Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 164
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
Contents
- 1 Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced
- 1.1 Summary of dispute by Guy Macon
- 1.2 Summary of dispute by Wdford
- 1.3 Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
- 1.4 Talk:Shroud of_Turin#Deleted_sentence_%22However,_none_of_the_hypotheses_challenging_...%22_as_not_sourced discussion
- 2 Ashkenazi Jews
- 3 Cyprus Air Forces
- 4 Talk:Woodbury University
- 4.1 Summary of dispute by 181.192.178.215
- 4.2 Summary of dispute by 190.181.12.114
- 4.3 Summary of dispute by 179.7.122.69
- 4.4 Summary of dispute by 81.247.74.194
- 4.5 Summary of dispute by TheSkyistheLimit
- 4.6 Summary of dispute by Greg.houle
- 4.7 Summary of dispute by 82.44.24.33
- 4.8 Summary of dispute by WU1884
- 4.9 Summary of dispute by 154.68.55.72
- 4.10 Summary of dispute by 77.68.13.219
- 4.11 Summary of dispute by 96.230.21.92
- 4.12 Summary of dispute by 2600:1012:b066:668d:49b9:5d90:86ec:1833
- 4.13 Summary of dispute by 2602:306:8013:1ae0:f105:5a20:26d3:d40a
- 4.14 Summary of dispute by Jason.matthews2323
- 4.15 Summary of dispute by Sabrinataylor1979
- 4.16 Summary of dispute by SidPabla
- 4.17 Summary of dispute by
- 4.18 Talk:Woodbury University discussion
- 5 Talk:Cannibal Corpse
- 6 Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Immigration_debate
- 7 Talk:Daimler Company/Archive 1#Overgrown hatnote
- 8 Talk:Borderline personality_disorder
- 9 User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.
- 10 Talk:Honda Super_Cub
- 11 Talk:Riot shield#From_Wikipedia's_main_page,_regarding_my_objection_to_this_page_having_appeared_as_a_%22Did_You_Know%22_entry_there
- 11.1 Summary of dispute by Freikorp
- 11.2 Summary of dispute by Drmies
- 11.3 Observation by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
- 11.4 Productive suggestion made by Freikorp
- 11.5 Talk:Riot shield#From_Wikipedia's_main_page,_regarding_my_objection_to_this_page_having_appeared_as_a_%22Did_You_Know%22_entry_there discussion
- 12 http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9
- 13 Talk:Hasidic Judaism
- 14 Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man
- 14.1 Summary of dispute by EvergreenFir
- 14.2 Summary of dispute by Grayfell
- 14.3 Summary of dispute by Rivertorch
- 14.4 Summary of dispute by Equinox
- 14.5 Summary of dispute by TaylanUB
- 14.6 Summary of dispute by MollyMac13
- 14.7 Summary of dispute by Colonial Overlord
- 14.8 Summary of dispute by The Raincloud Kid
- 14.9 Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man discussion
- 15 Talk:Hasidic Judaism
- 16 Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#Contradiction
- 17 User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags
- 18 Talk:Vignette (road tax)
- 19 Citizens (Spanish political party)
- 20 Talk:History of_the_function_concept#Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī
Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced
Closed. The original discussion of sources has been resolved. The remaining issue was whether to include miscellaneous (fringe) theories involving the shroud either in the article, in a sub-article, or neither. There is rough consensus that discussing the fringe theories in the main article would be undue weight and would violate Wikipedia policies and Arbitration Committee rulings on fringe theories. A sub-article is being developed, currently in draft space, at Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. The draft sub-article will be moved into article space when it is ready; in the meantime, editors may discuss its content on its talk page at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. If anyone thinks that the fringe theories should be discussed in the main article, they may use a Request for Comments. Otherwise, attempting to insert the theories into the main article may be considered disruptive editing and may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A sentence in the introduction to the The Shroud of Turin page says: "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[12][sources 1]" N.B. sources 1 expands to [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Having looked at the sources I believe sources [13], [15], [16] and [19] do not support the statement and I have tried to remove them. I have tried to come to consensus with User:Wdford and User:Hob Gadling, but we have failed. In a nutshell my argument is that while