog_06.htm

Another list of documents, this time from the Inter-University Medicine (BIUM) and Pharmacy (BIUP). No mention of Servetus, not an article in an academic journal.

http://www.sehm.es/pages/investigacion/publicaciones-socios

Another list of documents, this time from The Spanish Society for the History of Medicine. No mention of Servetus, not an article in an academic journal.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The ISHM and SSHM are totally big and neutral and peer reviewed, same than pliegos de Biblifilia, Historia 16, Aki reusalahim, Raices Jewish Magazine of Culture, and so. So what are you talking about? It is in very important peer reviewed systems. Stop saying things that are not real. Historia 16 is an academic Journal, Same than Vesalius, same than Pliegos de Bibliofilia or the 2 academic Jewish Magazines I referred. Again, None has given any reference to an academic journal where it would be talked of the new works, in the way that user wants. It is accepted in more than 58 countries thanks to the International Society for the History of Medicine, many universities, and has many supporters, which I listed in my talk page. So, it is the work of one person who has accomplished an amazing discovery, and has got peer reviews systems to check it and to admit it, cause of his solid ands deep research, and they are some of the biggest peer review systems of the world. So stop saying things that are not true thanks. By the way , the " affiliate " to the ISHM, is not true, there are common members that is. Besides he was not invited to talk, it was the president Jacint Corbeia i Corbeia and some other members who talked and defended and communicated Gonzalez discoveries in the RAMC. So, the one claim for doing so is that all this was accomplished by a man. Well, it was. He has many more supporters, and powerful organizations, present in more than 58 countries with scientific commmitte peer reviewed system. So, sometimes in history, Galieo or Newton, can accomplish things by themselves, and prove it scientficaly. And though wikipedia should be calmed deciding on this issues, if it is supported by strong peer reviewed systems, it can perfectly go in Wikipedia, and it should. Besides, the ISHM chooses his members freely, and accepts communications with a very hard revision, and tests, so if Gonzalez was hosted was cause his relevance as a scientist and researcher was important, not just in past , which does not count, but about the communications he had to present. So, the ISHM accepted 5 communications of that researcher, cause he is brilliant, and cause he made scientific communications, on the works, either if it is in Galveston, Patra, Tunis, Barcelona, or Kos. Besides he also communicated in Malaga, Santiago, Albacete with the Spansih Society for the History of Medicine, and in the Andres Laguna INternational Congress. So yea, the ISHM, has accepted, as the SSHM repeatidely great communications of Gonzalez, and presented it in Vesalius. Same that it did with Gregorio Marañón, or Pedro Lain Entralgo in the Past , many Spanish geniuses, cause their communcations are great, and theu were great researchers, so the fact the ISHM loves someone, means that person is great as a researcher, and not the contrary, as u tried to indicate. Please, do not try to make one of the biggest and most important scientific organization like a trifle , when your own MSI, is an organization that does not communicate any finding. Just reflection works, on old stuff of servetus, no research of archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that we are discussing here what the MSI does or does not. We are talking about Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, balanced views, and non-advertising in the Michael Servetus article. I think that your policy of relentlessly promoting Dr. Echevarría's views and blaming everybody else who disagrees with him, does not respond to those standards, but it is not up to me to decide about it. --jofframes (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia says something accepted in peer review systems should be there, so the ISHM has one of the biggest systems in the world when it comes to peer review and pressence in the world. I think that your policy of relentesly destroy anything with Gonzalez has to do with personal interest, anyway, we cannot talk about it here. Here we talk about content, I did say what I had to say about the ISHM, I provided academic journals, that it.It is the biggest contribution to Servetus for the last 500 years. It was claimed non academic acceptance, well one of the biggest organizations which is peer reviewed has accepted it. And the SSHM, , and the RAMC,and appears in many academic journals. The claim is illegitimate. No more issues.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The "something accepted in peer review systems should be there" rule only applies if you cite something that was peer reviewed. Not a table of contents. Not a bibliography. Not some random page that makes no mention of Michael Servetus. You need to learn what a citation is. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you have all whole works and publications Here you have the mention and propper name and citiacion of all the sources. Not all are accesible online, if that is what u ment. But you can read some completelly, specially some Vesalius ones. And yes, some of them apparently are not working. They did some days ago. Anyway, pliegos de Bibliofilia and Historia 16, you can read the titles of the articles and have an idea, same with the communications in the ISHM and SSHM. The titles of the peer reviewed communcations are on the Opera Omnia of galen, On the Dioscories, on the Manuscritp of Complutense, on the Pharmacopoeia dispensarium, on the Portraits or figures from the old Testament, and Ymagine sfrom the old Testament, on the Eight parts of the sentence, on the Andria, on the Dischits of Cato, on the Beauty of the Latin Language. All the new works, communciated in Malaga, Santiago, Albacete, Patra, Tunisia, Galveston, Kos and Barcelona, all after passing the scientific committe, peer reviewed, and all stated in the book of abstracts, published every year. Here you can rear some news, in newspapers , some national ones, * just for curiosity* and , you can read more the medical Diary of Spain, it is in Spanish though, and the programme of the RAMC, it is th Black and white, in the middle of the 1st page. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs . You can also read some Vesalius (dec 1999) and some Pliegos de Bibliofilia (12-1997) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Note: editors, please, mark modifications to your comments with <ins></isn> and <del></del> tags, sign your comments and use edit summaries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 15:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the links provided above to michaelservetusresearch.com refer to Dr. González-Echevarría's personal website, designed to promote his personal views and investigation about Servetus. --jofframes (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) P.S.: The same about miguelservetinvestigacion.com, it is the Spanish version of the same website. --jofframes (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, note that those works were published in peer reviewed systems, some of them huge, with scientific committe and in more than 58 countries and 12 national delegations. We are not here for judging intentions, just for studying where those works were published, and I provided exact citacions. The personal website of that scholar gathers it, But that is irrelevant, the fact they are published is what matters. The fact they were gathered there, as it is normal, cause it is the profile of that researcher, does not make them untrue. It makes a good collection of the works published by this researcher, accepted in the huge ISHM and big SSHM and some academic Journals such as vesalius or pliegos de Bibliofilia, or more. And books of abstracts. Peer reviewed systems do not promote. Study and publish. His views are not personal, are shared by Huge organizations of peer reviewed systems. What is clear is a try to unpromote, based on personal reasons--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Here you have all whole works and publications", you are wrong. That URL does not contain the text of any publication. None of your links do. Unless you can give a citation to an actual document, not just a page that mentions the title, you do not have a citation that Wikipedia can use. Re: "The personal website of that scholar gathers it, But that is irrelevant, the fact they are published is what matters", you are wrong. It is the content of a document that matters. Does it support what we say it does? Is it a reliable source? Please provide citations to actual documents, not to some website that mentions them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we are moving forward by accusing me of having personal reasons (thus going against WP:AGF), or by insisting in your list of "peer-reviewed journals" quoted in Echevarría's own website, and that user Guy Macon has already checked out and verified that most are not scientific or peer-reviewed. I am not trying to "unpromote" anybody, I just would like a more balanced view in the article and particularly in the so-called "New" Works section. Can we debate just on that? --jofframes (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (16:28, 11 August 2012) deleted because it contained the comments "" Do you realy know what you talk of?"" and "Your behaviour sounds partial.". You were warned that any comments that talk about user conduct instead of article content would be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


And also note, I put my banner in the biography sections, for it is published in the Vesalius Academic Journal of ISHM, 3rd reference by Lelouch, that his name is not Servetus. This was shared with the 39 delegations, offices in the 58 countries and 12 national societies, after beeing peer reviewed by a scientific committee.Also same with the RAMC, one can clearly read it in the programme of book of abstracts, Miguel De Villanueva So, this is not referred,nor mentioned, so my banner will remain in the biographical sections.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 3

Perhaps you are not familiar with the full process of peer review. Please note that your first reference from Vesalius, ISHM revue Vesalius, vol. V, nº 1, año 1999 (p. 53, not 59 as you say), is a summary of contents in the Book Review section, not a manuscript submitted by the author which has been scrutinized by peers before publication, or an essay by another scholar who writes an essay or article about the book. The second reference from Vesalius is also a book summary. The third reference from Vesalius is again a book summary and there is only a brief mention to Echevarría's article in the book. The reference to the Catalan congress is just a programme with a list of speakers, not an article. I could provide you with programmes of congresses where I have spoken, but you would probably be more interested in knowing what I said, not where I said it. A full peer-reviewed article on Echevarría's "discoveries" would be necessary. Can you provide just one, apart from summaries and programmes? --jofframes (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (21:20, 11 August 2012) deleted. You were warned to talk about article content, not user conduct, and you decided to break the rule. Your comment "I should not talk about users, well, it is so gross the stuff, that if I do not say it people will not understand what goes on" shows that you are aware of the rule and broke it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Another DRN volunteer has spoken, and you're new comments were not appropriate for DRN, and so I have reverted them. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke, I try to write the whole citazions that Guy Manon asked me to and you revert it? why. It has nothign to do with Users.

(Comment moved here from my talk page --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

You deleted many comments I did not just the ones talking of users, I was rewriting those, preciesly the citazions you asked for, and you block me? Do you find it logical?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to slowly go through your posts deleting just the parts that break the rules. I do not work for free. Break the rules in part of your comment and the whole thing will be deleted. You are free to rewrite your comments without the personal attacks against other editors and resubmit. You were warned to talk about article content, not user conduct, and you decided to break the rule. You were aware of the rule and broke it on purpose. Now you are engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing. (Edit war warning placed on user page). It's really quite simple. follow the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It appears that there is a scholar, González Echeverría, who claims that some works were in fact written by Servetus. I think the applicable WP guideline is WP:FRINGE, which comes into play when a single scholar holds a view that is not endorsed by the majority. WP:FRINGE says "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. " The FRINGE guideline does not say that the viewpoint must be totally omitted from the article, but does say that the article cannot contain a lot of text about it. For example, even the Shakespeare article has an entire paragraph devoted to alterative author theories. For the Michael Servetus article, my suggestion would be that the "New" section, which is rather large now, be compacted down to a one paragraph summary which summarizes Echeverría's claims, and makes it clear they are not endorsed by the majority. --Noleander (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur with this. I specifically asked for citations of other academics that support the view, and I only get a list of names without list of works. If this position is only verified to single academic, and no other academics refer to it either endorsing or opposing it, such positions surely shouldn't get prominence in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Strong agreement with Noleander. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As the OP for this dispute resolution request, I agree and would support Noleander's proposal, it is very reasonable and open to further developments in Servetus studies in the future in order to confirm or refute Echevarría's claims. This would close the dispute request on my side. Thank you all. --jofframes (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I am closing this as resolved; it is clear that the content dispute is settled. I suspect that there will be ongoing issues with user conduct, in which case I advise going through the user conduct steps at WP:DR. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you run into any problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (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.

Religion in Turkey

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Well, for starters, the article presents the KONDA reasearch which states 2.3% agnostics and 0.9% atheists. In the nature of other Religion in Europe articles (all articles use irreligion; not that I'm the fan of the WP:OSE), I asked that those be incorporated into the 3.2% irreligious. However, not only that my proposal was left undiscussed on the talk page, but Saguamundi also requested the article's protection. So, not that it's only content dispute, it's also user conduct dispute (for not discussing and practically using WP:OWN). Please, help us resolve these disputes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring (wasn't the best idea), temporally full protection (didn't help), discussion on talk page (Saguamundi didn't want to discuss - at all), help desk...

How do you think we can help?

Firstly, you could 'convince' Saguamundi to act properly and be a good Wikipedian discussing rather than edit warring (plus WP:OWN). Secondly, you could help me/us determine whether atheism and agnosticism should be unified as irreligion or not. Thirdly, you could find the third, compromising (and maybe creative) idea, so that everyone would be happy and satisfied.

Opening comments by Saguamundi

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Poeticbent

First of all, I'm NOT an "involved user". So, why am I being dragged into this? All I did was to revert once a suspicious chart with no external source and numbers that did not correspond to what the article said. I requested the citation. The uploader corrected his mistake and appologized in his edit summary; I let go of it, end of story. However, KONDA Research is a private company from Turkey (not from Poland) involved only in polling and data collection. It is one of over a dozen such companies in Turkey earning a living by research in Social Sciences and Humanities.[1] I wonder why the charts are posted everywhere around (from Albania to Norway), even if the actual data isn't new or differs from the equally reliable local sources? Is there a possible COI behind this unusual push for mass inclussion of KONDA results in Wikipedia? And why is a dynamic IP doing the posting instead of a registered user? There must be a better way of doing this, without giving grief. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Erp

I've also had not been involved in the Religion in Turkey article; however, I have been involved in the Religion in Norway article and was considering bringing up the problem there though I was awaiting a discussion in Talk:Religion in Norway. Namely the renaming and shoehorning of cited statistics into a bar graph which I think misleads people. The same seems to be happening in the Turkey article (with the addition that the stats however munged apparently don't seem to come from the given reference). As an aside I find irreligion as a term inappropriate and vague for what is included under it; it is too strong a word to apply to the merely non-religious. It is not used very much as far as I can see in modern scholarly research and most of those uses are for specific historical periods when the term was in use. The Library of Congress has a sum total of at most 67 works classified as being about 'irreligion' (the search would also find use in notes or title) which means their definition of it must be quite narrow and far narrower than its current use in Wikipedia. --Erp (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Tahc

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Sabrebd

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Religion in Turkey discussion

Discussion

I will wait for the other party to comment. Page protection is never the solution to a dispute, and atheism is different than irreligion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and am awaiting an opening statement by Saguamundi. Electric Catfish 21:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is already some chat here, I would like to interject. Agnosticism and irreligion are unrelated (see Agnostic theism). Thus uniting agnostics and atheists you get a set of people who are not necessarily irreligious; renaming atheists to irreligious you get a set of people, which is smaller then amount of irreligious. Statistics is all about it: the way the question is posed severely limits ability of data manipulation. That is why the community-wide RfCs are normally prepared for quite a lot of time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the irreligion says. It clearly includes 'all the possibilities' (of course not agnostic theism; it's theism, so belief is present; agnostics we talk about here are agnostic atheists). You got me confused with the part of the way question is posed? This all seems lake a misunderstanding to me. Could someone write what irreligion is and what it isn't? Is article lying? Regarding the informations it contains, irreligious are - atheists, secular humanists (mostly atheists), antitheists (atheists again), anticlericalists (wide group; from atheists to SBNR), antireligionists (wide group again), apatheists, ignostics, nontheists (wide group; discluding nontheistic religions), religious skeptics, etc... However, those actually sum up almost only to atheists and (agnostic) atheists. So, is it OK to count atheists and agnostics as irreligious or not (my guess is yes)? 93.87.210.14 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that irreligion is lying, as it uses word "agnostic" in sense of "agnostic atheist". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What to do in that case? Nominate irreligion for speedy (kidding of course)? However, these issues must be checked, since there are some conflicting definitions (as I 'got a hold of them') that need to be adressed, so they don't cause confusion. Either way, the 'opening' comment is still pretty much needed. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with Poeticbent. The volounteer added all of you (who clearly have nothing to do with Religion in Turkey dispute; I actually already explained that). As for 'KONDA agenda', it could be prestent (but only in Religion in Turkey), since (read Religion in Turkey's talk and hisory pages) Saguamundi was one instisting (for several years) "stick to KONDA", "we better stick to KONDA", etc. I posted a question on help desk regarding major Wikipedia justice I experienced in these few days [2]. So, KONDA's present only in Religion in Turkey, so no 'KONDA agenda' is present. 93.86.129.66 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, filing requests on the same topic in different places is discouraged on Wikipedia. Such practice is usually referred to as "forum shopping". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That was mainly regarding the other user conduct dispute (no relations with this one). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would you derive the amount of "irreligious" in the "Religion in Turkey"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Big sorries for not being able to comment earlier. As for irreligious in Turkey, according to the updated terminology used by KONDA (thank you for doing that, since I wasn't able to access the archive), it would be only 0.9%. I'm confused about those 2.3%. They don't seem to be the agnostic atheist. Are they just people not going to church/mosque, Muslims not doing obligatory prayer? Or maybe some of these: agnostic theists, believers without religion (Ietsers and SBNR)? Any further specification (non-believer is imprecise, and is Arabic term (Kafir) used to denote all non-Muslims)? Either way(s), all those don't belong to Irreligion, but to respective religions (agnostic theists, Ietsers and SBNR usually identify with one of the religions (see respective articles)). A for bar box, new one would contain: 98.4% Islam (what's left after everything else is counted in), 0.9% Irreligion/Atheism (KONDA) and 0.7% Others (referenced and present in the beginning of the article). In that case, Atheism could be a better choice (same as with Serbia, Romania, Luxembourg, Russia, Belarus etc.). However, Irreligion is still the best choice for Germany, France, Sweden, Norway (unless the article renaming), the Netherlands, Latvia, etc, etc... So, since it's the most appropriate term for the most Religion in Europe articles, I though that it would be good to use Irreligion for all, so that there is consistency present. Also, readers would be able to compare the information more easily, since the same terms would be used. Thoughts? 178.223.215.93 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See, this particular classification is very uncommon and difficult to match against common variants. So even if the policy would allow to state own analysis of sources (WP:OR forbids this), any particular option would constitute improper synthesis, as all of the groups the source uses includes irreligious (eg. anticlericals are "non-believers", while agnostic-theists may be "believers", "religious" or "fully devouts"). We just can't report the sources the way that misrepresents their findings, so unless there'll be some source that would group various flavors of "irreligious" into single group, we just can't use the word "irreligious".
That said, inconsistency between articles is a problem indeed. Still, in the lack of consistency within sources all we can do is to give an explanatory note, stating that the classification in this particular article doesn't match that in other articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sadly, thing aren't always black and white (talking about Wikipedia (in)consistency here; present in all the other printed encyclopedias). So, should I start renaming "Irreligion" to "Atheism" where it's applicable as so (Serbia, Russia, Luxembourg, etc.) or should I wait for other opinions, if any? I still am kind of a beginner. Nevertheless, after closing all the discussions here on English Wikipedia (there are a few left excluding this), I'll start (as a registered user) on Serbian Wikipedia, translating English articles, so don't except me to "intrude" here on the religion again, EVER. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Acually, after a little thought, I think we should wait a few days (why we couldn't), since I remember some users, such as BigNate37 (talk · contribs), Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Ebe123 (talk · contribs) promised they'll join in the discussion. I'll left them notes on their respective talk pages. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Still here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(Still here), not giving us your piece of mind? What's the sitch? Sagaumundi's comment isn't to be excepted (disregarding the fact he's not the "problem" now). It actually is crucial to have as many thoughts as possible (including yours, of those I sent the note to, and all the other available volounteers). Please, comment. Disputes involving the whole Wikipedia can't be solved obly by two users (me and Czarkoff in this case). 178.223.223.170 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure we can wait. I would say we should wait, as is quite possible that some more appropriate solution would be found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that, after reading our discussion again, I think we solved everything except "humanism". Now, the results are:

  • For Saguamundi (talk · contribs), nothing is to be taken againsts him.
  • For "Irreligion" and "No religion", it should be written as the source says.
  • For "(Secular) Humanism", discussion is still ahead.

I'll start changing the terms and report back here. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now → EUR (Irreligion → Atheism), ALB (no chart), AND (no chart), ARM (no disputed terms), AUT (stayed Irreligion), AZE (no disputed terms), BLR (help needed), BEL (Irreligion → Atheism), BIH (no disputed terms), BGR (help needed), CRO (Irreligion → Atheism), CYP (no disputed terms), CZE (Irreligion → No religion), DNK (Irreligion → No religion), EST (Irreligion → No religion), FIN (Irreligion → No religion), ITA (Irreligion → No religion), IRL (Irreligion → No religion), KAZ (Irreligion → Atheism), ISL (Irreligion → No religion), HUN (Irreligion → No religion), GRC (no disputed terms), GER (Irreligion → No religion), GEO (no disputed terms), FRA (Irreligion → No religion). Still lots to go, but I need a break. Please, help with Belarus and Bulgaria. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions of editors, whose opening statements are missing: all of them were active after receiving the notification, so there is no sense in waiting for their comments to come. If nobody disagrees, I'll close this case as "resolved". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, first see what I'm doing and if it's right. Continuing → LVA (Irreligion → No religion), LIE (no disputed terms), LTU (Irreligion → No religion), LUX (Irreligion → Atheism), MKD (no disputed terms), MLT (no chart), MDA (no disputed terms), MCO (no chart), MNE (no disputed terms), NLD (need help), NOR (discussion still going on), POL (stayed Irreligion), PRT (is that vandalism?), ROU (no disputed terms), RUS (Irreligion → Atheism), SMR (no disputed terms), SRB (Irreligion → Atheism), SVK (Irreligion → No religion; help, atricle's confusing and misleading), SVN (Irreligion → Atheism; help, article is totally vandalized), ESP (Irreligion → No religion), SWE (Irreligion → Atheism), CHE (stayed Irreligion; maybe erroneously), TUR (no chart), UKR (Unaffiliated seems good enough), GBR (everything's clear), ENG (no chart), WLS (Irreligion → No religion), NIR (Irreligion → No religion), KSV (no disputed terms) and, finally, ABK (None → No religion). 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I just need help with Belarus, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal (sources???), Slovakia (confusing and misleading) and Slovenia (it's either atheo-vandalized or unreferenced). 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't close the discussion before checking if everything's alright and helping me with forementioned articles. Thanks, 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should be closed when there is no further dispute to resolve. Is that the case here? The discussion about helping you with the articles should go on the article talk pages --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Answered questions

The first question (user misconduct)

The first question is: Is it appropriate for Saguamundi (talk · contribs) to get a warning for his misconduct and violation of WP: 3RR, WP: OWN and WP: BRD? Note: It has to be done by someone else, since I, as an IP user, can't do it myself. Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes since he didn't do too little for nothing, nor too much for ban. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as this was already previously discussed, I'll answer: no, I see no grounds for issuing any warnings. Saguamundi performed exactly 3 reverts withing 3 days, thus not breaking WP:3RR, explaining his position in edit summaries. Though it would be nice of him to actually answer your comment on the talk page, he wasn't obliged to. I see no violation of WP:OWN, and WP:BRD is an essay, so we can't emit warnings based on it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, then, I change my yes to no, since this issue isn't the major one. Also, Saguamundi (talk · contribs) won't be able to re-add his bar "KONDA bar box", since it actually was a kind of guesstimate. Nevertheless, he's been active today and should be urged to join the discussion, so concensus could be reached. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The second question (irreligion)

The second question is: Is it appropriate to use irreligion as all-in-one term in bar boxes, pie charts, etc, which would, per its definition, include atheists, agnostics (agnostic atheists), secular humanists and other belief systems which either reject, deny, or somehow else (ignosticism) dismiss belief of deities, God or life spirit? Note: It would obviously exclude non-theistic religions and belief systems containig some supernatural/faith elements (deism and agnostic theism; however, these group are least likely to be counted in any census, survey or research in reasonable percent (which wouldn't show up as 0.00%); same goes for (almost unambiguously irreligious) ignosticims). Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes, since all the forementioned belief systems clearly state that supernatural stuff doesn't exist, that it can't be proven, and/or that it can't be concluded without the 'more specified' definition (though this is irrelevant, since ignosticism isn't to be found in any study as of today), thus effectively making the Irreligious group a valid one, which, while having some significant belief differences, implicate to the very same thing (already noted in Irreligion article/definition). Also, in case of Religion in Norway (only one including humanism), the information (which include humanism) aren't disturbed by the bar box containing only Irreligion. As it already was said, humanism isn't a religion, so only way (a great one for me) of giving it it's own bar is renaming of article to "Religious and life stances in Norway". I fully support the remaning. So, the 13.6% of Norway is irreligious from the religion point. However, from the life stance point, 12.9% are atheists, agnostics, etc, while 1.7% are humanists. Does that suit its purpose, Erp? I'll get the more stances out if needed (but at the earliest after 16:00 UTC). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No (explained above). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The appropriateness of using 'irreligion' is entirely dependent on the reliable sources we have. Our first priority should be to represent the information in our sources as accurately and completely as possible: this is more important than being consistent with the categories included in articles that use different sources. If a particular poll of religious affiliation differentiates agnosticism and atheism, we should present it that way. Whatever the categories provided, and especially if they are not technically religions (regarding the Norway matter of humanism), we should present the information with neutral wording so as to avoid indication of approval or rejection of the sources' chosen categories. To re-label the determinations that poll respondents made is to flirt with intellectual dishonesty, because poll responses depend very much on the exact wording of the alternatives. Let me be clear: we should not speculate on the "actual meaning" of poll responses at all. If it's a matter of massaging the data of one poll to fit the categories used for several other independent and reliable polls, well maybe we ought to apply the spirit of WP:UNDUE: give the poll with non-conforming categories a separate and less prominent mention. BigNate37(T) 01:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, my first thought was that WikiProject Religion ought to have a say in the matter if we want to see a definitive consensus that isn't going to need reevaluation in a month's time. However, I'm reluctant to just keep adding people to a dispute, but this does seem to fit the bill of a necessary assumption à la WP:MNA. They should be included if and when it's time to settle the matter once for all as implied by WP:MNA. BigNate37(T) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The third question (humanism)