Wdford and Hob Gadling in the talk pages build a case in support of the scientific evidence, this is not what the sources say. Indeed sources [15] and [16] are explicitly against the accuracy of the Carbon-14 dating, whilst [13] is an unresolved debate between two people discussing the issue. Source [19] has a different problem in that it destroys the effect of quoting multiple scientific sources in this context since it advocates preventing work critical to the established Carbon-14 date from being published. Wdford and Hob Gadling show POV in that they deem one person in the debate in source [13] to be correct and their opponent to be incorrect. Also, they use sources [15] and [16] to build their case, which I claim is OR. CheersAarghdvaark (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to remove the contested sources having determined we could not meet consensus, rather than walk away. Ended up in an edit war. Thought this is the next step. How do you think we can help? Look at the discussion and come to some decision. Summary of dispute by Guy MaconThis is primarily a religious argument, very similar to the arguments given by creationists arguing for a 10,000-year-old earth. Like that so-called "controversy" you have on one side the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on the other side you have "shroud researchers" publishing in blogs and other poor-quality sources. To confuse the issue, as documented here[1] both the creationists and the "shroud researchers" managed to get something pubished in a peer-reviewed journal, and in both cases the overwhelming consensus of scientists was that these are examples of the peer-review process gone badly wrong. In both cases the papers relied on sources other than the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
These are fringe theories and should be treated as the pseudoscience that they are. WP:FRINGE says
WP:WEIGHT says
and
Finally, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. by an 11-0 vote, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee decided that
Addressing the pro-authenticity arguments in detail violates WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by WdfordPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hob GadlingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The question is whether for the following sentence
the following four sources should be used. I will list the reasons Aarghdvard gives for not using them, followed by why they are not good reasons.
More responses can be found on Talk:Shroud of Turin by searching for "[16]" and "[19]".
Talk:Shroud of_Turin#Deleted_sentence_%22However,_none_of_the_hypotheses_challenging_...%22_as_not_sourced discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am uninvolved and am trying to understand the dispute. References 13–19 are listed under "[sources 1]" so they are only sources with relevant information, and each does not have to directly verify the text in the article. Is that point disputed? Would Aarghdvaark please focus on one of the sources that they want removed and outline why it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Ref 12 (0/1)
Responses (12)
Interpretation (12)Ref 13 (2/2)
Responses (13)
Interpretation (13)Ref 14 (1/1)
Responses (14)
Interpretation (14)Ref 15 (1/2)
Responses (15)
Interpretation (15)Ref 16 (2/2)
Responses (16)Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is a textile expert. She is a good source to support the claim that the piece of shroud used for the dating was not a later repair, which supports the carbon 14 date being correct. However she also says (her emphasis): "The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, without having to construct an untenable "mending theory". This clearly doesn't support the carbon-14 date being correct. You could argue that the material was adequately cleaned, so the quote above is not valid. But then you are selecting to believe part of what she says and reject others, so the use of her work as a clear source to support one argument over another is problematic. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Interpretation (16)Ref 17 (1/1)
Responses (17)
Interpretation (17)Ref 18 (1/1)
Responses (18)
Interpretation (18)Ref 19 (0/1)
Responses (19)
Interpretation (19)Ref 20 (2/2)
Responses (20)
Interpretation (20)
Overall discussion
Quoting below from the current introduction. Hopefully I'm putting in enough for the context of the disputed sentence to be clear.