The third question is: Do you support the renaming of article "Religion in Norway" to "Religious and life stances in Noway", with making "Religion in Norway" and "Life stances in Norway" as redirects? Answer the forementioned question in bold and explain your stance, please. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that in the case of Norway it isn't a poll but religious/life stance registration reported by the government which is why the numbers aren't rounded in the tables (and why I think Humanism should have its own line in the bar chart). One addition to the confusion is that the various sources measure different things: self-religious identity (what people identify themselves as), government or organizational definition of identity (what the government or some other entity such as a church state people are such as 99%+ are Muslim according to the Turkish government though surveys seem to indicate the number is a bit lower), religiosity (how strongly do they abide by their religion's rules which is what the KONDA survey reports on), or particular beliefs (e.g., do you believe in a god). The Pew Forum's survey of American religion and beliefs had some interesting results including the number of self-identified Christians who didn't believe in a god either as a personal or impersonal force (there were also a certain percentage of self-identified atheists who believed in a god). Certain religions such as Judaism and Unitarian Universalism have large numbers of people who would also say they are atheists and also large numbers who say they aren't (another reason why you just can't throw 'atheists' into the 'irreligion' category). I do think we should not close the discussion immediately; it is summer still so interested parties may not be checking frequently. --Erp (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I seem to agree with Erp more and more (note (this isn't a typo) that I didn't agree with him at all in the beginning). However, for me, it's against common sense to regard humanism as religion, since it has nothing to do with it (other than the particular stances common to atheism, agnosticism, etc). Even the Norwegian Government groups it, not with "religious organizations", but with "religious and life stance organizations". So, in accordance with Norwegian Government, article should be renamed from "Religion in Norway" to "Religious and life stances in Norway". I'll open this as the third question (talk page was ignored). So, my answers is yes. As for Judaism, hiloni concept is what allows the classification as either (thus never giving us the opportunity to see the real percent of atheist in Israel), which is same as Christian atheism - you're actually an atheist, but no-one can make you not to declare yourself Christian (see PANONIAN's statement on Talk:Religion in Serbia). 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No way! The fact that the article's content is mainly verified to this specific source doesn't alternate the article's subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The text of this discussion does seem to be rearranging itself. My answer is No we do not change the name of the article and we do include humanism in contents. We go by scholarly consensus (not common sense of a few individuals) and though we can use government definitions to develop a consensus we can't use them alone as that would mean groups like Ethical Culture (which like the Norwegian Humanists are members of the International Humanist and Ethical Union) are religions (which they are under US law) since this means A is a religion in one place but not another. In the case of Norway, other than the name the Norwegian Humanist Association is treated like other recognized religious organizations by the government, people register for it in the same way they register for a more standard religion, it receives revenue from the government in the same way as other sufficiently big religions (other than the state church which has some extra privileges) do (and by ranking it is the 3rd largest), it performs rituals such as naming, confirmation, marriage, and funerals and has the legal authority to perform state recognized marriages (which otherwise only certain state officials or members of other sufficiently recognized religions can do). Note the definition of Religion in the wiki article does not include a requirement of belief in anything supernatural, "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values". How does Norwegian Humanism not fit that definition? Admittedly the talk page (including archives) for Religion has a lot of argument about the definition (the archives especially). --Erp (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one rearranging it so that there won't be a need for double discussion (repeating what already has been said). I must admit that you got me confused with this one. Do we portray religion as membership in particular organizations or as a subjective view? It it's about membership, article renaming is the best possibility. If it's about subjectivity, face it, (secular) humanists are atheists, agnostics, or whatever (sorry if this was rude; I know it only as a neutral English phrase). Prove me wrong. Also, one of IHEU's strategic aims is "to promote Humanism as a non-theistic life stance throughout the world". Life stance, not religion. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not of much relevance here: the source reports humanists alongside with other categories; given that we are not going to explain the principles and methodology of the source in the article, we should not play with numbers to make them fit any artificial constrains, whatever consistent and practical these constrains may be or seem to be. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I still am skeptical about this one. However, (secular) humanism "isn't" in my domain, so maybe I actually shouldn't "interfere" so much. All the mentioned Humanists are members of the Norwegian Humanist Association, thus effectivelly IHEU, so there shouldn't be confusion about what they are and what they aren't. I'll have to re-think while fixing "no religion". 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There could be a problem about this one since consensus isn't to be reached soon, and article's talk page isn't the most visited one. Still, do as you wish. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll actually close tis one and we'll see what will happen on the talk page. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The fourth question (no religion)

The fourth question is (I'll try not to open any more, but this is for discussion's tidiness): Do you support the renaming of "no religion" group in all the Religion in Europe articles to "Irreligion" (Religion in Scotland, for example)? Answer the forementioned question in bold and explain your stance, please. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes, since this one doesn't seem much controversal. Also, everywhere where "no religion" is present, it actually links to Irreligion. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No, stick with sources in all cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
However, how "no religion" isn't "irreligion"? "I" is one of the negating prefixes, and another "r" is added so it wouldn't be read as I-religion. So, "Irreligion" is a synonym of "no religion". Isn't it? 178.223.114.175 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Having no religion isn't equal to not believing in god, supreme power or something else (see Spinozism for example). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That seem like pantheism and/or panentheism to me?! 178.223.114.175 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Still, these words describe the general views, not any particular religion; in fact pantheists (eg. Einstein) ordinarily call themselves non-religious. That is: non-religious equals to not adhering any particular religion, not to having no religious believes. Non-religious + religious ≠ all. This is specifically valid in statistics, when nobody knows the particular understanding of the term by each respondent. That is why rephrasing and/or refactoring data is discouraged on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for "further" explaining that to me. I'll start "fixing" "Irreligion" to "No religion" where possible. However, that way, Irreligion will eventually become an (semi-)orphaned article. Thank you also for linking me to the article, since I always thought Einstein was atheist and/or hiloni. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (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.

Provisional Irish Republican Army

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue is the claiming of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann as the official Irish Gaelic name for the Provisional IRA. My contention, and that of others, is that the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is the official and legal title (in Irish) of the Irish Defence Forces, a state body. This is clearly indicated on their homepage at http://www.military.ie/. A search for Óglaigh na hÉireann on the Wiki confirms my assertion (and that of others) and also that various terrorist organisations have styled themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann throughout the years. I do not dispute that the Provisional IRA claimed this name as their own and believe it should be included in the article and any other articles concerning Irish terrorist groupings, that this is the case, that they "styled themselves" as Óglaigh na hÉireann. I also believe that the true Irish translation " IRA Sealadach" should be used as the Irish Gaelic translation on all pages concerning the Provisional IRA. This is not being accepted by other editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.

How do you think we can help?

Dispute resolution can have some experienced and uninvolved editors review the two schools of thought and make a ruling on it which can then be treated as the concensus.

Opening comments by

FergusM1970

It seems clear that, as the name is used by PIRA, it needs to be mentioned in the article. However its present place does give it undue prominence; they're certainly not called that in Ireland, where the term is used to refer to the Irish Defence Forces and PIRA is in any case banned, and in the UK they're always referred to as PIRA or just the IRA. My suggestion would be to remove it from its current location and add an explanation of its use by PIRA elsewhere in the article.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Provisional Irish Republican Army discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Before I begin, I want to make sure you understand that this process is non-binding; I can't make anyone do anything. But it seems to me that there is already a compromise solution in your opening statements and in the lede of the article. The current opening sentence says this:

And the current last sentence of the first paragraph says this:

  • "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is also referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by its supporters as the Army or the 'RA;<ref> its constitution establishes it as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language."

It seems to me that if "Óglaigh na hÉireann" translates as "The Irish Volunteers," not the "Irish Republican Army," then the use in the lead sentence is misleading. But you could by all means keep it in the other sentence I copied over, the last sentence of the lead paragraph. Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about the version of a name in a different language having a different literal meaning. From a policy and guidelines perspective, there is nothing immediately wrong with the current wording. For example, on the article North Korea, the korean wording does not mean "North Korea", or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The legitimacy or not of the PIRA should also not effect what it gives as it's official name. From familiarity with the topic in general, Óglaigh na hÉireann is by far the more common name amongst the sources, "IRA Sealadach" I've personally never heard of. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can one of the involved users fill in all involved users into "Users involved". Currently it just contains one user. I notice that discussions only began on the talk pages yesterday; 1 day seems far too early to bring the issue to DRN. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now included the names of the other (proposed) participants.

My contention is this: the usage of this name can be found explained at Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is absolutely clear that most Irish armed groupings, especially those claiming the name IRA (in some shape or another) claim to be the only Óglaigh na hÉireann. This is the invention of tradition in true Irish style. (see Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 1983, Cambridge University Press). The more support a particular grouping gets the more likely they are to claim the name, however: the Government of Ireland claim it for their armed forces and have done since the inception of an independent political process in Ireland. (c1916) (1st Dail for interested onlookers). It is my firm belief that the Provisional IRA article should reflect all of this and explain that their constitution claimed the name Óglaigh na hÉireann although it is not the translation for their working title in English. Explain to the reader WHY they chose this name and give links to the organisations who claim it now that the Provisional IRA is defunct. My firm opinion is that we should not allow "Invention of History" to become fact on Wikipedia and that the information we supply to readers should be accurate to degree level. In support of this I would ask participants to do a google search on Óglaigh na hÉireann and see how many pages they have to go through before finding a reference to the Provisional IRA. I ask also that the comments here [[3]] be noted. The quotes are by Martin McGuinness, the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein (formerly Provisional Sinn Feinn). They were the political arm of the Republican Movement and McGuinness himself is a former senior member of the Provisional IRA Army Council. Even he says that PIRA only "styled" themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann and the only true holder of the name is the Irish Defence Forces (he uses the words "Irish Army"). You have it from me, you have it from the Wiki's own articles, you have it from Martin McGuinness. I put it to the discussion that the only way forward is to clarify the usage and stop trying to make it look as if it was an official, recognised title. It never was. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: @Wolfie - the discussion on the talk page has been ongoing since 19th July. Not just in the last two days. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't determine things through googling; (besides what is more of interest is the google scholar results and flick through; many of these sources demonstrates the academic usage). Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research. The legal legitimacy of the naming is irrelevant; as wikipedians we merely report what they are named as in the Irish language. From what I can see Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name for the PIRA as seen in the academic sources (I looked through google scholar). If there are other groups who also referred to as Óglaigh na hÉireann then they can be given the same name in their respective articles in the very same format. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've never come across anyone who uses the name for any IRA grouping. Nor is it an Irish translation. It is, as Martin McGuinness says, "a styling". As Wikipedians we must note this for the benefit of all readers who seek information. Otherwise all we are doing is perpetuating a myth which is being forced upon the reader in an attempt to make it tradition. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just because you've never come across anyone who does doesn't mean no one does. Yes, it should be noted that this is a "styling," not a direct translation or the most common name. But if you want to say "and no one actually uses/used it"...source, please. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorgath I happen to agree with you although I would contend that a concensus could be found to show that the name was not in common usage by them. My contention is that it should be noted that this is a "styling" and the reasons for that explained. It should also be removed as the official title in Irish as it is only a styling. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That it is not a direct translation is unimportant (see the North Korea example above). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there are no objections I'll close this discussion shortly (within the next 24 hours), as only one of the involved parties participated in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have an objection. I took the discussion here for resolution and no resolution has been found. I believe the other editors should be encouraged to take part otherwise (with respect) this process isn't succeeding in its intent. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also object, saying that Óglaigh na hÉireann is an Irish translation of PIRA is just factually incorrect. It is an indirect translation for IRA, and that is why the provos claim it. Members of this paramilitary consider themselves the original IRA and not a split away group, just as the CIRA and RIRA do. Maybe the opening sentence should read "commonly referred to as Oglaigh na hEireann by members". Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the RIRA and CIRA articles on wikipedia read "styling themselves as Oglaigh na hEireann", why should the Provisionals be any different from other IRA split away groups? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that the RIRA article, along with it's opening sentence, has "Oglaigh na hEireann" printed in brackets directly underneath "Real Irish Republican Army" in the infobox, without saying it's an Irish translation. Maybe we could do this with the PIRA page? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this translation is any different than that for North Korea. Translations usually are not direct translations in any language. There appear to be adequate (it appears to be the Irish language common name for them) sources that give the PIRA the name "Oglaigh na hEireann". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No one else has turned up here besides those who object, hence no consensus can really be reached here. You also appear to be new to the discussion but are not listed as in the initial party. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is now ongoing. I certainly don't object to new parties joining, all input is good input. The over-riding concern Wolfie is that the etymology is explained on the article instead of just a name grab as we're seeing now. Wikipedia is effectively contradicting itself because there is an organisation called Oglaigh na hEireann which also claims the name as its working title in English and has a page here. There is also a page explaining the etymology of the name and it clearly shows that PIRA don't have exclusive claim to it - notwithstanding the IDF's own page and their webpage. If allowed to go unchecked this could become very confusing for many readers who are seeking factual information. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the etymology of the name is important in armed Republican history. Each IRA grouping claims the name as a direct link to the Irish Volunteers of 1916. I think this should be noted but it should be made clear that these Irish words are not a direct translation of PIRA any more than they are of IRA, CIRA or RIRA, and that they are used to gain kudos within Republican circles. If we don't do this we are allowing the article to establish myth as tradition, although it can be argued that there is a tradition of adopting the name. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2012 (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.

The Zeitgeist Movement

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Disagreement on whether links should be included in the 'See also' section of the TZM article. (a) Private property, social equality, resource allocation, wage labor and profit motive are phrases that are already present in the article. In the past, I've converted these phrases to links in the body of the TZM article, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that these created a wp:LINKFARM. So I'm including them instead in 'See also' per wp:see also. Buckminster Fuller, Ignaz Semmelweis, Wright brothers and Nicola Tesla are discussed in the TheMarker article on TZM. Buckminster Fuller is also the subject of a recent TZM radio program, and Ignaz Semmelweis, Wright brothers and Nicola Tesla are also the subjects of several lectures by Ben McLeish, a TZM spokesperson. Imagine (song) and Carl Sagan are discussed in the New York Times article, as well as in Zeitgeist: The Movie. (b) I'll be happy to provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent or when the meaning of the term may not be generally known. (c) See this comment by a this comment by a WP editor. (e) Imagine (song) is also discussed in Donavan's performance in the 2011 Zeitgeist Media Festival. Carl Sagan is also discussed by Peter Joseph in his performance. (The translation of the TheMarker article is here (and the same translation but in an easier-to-read format here, at the bottom of the page.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, in the See-also section on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Editors' views on whether these links satisfy or violate wp: See also are solicited. Thank you.

Opening comments by Youreallycan

I will open with the detail from the guideline and my comments from the talkpage - Youreallycan 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • - Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. - Its normal that have seen here that we focus on truly associated issues/things - and we keep them down - we dont add all sorts of everything - people that have no affiliations with a subject should not be added imo - they may well object and song and suchlike - imo we usually keep the see also more focused than you are interpreting the guideline

The Zeitgeist Movement discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

There's a ArbCom case requested agaist Youreallycan. I suggest going there. So I will be closing this request and making a note of it at ArbCom. ~~Ebe123

What has that got to do with this report - nothing - stop revert warring to close it Youreallycan 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)-
I don't see that this discussion has anything to do with the arbitration case. Unless sanctioned, editors do continue to edit during arb cases. In particular this dispute is more about a technical issue which is somewhat open ended in that the final word, as with much of Wikipedia, comes down to editor judgement and agreement, so when there is contention an obvious and good place to come is a NB where uninvolved editors can add input.(olive (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC))
It doesn't. The DRN can progress pending the result of a case - but this requires all participants to read and agree to the rules of the board. All participants, please indicate you have done so before we proceed. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 18:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Where are the rules of the board? - I have just read and accept the explanatory details at the top of the page - Youreallycan 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. However, if this is related to user conduct, it doesn't belong here. We only comment on content disputes, not disputes over user conduct. Electric Catfish 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
See Guide for Participants at the top of the page. Electric Catfish 18:15,
This is clearly the users desire to add content that has been repeatedly removed and so he has come here - he wants to add lots of tangent see also links - other users objects - that the issue - Youreallycan 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah that it - then yes I had read that - Youreallycan 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, now that's out of the way...hi! I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This dispute is very clear cut - WP:SEEALSO is as exactly YRC quoted - the entries in the section should be directly related, not just passing mentions. The content in a see also section is deteined by consensus - and consensus on the talk page is pretty clear. My personal opinion is that the extra links don't directly relate to the article and should be left out. The first instance of the words in the article should probably be wikilinked, as long as we are not overlinking and the wikilinked provide some relevance. That's my take on this dispute. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This has also been discussed many times before with IjonTickyIjonTichy, including at least once here at DRN, if I remember correctly. He refuses to listen, and to me his behavior has now degraded to nothing more than disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The threads involving the user is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33#Resource-based economy, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 32#The Zeitgeist Movement, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38#The Zeitgeist Movement. The last 2 are about this subject. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that "refuses to listen" and "nothing more than disruption" are accurate? I don't see him edit warring to re-include the content, and while he seems rather set in his opinion, he's discussing it with me right now on the article's Talk page. Maybe some people are simply reacting kind of strongly here? -- Avanu (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure. Yes, he is discussing with you. It will not make a difference. We have had exactly this discussion and said the same things before. He'll give up when he realizes that he can't win, then he comes back in a couple of weeks, and does the same thing again. His adding of completely irrelevant things to the See Also section has been going on for a while. If all the things he added there would have stayed the See Also section would probably be longer than the rest of the article by now. And when everybody (and I do mean everybody) tells him he is wrong, he reacts with accusing us of "groupthink". --OpenFuture (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (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.

Cold Fusion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Yes. Went to the page "Cold Fusion". Under the section "Popular Culture" ( at the bottom of the page) I wrote :

" In the 2010 film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, the Jake Moore character (played by Shia LaBeouf) attempts to find funding for an energy company that plans to utilize lasers focused on a small target, thereby releasing enormous amounts of energy, a process that bears similarity to the idea of Cold Fusion. "

This editing was removed twice. Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the information, it is extremely accurate, and the context is very accurate. So why was it removed?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


How do you think we can help?


Opening comments by Binksternet

This matter is not important enough for DRN examination. Pantothenic has made two basic errors: his text talks about hot fusion, not cold fusion, and the notional connection between a fictional plot and any kind of actual science is not established by cited sources—it is instead a personal observation. The matter is being handled sufficiently well at Talk:Cold fusion. No need for action here. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Opening comments by

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Cold Fusion discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I noticed that some part of this case have not been filled out. There is only one name listed and the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" and "How do you think we can help?" sections are blank. Could you please go back and correct these problems before we proceed? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! This is Pantothenic. The reason those fields were not filled out is because their was no space in which to fill them out. Meaning, there was no blank field. After scrolling the cursor around the headings, and elsewhere, I found no field of any kind in which to input data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantothenic (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it, and I apologize for that not working. The form is pretty new and may have some problems I am going to pass this on to our form-making gnome. In the meantime, could you just write down the answer to "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" "How do you think we can help?" and the name of whoever else in involved? Don't worry about where -- I will move it to the right place and then we can get back to trying to solve this dispute. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet is a very seasoned editor, who is very familiar with WP policies. I'd recommend following up on his suggestion above. Not to say the case should be closed instantly, but it would be appropriate to take Binksternet's suggestion as a starting point. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am closing this because of [this]. DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion on other forums, and this looks like a pretty clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
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.

User_talk:Complainer, Felice_Bauer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User Br'er_Rabbit, apparently offended at the idea that I deleted my own edit in a minor discussion with another (uninvolved) user, repeatedly vandalized my talk page with name calling and some kind of fake proposal to keep me from applying common sense policies in dealing with my own talk page. I am fairly indifferent to this; however, Br'er_Rabbit resorted to stalking and reverted an edit to Felice Bauer in spite of being explained that the text removed it is both incorrect and badly written. Assuming good faith, I am forced NOT to assume that this is an attempt at making me violate the 3RV policy; it is, however vandalism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Applied WP:NOR, deleted vandalizing edit. The confrontational nature of the edits prevented me from discussing them with the other party involved, who seems to be very angry for some reason unknown to me. I have had no dealing with him before, neither on wikipedia or otherwise, and the nature of his hostility is unknown to me.

How do you think we can help?

Reprimand Br'er_Rabbit; failing that, block him and his (official) sockpuppets from editing my pagesfrom editing my pages. Reinstate the edit on Felice_Bauer (which I am prevented from doing by the 3RV rule). Suggest forum for inexperienced editors where Br'er_Rabbit can be read about the nature of trolling and the application of WP:NOR.

Opening comments by Br'er_Rabbit

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

User_talk:Complainer, Felice_Bauer discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The parties have not yet discussed this matter on the article's talk page (see Talk:Felice_Bauer). The DRN instructions at the top of the DRN page state that DRN is "not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN." Recommend that the parties be instructed to try to resolve this on the article Talk page; and if a week goes by without resolution, then start a case here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Felice Bauer page is a collateral: the main issue is vandalism on my own page. I will, however, discuss that side of the issue there, as instructed.complainer (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: (1) a content issue: should the article mention that the person goes by only one name; and (2) behavior/civility issues. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard only handles content issues, which is item (1). That is what needs to be handled first at the Talk page (then come back here later, if needed). The behavior issue (2) can be addressed now, in another forum like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleader is right. We don't comment on user conduct here. Please first discuss it with Br'er Rabbit and address the conduct concerns at AN/I or WQA. Electric Catfish 21:33, 14 August 2012 (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.

Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User 72.89.35.142 adds incorrect info to airport articles, for which they have been repeatedly warned on their talk page. In the present case, User:AlanM1 edited the list of destinations at Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport to correct it back to researched and cited sources, noting the details on the article talk page and those of the involved users. The IP user wasted no time in re-adding a non-existent destination, with no edit summary, and writing nothing in response on either talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

(As described in overview,) posted to both article and user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

  1. Confirm my objection to the un-sourced and invalid content.
  2. Convince the user that they cannot continue to ignore the community – they have a pattern of this abuse according to their talk page
  3. Revert the edit and block them if they won't play nice


Opening comments by 72.89.35.142

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I would like for the IP to respond, but the chances of that are low, due to the fact the user does not have a userpage which is immediately accessible and because the IP can hop easily. If this goes stagnant I would opt for page protection. Removing sourced information is typically a bad thing when you replace it with nothing and never respond. But let's give this a chance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for accuracy, this particular user's part of the issue was to add Doha via Qatar Air as a destination. The first time he did it, removing the existing Qatar Air destinations of LHR, Medan, and Surabaya was actually correct – it's just the addition of Doha (and Qatar Airways) that is wrong :) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this a content dispute? or a behavior issue? Is there any question about what the destinations are? Looking at the Talk page of the article, it looks like the IP(s) have not engaged in conversation yet: Alan posted a comment on the Talk page yesterday, but the IP(s) have not yet responded. Should we give the IP the opportunity to engage on the article Talk page first? --Noleander (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently both. I updated Talk:Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport#Destinations with the timeline.
  • I investigated the destinations carefully, using the airlines own timetables, a CRS, and a realtime flight status site, and cited them at 2012-08-04T15:53Z. Feel free to check yourself, but I believe this version to be correct.
  • In the following 5 days, 4 different IP editors each changed the table to add/remove something wrong incorrectly, without communication or explanation.
  • About 2012-08-14T22:35Z I posted a note about it on the talk page and each user's talk page and fixed the article.
  • Less than two hours later, User:72.89.35.142 added carrier QR again, with a (non-existent by all sources) flight to DOH, without explanation anywhere.
They didn't respond to the complaint, instead going right ahead and doing it again. Their talk page is full of similar issues, some of which they don't respond to (at least not there). They haven't come here to respond in the (admittedly-short) 7 hours since the case was opened. Let's not let it drag on too long – there will likely be work to do to fix other articles, too, and it's time consuming, with most airlines choosing to use interactive tools instead of easily searched flight lists :( —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They just responded positively. The problems are likely over. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:47, 15 August 2012 (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.

Jason Leopold

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I've been adding some new info to one of the articles titled Jason Leopold and I also left some comments on the talk page. A user named Bonewah has been scrubbing my stuff and then saying I am banned, which isn't true. The stuff I added is legitimate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines. Please check it out. This is an article that is always biased and no one tries to add new stuff and there's a lot of new stuff on the internet that will make this more balanced. Why isn't the new stuff being used if the article has so many watchers? Shouldn't new stuff be included? Isn't that what makes the article current? I added a new section on the FOIA lawsuit and please review it cause I think that one is important for the article. Here's the section on the FOIA I added. Can someone tell me if they think there's anything wrong with it?

Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[10] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [11]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left info on the talk page that's not being addressed.