With Wdford's proposed amendment this would become:
I think this is over-emphatic for an encyclopedia and therefore actually weakens what it is trying to say. There is no need to say "multiple experts", nor "relevant specializations", nor "verifiable shroud evidence", and they haven't actually refuted them in all cases. e.g. Ref [20], which supports the accuracy of the C-14 medieval dating result, says: "essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before" and "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate". These statements are not the same as claiming all the hypotheses have been scientifically refuted, the author is correctly claiming only that his conclusion has not been refuted - there is a subtle difference. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this really qualifies as a Conspiracy Theory, but I would strongly support creating a new article called Fringe theories about the dating of the Shroud of Turin. We can then let the shroudies load in all the latest "tests" etc without concern about weighting, and simply link the proper articles to that site. As far as the lede on this article goes, I am still proposing that we mention each of the three "scientific" challenges to the dating result specifically, and then list the refutations of each together with their multiple respective references. Please note – the "fact" that three people thought they saw an image of a flower that nobody else can see, does not count as a scientific challenge to the dating result. "Verifiable shroud evidence" means exactly what it says – it excludes tests done on threads with no proper chain of custody which some claim originated from a man who had no authority to possess or to hand out actual shroud samples, and it excludes made-up tests done on crumbling micro-fragments that were cherry-picked our of vacuumed dust-balls. "Relevant specializations" is also straight-forward. When we discuss textile experts scrutinising the actual shroud looking for evidence of a repair, then a relevant specialist is a person who is an actual textile expert. When we discuss the possibility of residual contamination skewing the carbon count, then a relevant expert is an actual C14 expert. When we are talking about an analysis of STURP photos, then a relevant expert is a STURP scientist who has actually studied those actual photos. We do not consider a C14 expert to be more expert on textiles than a textile expert, and we do not consider a textile expert to be more expert on C14 dating than a C14 expert. We do not consider a psychic ex-nun to be an expert on anything really. Seemingly this obvious conclusion cannot actually be taken for granted, and so we will need to be more specific. I note yet again what seems to be a transparent attempt to exclude all sources that refute the challenges to the C14 dating, so as to make the article suggest that the dating question is still open. Wdford (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges asked a reasonable question ("Would you agree to the creation of a sub-article named Controversy about the dating of the Shroud of Turin (or Guy Macon's solution of Shroud of Turin conspiracy theories) in order to both have a neutral title, and not violate UNDUE?") and immediately Aarghdvaark started arguing his side of the content dispute and Wdford started responding. Could you both pleas knock it off (which implies leaving off-topic comments by the other unanswered) and --in this section only -- stick to the question asked? A sub article would indeed address my main objection, which is the blatant violation of Wikipedia policies and the refusal to even talk about the content of those policies. I like the later suggestion Fringe theories about the dating of the Shroud of Turin better than my original Shroud of Turin conspiracy theories because it really is more of a fringe theory than a conspiracy theory. I don't like Controversy about the dating of the Shroud of Turin because no actual controversy exists except in the minds of a few who hold fringe views. I would hope that Aarghdvaark would realize that such an article would create a place where the evidence presented by pro-authenticity shroud researchers (even the psychic ex-nun's theory, the theory from Chuck Missler that it was a Quantum Hologram flash-imprinted with an image of Jesus during his miraculous resurrection, etc.) could be documented with nobody trying to exclude the "evidence" as being unreliable as long as there is evidence that someone published the theory somewhere. Compare our article on Moon landing conspiracy theories -- nowhere else on Wikipedia are David Percy's theories[2] even mentioned, much less evaluated. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I think we have wandered away from the original dispute, which was about the introductory sentence:
(sources in article), or Wdford's proposed alternative:
(sources above). I disagree with both of these on the grounds that: "all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" is not a statement made by any source quoted. This means it is unsourced and should not be used. WP:PROVEIT says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Wdford explains why he thinks it is justified by making a case that all the sources combined support his view, which in fact is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I have suggested an alternative statement:
As stated before this is a strong statement for the accuracy of the C-14 dating and is supported by what the source says. Wdford and Guy have so far not criticised this sentence. I think the original sentence should be replaced by my proposal or equivalent. As for the secondary article, I think this will open up a can of worms, and am against it. I pointed out above my concern with the proposal is that the Shroud of Turin controversy is nothing like the Moon landing conspiracy theory. The single point at issue with the Shroud of Turin is the C-14 dating, whilst the Moon landing conspiracy implies an absolutely gargantuan cover up. I agree with much that Wdford wrote about this over at the talk page. I believe the C-14 dating correctly showed a mediaeval date for the piece of shroud examined, but it is still just a single data point, and the acknowledged procedure in such a case is to reserve judgement until differences between other estimates of the age and the C-14 dating can be resolved. As an example of other evidence, the crucification marks are consistent with Roman crucifixtion practice, but not with mediaeval representations. This conclusion may be argued with, but at the moment the jury is out so it remains an inconsistency. In conclusion, the correct scientific response at the moment is we just don't know but we stand by our C-14 dating. And that is what the introduction needs to say. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Long Comments by One EditorI have been following the discussion, not as a DRN volunteer, but as an interested Wikipedia editor and as a Roman Catholic Christian. I have a few comments. As a Catholic, I would like to believe that the shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. However, that is not important to my faith. Besides, Catholicism has almost always (with a few exceptions) taught that faith and reason should be complementary, not opposed. It appears to me that the discussion at this point is no longer on sources but is stalled on the key question of whether there is evidence to support the idea that the shroud is genuine. Unfortunately, having read the discussion, I think that the case is against the authenticity of the shroud, and at this point what is important is simply to recognize the truth. I see two problems with the authenticity of the shroud. The first is the carbon-14 evidence, which is that the shroud is of medieval origin, between 1260 and 1390, of the time period in which there are first accounts of the shroud. It is true that, if the shroud is authentic, then it was subjected to events and actions that science cannot explain, which may have included radiation, and that these could change its apparent age, but it is unlikely that a radiation event would change the apparent age of the shroud to an origin consistent with when it first appears in documents. The second is simply the fact that there is no solid historical record of the shroud prior to about 1390. All previous “records” are simply back-fitting of the missing provenance of the shroud. The absence of good historical records for the proposed burial cloth is very different from the status of the burial place of Jesus, which has been a place of pilgrimage since ancient times. It is true that the negative nature of the image of Jesus on the shroud is intriguing, since negative photography was not known until the 1840’s (and the negative nature of the image was discovered in the 1890’s). However, that doesn’t authenticate the shroud, and the gap in the historical record, and the carbon-14 date, are problematic. At this point, there appear to be two questions for Wikipedia. The first is how much credence to give to theories that claim to authenticate the shroud. I would say, unfortunately, not much. Just because many of us want to believe that the shroud is authentic doesn’t create evidence that the shroud is authentic. Wikipedia needs to present what reliable sources say – and that is that the shroud appears to date to sometimes between 1260 and 1390, probably about 1390. I think that is settled. Anyone who disagrees can request a Request for Comments, but there is no need to continue to bludgeon the process. The second question is whether to create a sub-article. I personally think that a sub-article is a good idea, but that is only my opinion. That should be based on consensus, and possibly on a Request for Comments. It appears to me that the discussion should have been completed except for the decision as to whether to split off a sub-article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer NoteThis is one of the longest-running threads that we have had on this noticeboard. It appears that the moderator of this discussion is on vacation or Wiki-break, so I will try to close out the discussion. I think that the issues of the reliability of sources and the other related issues have been addressed. The one question that has not been answered is whether to split off a sub-article. If everyone agrees that the article is all right, this discussion will simply be closed. If everyone agrees that there should be a sub-article, then someone can write it. If some editors want a sub-article, there can be a Request for Comments on splitting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Editor Comments
|
Ashkenazi Jews
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as premature. There has not been any recent discussion on the article talk page. Discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page, Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. If discussion is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I edited the article on Ashkenazi Jews to say: In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine.[147][148] Genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded.[149] Other studies support the theory. for example, "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE"[150] by Ellen Levy Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" [151] by Eran Elhaik. The links for the two studies I cited are the following: A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/1/61/728117/The-Missing-Link-of-Jewish-European-Ancestry There are people who want t keep information supporting the Khazarian hypothesis out of this article and discredit it by associating it with anti-Semitism in furtherance of a political agenda. Politics and science don't mix. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've posted to the talk page. I applied for dispute resolution already. How do you think we can help? Replace what's in the "The Khazar Hypothesis" section now with my edit. Summary of dispute by byteflushPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ashkenazi Jews discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Cyprus Air Forces