How do you think we can help?

allowing the new info to stand and telling Bonewah that I am allowed to make additions and edits cuz I am following the rules and that I'm not banned.

Opening comments by Bonewah

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Jason Leopold discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Closing Note: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It appears to me that this is not, at root, a content dispute. Bonewah appears to be taking a hard position that RavenThePackIsBack is a sockpuppet of a topic-banned user (probably Jimmy McDaniels) and removing Raven's edits for that reason only. Removal of a banned editor's edits via puppetry, for no other reason than the fact that they are banned, is a legitimate action but such removals and any controversy over such removals is a conduct matter, not a content matter. I would suggest that Bonewah should probably make a ban evasion report at Sockpuppet Investigations before continuing to revert Raven's edits, but should Bonewah not care to do so, or should Raven care to take this matter further at this time, Raven should report Bonewah's action to the Administrators' Noticeboard for investigation. I'm not saying that Bonewah is wrong or right, but one of those forums, not DRN, is the right place for this issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 15 August 2012 (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.

Aliya Mustafina

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am bringing up the fact that the Olympic Gold Medalist 2012 Aliya Mustafina is Tatar. I have tried to reflect this in the starting line of the article but faced continuous reverting. I have supplied the links, explaining the notability of this achievement for Tatars, given the fact that very few Tatars are/were Olympic Champions. I have also appealed to the fact that virtually all athletes have their ethnicity/background mentioned in the first line. In addition, I have said that Tatarstan is a sovereign entity with own constitution and president. Somebody is trying to deprive her of her Tatar identity which is clearly a breach of rights.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the matter on user's talk page, explaining the importance and asking not to change it. I have also supplied the links (references) of notability of here being a Tatar.

How do you think we can help?

A person should never be deprived of his/her identity, whatever it is. You can protect the right to state the Tatar identity in the front line.

Best Regards.

Opening comments by Mbinebri

WP:OPENPARA specifies that ethnicity should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. JackofDiamonds has not established this relevance and the mainstream media has not made Mustafina's ethnicity a point of emphasis. Instead, JackofDiamonds uses the backwards argument that her ethnicity is important because of her career achievements and that there are - supposedly - few other Tatar Olympic medalists. Unless the media has emphasized this, it's just original research and a point of view.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Aliya Mustafina discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The parties have not yet discussed this matter on the article's talk page (see Talk:Aliya_Mustafina). The DRN instructions at the top of the DRN page state that DRN is "not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN." Recommend that the parties be instructed to try to resolve this on the article Talk page; and if a week goes by without resolution, then start a case here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
He said that he has discussed it on the user's talk page. Electric Catfish 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We have discussed it on user's talk page and exhausted our arguments. Thanks. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see a brief discussion at User_talk:Mbinebri#Aliya_Mustafina. This sort of dispute is very common: what nationality to use in the first sentence of a biographical article. The general rule is to survey the reliable sources and see what is most common: Russian? Tatar? Russian Tatar? Getting some google-hit statistics is a good place to start in these kinds of disputes. Also, if the person self-identifies in a particular way (e.g. in an autobiography; or in an interview) that can be a factor. But counting reliable sources is still the best starting point. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have supplied the references not only confirming the Tatar identity but explaining the importance of her being a Tatar as a role model for the Tatar population. I was comfortable with Russian Tatar but this was always reverted. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some google hit stats:
  • "Aliya Mustafina" tatar 7,570
  • "Aliya Mustafina" Russian 436,000
  • "Aliya Mustafina" "Russian tatar" 638
No one is saying she is not Tatar. The question is whether that word appears in the first sentence or not. The stats above suggest that "Russian" alone may be best for the first sentence. The Tatar fact could be later in the lead, and again in the body. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For comparison, here are a couple of articles on olympic athletes with significant ethnic background: Jesse Owens and Jim Thorpe. Looking at the first sentences of those article: The former does not mention that he is African-American, but the latter article does mention he was part Native American. --Noleander (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking some more, I see that "Russian Tatar" (as suggested above by JackofDiamonds1) is a very commonly used description (not just for this one athlete). If no party to this case objects, that two word description may be a good compromise solution for the first sentence of the article. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Tatars are people of Russia and are not easily distinguished by appearance. As she was competing under Russian flag, the media identified here as Russian, hence the google stats. And then comes the mission of Wikipedia to shed the light :) JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Rustafina is Russian by nationality.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
She is Tatar, living in Moscow. Her father - Farhad Mustafin. How names Aliya, Farhad, Mustafin(a) can be russian, if they have Tatar (Arabic) origin? Here you can read article in Tatar, there here nationality identicated as Tatar.--Рашат Якупов (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Russian Tatar is not actually a compromise: "Russian Tatar" ≡ "Tatar from Russia", not some combined ethnicity as may seem from the first glance. "Russian" without "Tatar" is ambiguous but normally implies nationality, while "Tatar" without "Russian" means ethnicity and is neutral towards nationality; as the name "Aliya Fargatovna Mustafina" itself leaves no doubt about her ethnicity, the actual argument is about appropriateness of ethnicity information in the article about sports person, and "Russian Tatar" is a straightforward "appropriate" answer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested the "Russian Tatar" designation from the beginning. So now it seems like we are all on the same page... JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my comment misled you. I wanted to say that "Russian Tatar" is not a compromise, as this wording implies the appropriateness of discussing ethnicity in the article, while this appropriateness is the subject of dispute. Though I have my position on this issue, I don't want to get involved into this dispute, so I would keep it undisclosed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:LEAD. There should be generally no ethnicity in the lead. And User:Рашат Якупов should stop inserting that she was a Muslim without a citation. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I dont see any mention of ethnicity in WP:LEAD ... am I missing it? Of course ethnicity may be mentioned in the lead; or are you referring to the first sentence? I do agree that the convention in WP is that nationality is stated in the first sentence, not ethnicity. In this particular case, the question is simply whether the first sentence should contain "Russian" or "Russian Tatar". The latter seems more informative to readers, and seems to have no downsides. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Another compromise solution is this: Use "Russian" in the first sentence, then mention "Tatar" later in the lead, maybe in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue with using "Russian Tatar" is that it defines the subject in a way not reflected by media coverage. The media has covered Mustafina as a Russian gymnast - not a Russian Tatar gymnast - and it would place undo emphasis on her ethnicity should we include "Tatar" in the lead. And per my opening argument, WP:OPENPARA is where ethnicity in the lead is covered.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the media could not possibly identify her ethnicity. How does a news reporter know that she is a Tatar? It is the mission of Wikipedia to shed the light here. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is her ethnicity somehow related to her sport achievements? How would you comment the appropriateness of mentioning her ethnicity in context of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight Wikipedia policy? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The sources do say she is Tatar, the only question is whether to put Tatar in the first sentence or not. The guideline cited by Mbinebri is on point: WP:OPENPARA guideline says "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." That, coupled with the rather strong google hits statistics, suggests that the best solution is omit the word Tatar from the first paragraph, but include it later in the Lead section. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not neutral due to the asymmetric information. The international media could not possibly identify her as Tatar (Russian flag) and this does not compromise her Tatar identity. Andy Murray won the gold medal for Team GB but is defined as Scottish on his page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
To the contrary, mentioning her ethnicity means placing undue weight on it, as the vast majority of sources choose not to mention it at all. It is not a breach of neutrality, but a long-standing tradition in sport. FWIW other examples of bad practice don't make the practice inherently better, even if this practice is indeed common. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC) updated 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
These examples did not come out of the blue - they are the results of hard talks, struggle and public consensus; and therefore may serve as precedent. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wherever these examples come from, they go against unrelated policy and guideline. Another Wikipedia policy — Wikipedia:Consensus — specifically discourage the attempts to use local consensus against the global one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a global consensus in these matters. I was talking about precedent and I took the examples from the UK as one of the most democratic countries, adherent to human rights. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is nothing to think about: policies (WP:NPOV) and guidelines (WP:OPENPARA) are the global consensus, and in this particular case it resolves to omitting ethnicity in the lead section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, these guidelines do not overwrite the human rights principle of self-identification. I thought that you suggested a Russian Tatar option earlier? JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I said that Russian Tatar is not a compromise, which doesn't imply my judgment on the issue. Note, nobody limits Aliya Mustafina's human right of self-identification, as well as nobody limits your right to report this self-identification once the fact that she exercised it is verified and attributed to reliable sources. You are limited in your right to report this self-identification in the lead section of Wikipedia's article about Aliya Mustafina; this has nothing to do with anybody's human rights and it doesn't stop you from reporting here self-identification in the appropriate place within the rest of article if significant amount of reliable sources consider this self-identification worth mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Imagine a scenario: Aliya has decided to emigrate to the US or Germany and renounce her Russian citizenship. Would she still be a Russian? No. Would she be a Tatar? Yes, of course. That's why she is a Tatar at the first place, that is a DEFINITION of her. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How long do these dispute resolutions typically stay open? It looks to me like our two most dedicated volunteers in DDC and Noleander agree that WP:OPENPARA applies here and Mustafina's ethnicity doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that a piece of criteria has a decisive role here? Please refer to the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules page. I truly believe that mentioning Aliya's identity as Tatar improves and maintains Wikipedia. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Jack: Please try to be more specific in your wording. No one is saying that Tatar cannot be mentioned ... the only question is where it is first mentioned. In the first sentence? in the first paragraph? in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead? Or down in the body? Historically in WP, many editors who are proud of a certain attribute (a religion, an ethnicity, etc) have tried to "promote" the religion/ethnicity by stating it in the first sentence of biographical articles (and also by including persons in Lists & Categories ... but that is another story altogether :-). Over the years, the consensus has emerged that nationality goes in the first sentence (based on what the majority of sources state); and that other attributes like religion and ethnicity go later ...I maybe in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. The word "Tatar" already appears in the 1st sentence within the pronunciation/spelling block, so readers will get a clue right there. -- Noleander (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I had to include this "rule" to show that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and hard-line regulation does not work here. We are all working for the public good, using the common sense. I think that the Tatar definition is more CORE as it always stays with the person. Aliya may not always live in Russia (there is a tendency for young people to emigrate these days). However, she will always be a Tatar. I am not opposing the Russian classification as well (for now). My point is that in the interest of full disclosure, improving and promoting Wikipedia, we need to provide the full information on a person. To be honest, I am a bit shocked that we got to the point of discussing this. Could anyone think that in the 21st century, there will be restrictions on stating the ethnicity clearly and proudly? Shame. I need to leave for now, let's return to this tomorrow. Regards. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that this is article is on sports person, I see neither necessity nor appropriateness of mentioning ethnicity in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD), and as such it shouldn't contain statements that are not present in article's body. That's not to mention the fact that sports' long-standing tradition is not to mention ethnicity at all, and Aliya Mustafina is only known for her achievements in sport. BTW, it is more of shame that in 21st century there is a word "ethnicity". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it was removed from WP:LEAD, but anyway, I agree that Tatarstan is not a recognized, independent country and there should be no ethnicity in the lead. In this case, we don't need to mention her ethnicity in the lead as it gives an undue weight. If Tatarstan would not be a part of the Russian Federation, then I would reconsider. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: this is the essence of the problem — consensus is to report nationality, which is particularly important in sports, as the awards are normally attributed to the countries as much as to the sportspeople themselves. But they are not attributed to ethnicities: nobody states "Tatars won the medal", just "Aliya Mustafina won the medal" or "Russia won 3 medals". The ethnicity of Mustafina may be discussed in the article, if there is enough discussion of her ethnicity in reliable sources, which makes this information worth notice; otherwise her ethnicity is just not relevant, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for nationalist debates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello. I am another dispute resolution volunteer. In addition to the good advice the other volunteers have given above, may I suggest that in the future you discuss changes to articles on the article talk page? You see, it is often the case that someone who is interested in a topic watches the article talk page for discussions. It isn't fair for two editors to go off to a user talk page and discuss the article where anyone watching it won't see the discussion. The general rule is this; if you want to discuss an article, do it on the article talk page. If you want to discuss a user, do it on that user's talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that is absolutely valid. In this case, I have discussed this on user's page because for me it was something incontestable and I could not imagine that anyone would question Aliya's Tatar identity. Therefore, I have tried to explain a particular user why it is important. JackofDiamonds1

(talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of opening comments by Mbinebri

Comment below was moved from Opening comments by Mbinebri, as it's not an opening comment by Mbinebri. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I object. I have supplied the references in the article which were quickly deleted.JackofDiamonds1 (talk)
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.

Embargo Act of 1807

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:AWhiteC and User:36hourblock are currently in a content dispute over the neutrality of 36hourblock's recent edits on Embargo Act of 1807. A Third Opinion was requested, which brought User:So God created Manchester, a third party editor, into the dispute. The contested wording includes the following sentences:

  • "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality
  • "a profound insult to American honor"
  • "deliberate diplomatic insults and presumptuous official orders"
  • "particularly egregious example of British aggression"

The dispute is over whether this is acceptable per Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline. No agreement or consensus has been reached.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia:Third Opinion

How do you think we can help?

I'm bringing this dispute to a wider audience, and hoping that input from other editors can help to resolve the dispute.

Opening comments by AWhiteC

I thought parts of the the article had a non-encyclopedic tone. I later found out that this was the result of these edits by 36hourblock. I have suggested changes on the talk page here (see 13 August 2012). In these changes, I tried to leave the meaning the same whilst removing some unnecessary and non-encyclopediac wording. AWhiteC (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 36hourblock

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by So God created Manchester

I was brought into the dispute via a Third Opinion request. My position is that word choices like "flagrant" and "particularly egregious" are not impartial and are discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The wording is not encyclopedic in tone, it introduces bias into the article, and qualifies as editorializing. There are more impartial ways of expressing the same concepts by using language that is more direct and concise. The descriptions can be used if they're in quotations and attributed to an author, but this isn't the case.--SGCM (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Embargo Act of 1807 discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Ok, since we have yet to see a post from the opposition to this position, I'm going to propose that we suspend indefinitely this post at 22:14 on the 17th. It should be noted that 36hourblock has been idle since before this post was filed. Pending the suspension, I see a consensus to remove the inflamitory language. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The comment above from party SGCM is the correct thing to do. The Talk page of the article conveys 36hourblock's position: they seem to be misunderstanding the Words To Avoid policy. Just because a source uses a non-encyclopedic word does not mean that WP should repeat those words in the encyclopedia's voice. The words in question should not be used in the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2012 (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.

South Korea

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

more than 100,000 Koreans were forced to serve in the Imperial Japanese Army.[31][32] Korean women were forced to the war front to serve the Imperial Japanese Army as sexual slaves, called comfort women

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

That person has the authority to edit fairly.

How do you think we can help?

Recognize the fact that correct.

Opening comments by Materialscientist

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by William Avery

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

South Korea discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN, of which is here. I will close this as the other party of the dispute has not commented on the talk page, of which is a requirement here and that this is not a "dispute" but alleged fake information. I suggest to be bold, or to discuss on Talk:Comfort women or again at Talk:South Korea. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 14:42, 17 August 2012 (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.

The Citadel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

request that editor Buffs be removed from any further editing of page, he has a clear conflict of interest as a Texas A/M graduate and continually has deleted references that conflict with claims made by his school particularly involving number of military officers commissioned. Also makes unfounded claims of weaseling and disputes obvious source information.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

contact via talk page for article

How do you think we can help?

Buffs must be removed because he has a clear conflict of interest and appears intent on challenging whatever is in the article even when properly referenced. It is clearly not fair or appropriate to have an editor involved in an article when that person has some connection that could cause a potential dispute due to conflict of interest.

Opening comments by Ocala

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

wiki article on The Citadel discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer and unfortunately I have to reject this case, as the dispute you filed is not a content dispute. Please make yourself familiar with WP:COI and, if you believe this is necessary, use WP:COIN. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2012 (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.

Slavonia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Basically, User:DIREKTOR persistently removes sourced material and inserts original research based on their beliefs as indicated in the talk page (e.g. on colour of coat of arms of Slavoina "Honestly I think Šutej just used the lighter shade of blue for every other segment of the crown so as to avoid having them all mesh together (there's no border between them)." despite sources defining the colour, denying the region is a geographic region, inserting WP:OR flag of the region (when challenged for a source of the flag dismissing the challenge saying "I wonder how anyone could possibly source "unofficial use" or lack thereof"). An example of removal of sourced material is evident in removal of the "Eastern Croatia" term from the article. All my concerns were in effect dismissed as a case of WP:OWN, although I have no sense of ownership of articles - for example Croatian War of Independence was substantially rewritten after I nominated it for GA and I welcome the new changes and have even discussed and proposed new development of the article. Prior to this dispute, all claims in the article were properly supported by sources as the article passed GA review on 19 June.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried discussing the issues directly with the other editor in dispute

How do you think we can help?

I hope to get some assistance in preserving sourced material, and in removal of original research/POV and other unsupported claims from the article.

Opening comments by DIREKTOR

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Um... actually, the above is just plain untrue. And imo that's kind of obvious from my edits [4], whereby I reword unsourced text to render it more in accordance with the cited source (Frucht 2004). Maybe there's some mystery source that says Slavonia is a "geographic region", certainly Tomboe talks about some "sources" I'm apparently in a conflict with - but he did not point out any sources that actually support him, nor is there a single ref in the entire paragraph (I'm talking about the lead here, the entire lead is unsourced).

The main problem, as I've attempted to explain to the best of my ability on Talk:Central Croatia is Tomboe's completely OR regionalization of Croatia that he's implemented. With all due respect for his excellent expansion of these articles, the user is apparently confused with regard to what these regions are, that is to say, how they're defined. He's confused terrain-defined, purely geographic regions like Mountainous Croatia with historical/cultural regions like Slavonia, and has created such a mess its hard even to explain, people just look at how well-written the articles are and assume the very basic organization can't possibly be something the guy just thought of. Basically he's copy-pasted verbatim the infobox I'd written on the Dalmatia article, misunderstood the meaning of "geographic region" and created his own, completely unsourced system of Croatin regions..

As for the coat of arms & flag, Tomboe insists I accept the colour scheme on the right-most segment of the crown of the File:Coat of arms of Croatia.svg as the "official coat of arms of Slavonia". However, as I've pointed out, that's the coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia, not of Slavonia, and such interpretations are again OR. There is no official coat of arms of Slavonia defined by Croatian law. Instead I've looked at what the colour scheme was on actual coats of arms of Slavonia, and found that they use a darker blue, while the CoA of the Republic of Croatia (from 1990) probably uses baby blue on every other segment of the crown so as to avoid using the same colour in every one.

Oh yes, its a silly dispute :). About as silly as it gets.. -- Director (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Slavonia discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Question to parties: when was the coat of arms of Slavonia in separate use (outside the coat of arms of Croatia)? Are there any descriptions of this coat of arms from the period when it was used as such? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Non volunteer comment' If i read correctly you said "User:DIREKTOR persistently removes sourced material and original research based on their beliefs" the sourced material should be discussed on the talk page, but if there removing original research i cant see why there is problem, everything has to be wp:verifiable with 3rd party [[wp:rs}}--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You read it correctly. Please take a look at the talk page and article history and you'll see for yourself that the user ignores or even explicitly dismisses offered sources, while openly claiming that a part (coat of arms) of the article should be amended to fit their impressions of what the original author though in spite of offered reliable source to contrary. The problem is that any removal of OR or restoration of sourced material is repeatedly reverted by the same user making editing impossible and direct discussion futile.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You might want to update it say they removed source material and replace it with original research as just now it suggest they remove original research--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a volunteer here. Before we go any furhter, can we wait until DIREKTOR has an opportunity to respond? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I've never been here before, so I assumed I should respond to the above post by Andrewcrawford. Sorry about that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, for future reference: you're supposed to notify the other guy yourself, and as soon as possible. Not wait 'til someone else does it by which time the other guy might be at the beach... :) -- Director (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for parties - Is this an accurate recapitulation: There is no official Slavonia COA, but there is an implicit/unofficial one that can be derived from the rightmost portion of the Croatian COA; and both parties agree that it is okay to use the shape (but not colors) of the implicit/unofficial one in the article (although Tomobe says it is official). The main question remaining is what shade of blue to use: Tomobe suggests using the light blue used in the Croatian COA, but Direktor wants to use a darker blue. The light blue correlates with the shade used on the Croatian COA, but Direktor says that is just an artifact of the need to get contrast between the five adjacent blue regions; Direktor says that darker blue is correct because historical Slavonia (family?) COAs use darker blue. Because there is no clearly official Slavonia COA, it is impossible to find sources which definitively state the correct colors. Thus some judgement is needed to determine which blue is best. Is that all correct? --Noleander (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Does any reliable source contain a depiction of the official coat of arms of the Kingdom of Slavonia (1699 to 1868)? Presuming that the recapitulation above is accurate, it seems that If there is a clearly defined shade of blue for the Kingdom's historical COA, that blue would - in my judgement - have preference over the lighter shade utilized in the "5 adjacent regions" in the Croatian COA. --Noleander (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That is all indeed accurate. As I said on the article's talkpage, I've done a little digging. I found a collection of photographs of old Croatian coats of arms [5]. Most date from the early 19th century, and I think you'll find the vast majority use a distinctly darker shade than baby blue. Some of the lighter-appearing images seem on more than one occasion to be merely faded out. -- Director (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those images look like they'd be a good source to use. I concur that those have higher precedence that the light blue from the 1/5 Croatia COA. Unless some better sources are found, I'd recommend just grabbing some pixels from the 2 or 3 best images on that web site, and averaging their RGB values to come up with a color to use in WP. Question for Direktor: How did you pick the exact shade (RBG values) of blue you are proposing? --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, ages ago when I introduced the use of that exact shade on several images, I was copying the one used on the old Croatian and Yugoslav flags, but the former unfortunately changes colours more often than a teenage girl getting ready for a night out.. In accordance with the historical combined coats of arms, I'm eventually hoping to introduce the usage of the same main shade of blue for both the Croatian, Dalmatian, and the Slavonian shields. That's really rather secondary, though. The main issue is that it isn't light, baby blue. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway folks, I may have to unfortunately go on an extended wikibreak. No choice, lots of work to catch-up with. Don't know what happens next here but I sure hope everything I tried to do isn't instantly reverted. I'll be back in a couple weeks. -- Director (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (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.

Control (2007 film)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A dispute over the temperory, exploratory inclusion of a link from an article to a disambiguation page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for a 3d opinion.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest a compromise.

Opening comments by --IllaZilla

Hmm, Gloryshookthiswater neglected to inform me she'd started this discussion. I only discovered it by checking her contribs. Anyway, I'm not sure why there's an issue here. Basically, Gloryshookthiswater wants to place a hatnote on Control (2007 film) directing to the control disambiguation page. Her reasoning has something to do with Google searches, and she appears to be trying to run a pageview experiment (see discussion here). Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines say of hatnotes:

There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there from within Wikipedia would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

I reverted her a few times based on that, and she continued to revert back. I've read her arguments and I think she's essentially exaggerating a perceived issue with Google that isn't Wikipedia's concern, and that this is a solution in search of a problem. The heart of her argument seems to speak to WP:DAB more generally, so I've asked her several times to take it to WT:DAB. Instead she's insisting on using this particular article as some sort of test case or experiment, and is going to great lengths (WP:3O and now DRN) to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Control (2007 film) discussion

Note from dispute resolution volunteer: the talk page discussion of this dispute appears to be at User talk:Gloryshookthiswater#Control (2007 film) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask parties (this mostly refers to Gloryshookthiswater) to explain, how the problem of disambiguating this particular page differs from disambiguation on Wikipedia in general? That is: is there something in this dispute, which would not be true for any other disambiguated article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A hatnote, per our current guidelines, is not considered necessary for pages that have already been disambiguated. A Google search for control shows the Scientific control article as the third result, Control (2007 film) as the fourth result, and the disambiguation page as the fifth result. As the title indicates, there's no ambiguity at all that the Control (2007 film) result on Google is about the film. Consensus can change and guidelines can be revised, but that discussion should take place on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --SGCM (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask that you view the screenshot which I took of what I and many other see on google. Yes I am trying to find out if the problem is real or not, all I'm asking for is one week stay of deletion to determine whether it is, at that point you can delete the link. This is not an unreasonable request and the "don't do your experiment on my article" is unhelpful since the particular google problem is haphazardly spread and other wikipedians are likely to be just as resistant. I am just trying to do something good for Wikipedia. Please just give me chance.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. Since I asked for comment and consensus is against my view point I will remove the link and accept the decision. Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and your edits do seem to have been made in good faith, but did you remember to turn off Google's personalised search feature? Personalisation might be messing with the search results. There's an opt out page on Google that turns off the feature.--SGCM (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Gloryshookthiswater, you might indeed want to express your point of view at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. It is untypical of Wikipedia to override global consensus in order to implement local one (effective on one page only), so given that you describe your concern in detail and add convincing proof links, your suggestion have more chances there then here or on individual article's and/or users' talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2012 (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.

Wineville Chicken Coop Murders / The Boy Who Came Forward

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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?

I have attempted to contact the editor on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murder talk page, as well as the editors own talk page (with no response). I have asked for the editor to provide historical references regarding the claims made by the editor (which disagree completely with the; LAPD investigation of the case, the testimony given at the sentencing hearing, as well as the trial for Gordon Northcott in 1928, and the legal findings rendered by the State of California). All 3 boys were murdered and none of them escaped (as the editor suggests).

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Editor has made approximately 30 edits in the past several days in the section "The Boy Who Came Forward", inserting names and dates that have no historical verification and fly in the face of the legal findings as rendered by the State of California in 1928. A man was executed and his mother served 12 years in prison given the evidence provided. The editor is suggesting that the State of California was wrong in their findings through the edits being inserted. If the editor has found new evidenciary matters regarding case, those who follow the case as well as the Riverside Historical Society would be delighted to learn of this new historical find by the editor. "On February 27, 1935, David Clay, along with his parents, John and Leanne Clay" (no historical proof, asking for proof from editor).......... "about Walter's and the two Winslow brothers' escape from the ranch". (Exact opposite of the findings of the State of California)......"and he went missing for seven years by not telling anyone what happened and stayed with another family and telling them he is an orphan because he was afraid he'd get in trouble" (Again, this claim flies in the face of the police investigation and the findings of the State of California, needs historical references provided).............Unfortunately, the editors claims match what was put forward in the film Changeling, but the film was not a documentary regarding the historical facts of the findings by the State of California. This editor most likely is attempting to change the page by incorrectly asserting that the film represented the gospel truth about the facts of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, but reality is that the truth is very different than the film.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have left a message on the editor's talk page with no reply. I am asking to contact an administrator to support and assist in removal of non-documented edits. I do not want to start an edit war. I could go in and remove the edits myself, but it will only lead to a back and forth, so I need support in the removal of the unfounded edits.

How do you think we can help?

Contact the editor and warn them to provide support information for their claims. Warn them that continued re-editing without providing support documentation, could result in consequences to their ability to further post edits in the future. Remind the editor that they cannot simply insert their own personal opinions, but rather, need to be able to provide support documentation to back up their edits.

Opening comments by 76.21.120.70

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Wineville Chicken Coop Murders discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This one really is a conduct issue - I'd advise just reminding them that adding uncited claims to an article is an issue. Point them to the policy on original research - if that has no success (and try to be gentle about it) you can either direct the matter to the original research noticeboard. Hope this helps. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:16, 20 August 2012 (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.

Talk:HA Schult

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a content dispute on the German performance artist, HA Schult. See Talk:HA Schult One editor frequently removes what another editor has written, although the latter claims that all was well sourced. Here are some diffs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for a third opinion

How do you think we can help?

Are the sources I have cited reliable enough according to Wikipedia's policies? For a list of these sources, see Talk:HA Schult.

Opening comments by Rhode Island Red

The trigger on DR was pulled too early in this case, as the other editor involved in this dispute, Wikiwiserick, only filed a 3rd opinion request yesterday [13] and then didn’t wait for the reply before coming to DR. Nonetheless, since we're here already...

One of the flaws that I noticed when I started working on the article was that it relied predominantly on 1 source – an out of print work in German from 1978 – I added a tag to signify this problem and explained it clearly to Wikiwiserick.[14][15][16] Of the remaining sources cited, many were also in German and not verifiable online. That doesn’t necessarily preclude their use, but it’s certainly not ideal, especially given that the article had elements of WP:PUFF and WP:SELFPROMOTE, which I explained [17] to Wikiwiserick, the creator of the article. This scenario is a problem for verification, so I advised the editor to rely more on sources in English, since this is English rather than German WP. There was a also a problem with a few lofty statements about the artist’s significance, which were allegedly based on quotes taken from unverifiable German sources and personally translated into English by Wikiwiserick. That’s not ideal with respect to WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, not to mention WP translation guidelines.

I see few if any specific details as to why Wikiwiserick objects to the 7 edits highlighted above. I included edit summaries that explain the rationale and relevant WP policies, but those issues were essentially ignored. The editor seems to be ignoring context and focusing on whether the sources in question are WP:RS on their surface, but that’s not the issue, as a source can be WP:RS in one context but not another, depending on the statement in question. After reviewing the 7 edits highlighted above, 5 out of 7 are straightforward and very easily justifiable. Any issues with those or the other edits should have been addressed on the talk page, but Wikiwiserick bypassed the opportunity to explain his specific objections there, choosing instead to request a third opinion, and then without waiting for the reply, escalate this to DR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:HA Schult discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer and I'll be assisting this quest. While both opening comments aren't present, I'm going to address the sources THEMSELVES. As some are so-so and others are a no-no and are a core matter of this dispute.

This is a publication by university people entirely dealing with one of Schult's projects. It also includes general information on the artist. The page number is only given because of the quote: "HA Schult zählt zu den bedeutendsten Aktionskünstlern der Gegenwart" ("HA Schult is one of the most important performance artists of our time"). Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of lofty poorly sourced statement that I have a problem with. The proposed text does not attribute the statement to any recognized art experts (or anyone at all for that matter), and there is an issue with respect to WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. I have already pointed out these issues but it seems they are being ignored.Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This publication, which analyses, from an academic point of view, one of Schult's projects in detail, has been written by Nico Schröter, Kai Giesler and Philipp Kohde from the Technical University of Cottbus. These three authors have cooperated in writing the text. It is a mystery to me how anybody who knows that Schult created internationally recognized happenings at the cost of millions of dollars, such as his 1977 documenta happening called "Crash" or his 1000 sculptures made of garbage that have travelled to sites such as the Piazza del Popolo, Rome, the Plaza Real, Barcelona, Cologne Cathedral, Moscow's Red Square, the Great Wall of China, the Matterhorn, the Pyramids of Giza, the island of Spitsbergen etc., would question that HA Schult is "one of the most important performance artists of our time", as the source says. It is the same thing as if Rhode Island Red would question the notability of artists such as Christo or Beuys. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a scholarly platform created by more than a dozen German museums of contemporary art providing biographical information on Schult and many other German artists. I would say that this is a reliable source. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on what exactly? Where is there information about the website so that it's reliability can be assessed? My previous request for this information went unanswered.[18] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It didn't go unanswered, as I have provided a link to the German Wikipedia article dealing with the prestigious Museumsplattform NRW. There you can find a list including all museums that are part of this serious platform for contemporary art. See also this English commentary. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When I search for images, I get a load of them, when I search for source, a lot more. Here are some ones that are in English and make mentions that essentially prove his roving trash people tour in a nice summary. [After debuting in Xanten, Germany, in 1996 the entire armada of "Trash People has tweaked the public's sensibilities in settings as varied as the Great Wall of China, Egypt's Pyramids at Giza, Moscow's Red Square and the Matterhorn in the Swiss Alps. Later this year the immobile but moving display will spread its humorous and reflective reduce, reuse and recycle message in New York City and Antarctica." [19] "The "Trash People," by German artist HA Schult, get around. The six-foot-tall figures made out of old computers, soda cans, license plates and other refuse have stood at the Pyramids at Giza, in Moscow's Red Square and on the Great Wall of China. Now, 50 of them are lined up in the courtyard at National Geographic." From Throwaway Art: Don't Trash It." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 2008. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from HighBeam Research: [20]

Some do exist. And these sources are interesting, but I bet better ones could be found. Since this is involved in a dispute, the strongest sources are the best. Ones like the Washington Post are good. As well as most books. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although your comment came through before I had a chance to reply, it looks like we're pretty much on the same page here Chris. My goal was to improve the article so that it relied more on verifiable high-quality sources in English. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Rhode Island Red's comments above, it seems that this dispute developed from a WP:NONENG and WP:RS to a WP:NPOV one. His concern, based from I can gather reading this page and the talk, is that the article's tone is too promotional, and argues that it exaggerates the claims of the sources, which are difficult to verify. So it's not just a dispute over verification, but also a dispute over neutrality. I think the following can be done to improve the article, and resolve the dipsute with Wikiwiserick:

  • Tone down the praise for the artist.
  • Balance the praise with criticism, as per WP:BALANCE. Currently, the article gives too much weight to the praise.
  • Replace contested sources with stronger sources when possible.

As ChrisGualtieri has indicated, there are plenty of sources on the subject, and the subject is clearly notable, so the task shouldn't be difficult.--SGCM (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further sources:

  • Carly Schmitt, "Headwinds: Sustainability as a Theme in Contemporary Public Art", The Environmentalist, Volume 32, Number 3 (2012), 332-338. - This source deals with artists' projects that "express a concern about the current state of the environment and propose projects that try to raise an awareness about this subject and offer up solutions. A very basic example of this work can be seen in a piece entitled Garbage People by HA Schult (2001)."
  • Mélanie van der Hoorn, "8:01 am, 20,000 people, and 450 kilograms of explosives: elimination of the Kaiserbau as a secular sacrifice", Focaal, Volume 2005, Number 46, Winter 2005, pp. 109-127. - This source states: "When, in 1999, artist HA Schult realized his project Hotel Europa and hung over a hundred portraits of famous people in front of each room on one side of the ex-would-be hotel, one of the walls was painted in yellow with a big black post horn: the logo of the German post office."
  • Hilmar Frank, "Raum/Zeit-Schichtungen: Bemerkungen zu einem Chronotopos", in Tatjana Böhme, Klaus Mehner and Tatjana Böhme-Mehner, eds., Zeit und Raum in Musik und Bildender Kunst (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2000), pp. 99-100. - This scholarly essay discusses Schult's object, "Deutsch-Land" (1986, Berlin, Bundestag), which was commissioned by the politicians of the German Bundestag. The author also mentions that Schult has been called the "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age".
  • Esperanza Galindo Ocaña, "Arte y ecología. El diálogo de ciencia, pensamiento y arte", Arte by suite101, 11 March 2011. - This source contextualizes Schult's Beach Garbage Hotel, but I am not sure if it is reliable enough.
  • Jorge Verstrynge, "Inmigración: Cuando las barbas de tu vecino...", El Viejo topo, No. 245, 2008, pp. 62-67. This source proves that Schult's work is recognized in the Spanish-speaking world. It may be listed in the "Further reading" section.

Could these sources be used for improving the Wikipedia article? Any suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suite101 is definitely not reliable. It's a content farm, similar to eHow and about.com, with little editorial oversight. The other sources, the journals and books, look more reliable, although English sources are preferred.--SGCM (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As the other Spanish source does not primarily deal with Schult's "trash people", I would agree with Rhode Island Red not to list it in the "Further reading" section. In the meantime, I did some further research on the Internet and have now found a source including some critical remarks on Schult. However, it is not written in English. Therefore, I have written an English summary for the Wikipedia page:

In his article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the occasion of the artist’s 70th birthday, Philip Krohn has mentioned that there are critics who have claimed that Schult's art is too commercial or too shallow and that he has had no new ideas for too long a period of time. Others have argued that his works are too bizarre to play a role on the commercial art market. The artist himself admits that he had problems to establish his reputation as an artist in the USA, because his art would criticize America's consumption-driven mentality. (Philip Krohn, "HA Schult, Der Müllkünstler", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 August 2009.)

Would you agree to include this passage, perhaps in a modified form, in the Wikipedia article on Schult? Furthermore, I would like to reinclude the following paragraph, as I have now found the original source, which contains both German and English texts:

Indeed, the artist "develops his ideas full of comment on contemporary issues, promotes them in a process and tries to initiate criticism of our present situation with naively disguised intellect." However, sometimes "he overdoes things with verbal energy - and in this respect he resembles Joseph Beuys – as a person himself, a solist playing himself, marked as a work of art." (art Report: HA Schult, cited after HA Schult, Ernst Wasmuth and Elke Grapenthin, Kunst ist Aktion: Aktionen sind gelebte Bilder (Tübingen: Wasmuth, 2001), unnumbered page. For a comparison of Schult and Beuys, see also Jürgen Schilling, Aktionskunst. Identität von Kunst und Leben? Eine Dokumentation (Luzern and Frankfurt am Main: Verlag C.J. Bucher, 1978), pp. 168-69.)

Any comments or suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress is a good thing, glad to see the content matter is being addressed without hammering it in. Anyways... I like that, but when quoting make a direct comment on who said it and make an inline citation. I've had to search for origins of quotes before... not fun, even having who said it (rather than the source afterwards) helps if it ever 404s to properly attribute it. Attribution of quotes is important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reinclude a reference to the following source, perhaps in a "Bibliography" section:

Furthermore, a reference to this academic source may be included in the article. It states on p. 9 that Schult laid out the large sum of four million marks for the exhibition of his "trash people" on the "five-thousand-year-old Chinese symbol of the Great Wall." Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The book by Gray appears to contain no content about Schult other than including his name in a few entries in the reference list, so it's unclear why this would warrant inclusion anywhere in the article. If a statement is to be made about the cost of Schult's work, then it should be properly attributed. I would assume that no one has independently verified the cost of his work and are only relaying what Schult himself claimed. The attribution would likely readsomehting along the lines of "According to Schult..." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I must confess that I really do not understand Rhode Island Red's objections as regards the usefulness of including references to these two sources in the Wikipedia article. The first is an academic publication on performance artists including two pages of bibliographical references to publications on Schult not to be found elsewhere. The second is a PhD thesis on contemporary art in China. It clearly states that Schult had to pay four million marks for exhibiting his 1000 sculptures on the Great Wall of China. A similar statement can be found in an article that appeared in 2003 in the prestigious art magazine, Flash Art. There you can read that "German action artist HA Schult installed 1000 'trash people' on the Great Wall, paying 4 million marks for the privilege." Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In the first source, there is no commentary on Schult, just a few references in the reference list. If the references on that list are truly important, then it would make more sense to propose including those instead. But there is also such a thing as overkill, so I would only refer readers to the most important sources rather than including a laundry list of every last source that bears the artist's name. With regard to the second source and the issue of attribution, the key question is who was it that concluded that the works were worth DM4 million? There has to be some basis for estimating the value and someone had to have made the estimation. Presumably, it was Schult, and so it should be attributed accordingly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The first source includes useful bibliographical references. That's why we may include it in a special section entitled, "Bibliography", not in the text. The second source is an academic publication on art in China and on the happenings that took place on the Great Wall. Don't you think that the author must be well informed about the high costs of Schult's performance? By the way, 1000 sculptures had to be transported to China and installed on the Great Wall. Why are you questioning the reliability of this academic source? Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful, Rhode Island Red, if you would search the Internet for further sources that could be used for improving the article, instead of constantly questioning the importance of Schult on other Wikipedia pages. See [21] [22] [23]. You have caused bias to the judgement of other Wikipedians, as this thread shows. Today, you have even removed my contributions from other Wikipedia pages. See [24] [25]. This behavior is unacceptable to me. I did a lot of research. To my mind, Rhode Island Red is not willing to cooperate here. Perhaps somebody else can find additional sources that may be cited in the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You completely ignored the issues I raised in my previous comment. It would be more productive if you stayed on topic, as the point here is to resolve any disputes about HA Schult. Contrary to your allegation, I have not biased anyone. Other members of the WP community are justifiably looking at your contributions with greater scrutiny and independently reaching the same conclusions that I have, e.g., reverting your WP:ADVOCACY on Caspar David Friedrich.[26][27]. Perhaps you should listen to what other editors are saying[28] and take a breather to reevaluate your approach. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So where are your new sources on Schult you have found on the Internet that may be used to improve the article? Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If that's all you have left to add, then this thread has probably outlived its usefulness. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean that you are not looking for additional sources? Then I would say that you are not willing to cooperate. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can post your concerns on the Not-Willing-to-Cooperate Noticeboard. I'd add a Wikilink to that, but I'm not quite sure where to find it. Again, please stay on topic and be constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Wikiwiserick - Some of the sources above are marginal: PhD theses, web sites, etc. Marginal sources can sometimes be used if the subject is minor, and there are no alternatives; but the art community is generally very well documented. I realize that this artist is not famous, so finding traditional hardbound book sources is unlikely. But it would help if you could provide sources such as mainstream newspapers, or mainstream journals. For example: can you provide some quotes about the artist from articles in major German newspapers or journals? --Noleander (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, Schult is well known, and his major happenings are internationally recognized. People from the Technical University of Cottbus reckon him among "the most important performance artists of our time." So I do not think that he "is not famous." He has been compared to Christo and Beuys. Furthermore, there are lots of books on the artist published in German, some in English, as a WorldCat search for books can prove. One of the best English books is this one. It is available in many American university libraries. However, Rhode Island Red seems to have problems with most of these sources, especially if they are written in German. Are you able to read German texts? The best short biography written by German art historians and available on the Internet is to be found on the Museumsplattform NRW. Here is an interesting paragraph from this biography:
Mit seinen Trash-Objekten stellt HA Schult sich in die Tradition der Pop Art und ihren Angriffen auf mediale Vermittlungsstrategien, Werbung, auf manipulative Vermittlungsstrategien und Gleichschaltungsprozesse. Bei HA Schult geschieht dies meist mit selbstinszenatorischen Impetus und lässt ihn in der Kunstkritik bisweilen in die Nähe von Christo oder Jeff Koons rücken. Fasziniert von der öffentlichen Demonstration und der Idee der Anteilnahme des Publikums an Prozess der Werkentstehung, richtet Schult seine spektakulären Aktionen und Installationen im öffentlichen Raum aus und lässt sie von filmischer und fotografischer Dokumentation (ab 1983 u.a. durch Thomas Hoepker), Live-Übertragungen, Buchpublikation und Auflagengrafik begleiten.
There it is stated that he works in the tradition of Pop Art and that art critics have compared him with Christo and Jeff Koons. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: the version of the article as of 14 Aug seems pretty good: it looks like most of the puffery has been removed. Using this as a starting point, and limiting new material to solid sources should be a good path forward. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
OK by me. Thanks for taking the time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found another source including texts written in English: a documentation of Schult’s "Arctic People". See HA Schult: Art is Life. This means that his "Trash People" were not transported to the Antarctica, as was announced in 2008, but instead to the Arctic region. I didn't know before. So it was O.K. to remove the reference to the Antarctica from the Wikipedia article, but a reference to the Arctic region may now be added. The project was supported by Dr Annette Schavan, Federal Minister of Education and Research, Germany, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, and several other institutes and organizations.

What is of much importance is that the same source contains illustrations of most performances by Schult, among them photographs of his "Hotel Europe" (1999), showing Schult’s 130 oversized portraits of celebrities, and his Berlin "LoveLetters Building" (2001), for which he was compared with Christo. The source also includes the following text by Peter Weibel on Schult:

For decades HA Schult has managed to stimulate public awareness using images he has experienced. He stages topics in public places, which are normally edged away from the public. His art work is always directly related to the location where it is shown. He confronts the feudalism, which is manifested in gigantic triumphant buildings with the pauperism of the exploited workers who built them. He pays tribute to the unnamed soldiers and slaves and not to the heroes and sovereigns.
HA Schult shows the anonymous people who are the real heroes, to whom we owe such spectacular cultural monuments, and who are admired by tourists ignorant of their misery. He tears the glittering jewellery off the history of construction.
Places become no places the living become the dead and the dead become the living dead. The glamour of history will be a dread, welfare will become a horror. In the name of clarification there will be a dual occupation, namely the re-entry of the invasion and the return of reality. HA Schult redefines places, sites and buildings that have already been named by the public.
This re-entry into history happens in reverse. Luhmann’s re-entry meets Freud’s return of suppression and consciousness.
The living dead, the depraved in the shadow, return to the light in HA Schult’s art. The unnamed people who have helped others to glory and to the glamour of the history they have build: the palaces and pyramids they have cleaned up the garbage and they were treated like rubbish. They are the victims who were historically considered to be trash by the offenders.
Now they will be rehabilitated. They will be presented right in front of the historic locations of power and glamour they built. People made of trash. We live in an era of trash. We produce trash and we become trash and we, the majority, are always treated like trash. By showing the people who were made into trash by history and cruelty, the spectacle of horror becomes a mirror. The shocking wounds, which were inflicted on the people and other living beings become visible in an impressive picture, which returns from the zone of suppression, from the desert of reality. It shows us reality like a desert populated by zombies: Trash!
Do we want such a world? A world of devastation and harm? A world, a planet of slums full of trash people? Is this our vision?

Parts of this text may be used for improving the Wikipedia article. Any further suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide publication details for the source mentioned above. It looks as though it may be a self-published/primary source, which would make it less than ideal as a source for quoting a third party. It's also linked directly to Schult's website (http://hastsite.interlutions-preview.de/). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I only stumbled across this site while searching the internet for sources on Schult written in English. I have no further information about it. It seems as if this is an excerpt from a forthcoming book on Schult's current project. Perhaps it will be published by one of the major organizations listed on this site, as they have supported the artist's project. Be that as it may, the source includes useful material not to be found elsewhere. Wikiwiserick (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Stumbled on it on the artists website that is. It doesn't look anything at all like an excerpt from a forthcoming book. It looks like a self-published exhibition catalog or something akin to that. Regardless, it seems you've answered your own question. If the source has not yet been published and you have no idea about the publication details, then it would not be suitable for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if it will be a self-published documentation of Schult's Arctic project, it may be used because of the commentary by Peter Weibel and the excellent illustrations. We may also include an external link to this site. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is the crux of the issue -- a self-published source should never be used as a source about a third party; e.g.., Weibel in this case. See WP:BLPSPS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further publications:

  • Aktionskünstler HA Schult: Müllmenschen vor dem Kölner Dom - an article published in the well-known German magazine, Stern.
  • Venezia vive: il giornale della mostra, Goethe-Institut, Rome, n.d. (1976) - an Italian publication published by the prestigious Goethe institute, dealing with Schult's Venice happening of 1976.
  • Jetzt!Zeit... Eine archäologische Reise in die Gegenwart von HA Schult, exh. cat., Museum Ludwig, Cologne, 15 August-15 September 1980 - a catalog published by the Museum Ludwig, one of the major art museums in Germany.
  • Siegfried Salzmann, Dieter Adelmann, Otto Dressler, Im Namen des Volkes: das "gesunde Volksempfinden" als Kunstmaßstab, exh. cat., Wilhelm-Lehmbruck-Museum, Duisburg, 6 May-22 July 1979, pp. 74 ff. - a catalog published by the well-known Lehmbruck Museum, including a critical discussion of Schult's "Situation Schackstraße", a performance mentioned in our article.
  • Dieter Honisch, Einraum-Ausstellungen ’74, exh. cat., Museum Folkwang Essen, 1975 - a catalog published by the prestigious Museum Folkwang.
  • Jürgen Morschel, "HA Schult Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, München (15.11.74 - 5.1.75)", Das Kunstwerk, 28 (1975), pp. 73-74 - an exhibition review in an art journal, including a discussion of "Der Müll des Franz Beckenbauer", a work mentioned in our article.
  • Karlheinz Nowald, H. A. Schult: Die Welt in der wir atmen , exh. cat., Kunsthalle Kiel, 10 March- 14 April 1974 - this is the original source of the 1974 article partly dealing with the influence of German Romantic painting on Schult.
  • Ulrich Schmidt, H. A. Schult: Kaputte Idylle, exh. cat., Museum Wiesbaden, 24 June-12 August 1973 - another German museum catalog.

All of these sources are not self-published. They show that Schult had many exhibitions in well-known German art museums from the 1970s on. Therefore, he cannot be called a minor figure in the art of the twentieth century. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are now two further content disputes in which Rhode Island Red is also deeply involved:

As I am here to improve some Wikipedia articles dealing with German art, willing to include valuable additional content and always looking for reliable sources, I do not understand what is going on here. It is really a waste of time. I'll have a break. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of the sources above, the only one that looks remotely interesting to me is the Stern article. Instead of digging up more obscure offline German sources, consider the advice given above about ideal sources. Perhaps WP:NOTEVERYTHING will make it clearer:
"In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
Also refer to WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I am the only person who is frequently looking for valuable sources on Schult, among them books, museum catalogs, articles in art journals etc. However, Rhode Island Red does not accept most of these reliable sources. Who is able to solve this problem? Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a bit exasperated with your obtuse replies about how you don't understand. Please tell me, which part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING did you not understand? You asked for advice and the advice you were given was that focus should be placed on high-quality, readily verifiable mainstream sources in English. The "problem" seems to be your approach to editing, but so far you've resisted all outside attempts to help you fix it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

The latter article includes the following remark, which may be used for the Wikipedia article: "Rosa Piqueras, spokeswoman for the environmental project, said the idea was to show something a little different from the ideal destinations touted by the tourism industry. 'We wanted to show what our holidays could become if we don't clean our beaches,' she said. About 30-40 percent of the objects adorning the hotel were picked up from beaches in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The dirtiest, said Piqueras, were the beaches in southern Italy." Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Having a look at this thread, it hasn't received some input from another volunteer for some time, but it looks like the discussion here has moved on to a stage where it would be appropriate to continue discussing it on the article talk page - if you get stuck on specific aspects in future, you know where we are. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:22, 20 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_42&oldid=1143714147"