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle cases which are primarily conduct disputes, those go to WP:ANI, but even if this focused on the content issue between the parties it would be premature. DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before filing here. If an editor will not discuss, consider the advice given here. - TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User: FOX 52 is preventing me from contributing in any capacity to the Cyprus Air Forces article. A review of the edits will demonstrate that have sourced and researched my edits. I charge that Fox 52 is bullying me, by saying on my talk page that he /she will have me blocked from wikipedia for opposing their agenda. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After the initial rollback, I attempted to comply with Fox 52's initial demand to avoid over detailing the tables on the page. I then made several well sourced and researched edits to the page that were then rolled back again, without reasoning, and accompanied by a threatening message on my talk page. How do you think we can help? This action is bullying. It is also demonstrating that FOX 52 is not allowing anyone else to contribute to the page. Summary of dispute by FOX 52Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cyprus Air Forces discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Woodbury University
Closed. There are two problems with this request. First, and most importantly, there has been no real discussion recently on the article talk page, and not much discussion at all on the article talk page. Discuss any concerns at Talk:Woodbury University. Second, this noticeboard does not usually do well at handling a dispute with a very large number of editors (which appears to be all of the registered and unregistered editors who have edited the article, mostly not recently). Editors are advised to discuss their concerns at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute began with posting of "Whistleblower" section in article, and secondarily with addition of "declining enrollment" statement in introduction. Content was repeatedly removed by University employees, and then re-instated with non-neutral wording by 1 or more other editors ("Whistleblower" section now titled "Whistleblower controversy after alleged abuse and cover-up by school executives" and implicates specific employees by name). Descriptive, neutrally worded information about University academic programs is repeatedly removed by editors to make controversial introduction content more prominent/visible, damaging the usefulness of the article. My hands are a bit tied in terms of making edits, as I'm a university-employed librarian with a COI; I doubt any resolution to this exasperating back-and-forth will occur without neutral parties offering advice or mediation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have detailed my concerns on the Talk page about non-neutral language on both sides of the dispute, though editors involved will only comment through notes on the edit history page. How do you think we can help? Editing of article wording to a neutral point of view by an outside party, and possible vandalism protection to the article, may help calm this troubling pattern of non-neutral editing and vandalism. If alternative options outside of DRN are instead suggested by editors, that advice alone would be much appreciated. Summary of dispute by 181.192.178.215Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 190.181.12.114Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 179.7.122.69Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 81.247.74.194Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TheSkyistheLimitPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Greg.houlePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 82.44.24.33Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WU1884Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 154.68.55.72Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 77.68.13.219Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 96.230.21.92Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2600:1012:b066:668d:49b9:5d90:86ec:1833Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2602:306:8013:1ae0:f105:5a20:26d3:d40aPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jason.matthews2323Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sabrinataylor1979Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SidPablaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Woodbury University discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Cannibal Corpse
Closed as conduct issue. The repeated removal from the talk page of efforts to discuss edits to an article is a violation of talk page guidelines and is considered disruptive editing. This noticeboard depends on cooperation with all of the involved editors with a moderator; we cannot force an editor who is disruptive to participate in mediation. This conduct issue and other conduct issues should be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I've come across an editor (User:Hafizh Ahmeed) who is repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion and is deleting my comments/attempts at discussion (in violation of WP:TPO). They deleted my attempts at discussion on Talk:Cannibal Corpse and they refused to acknowledge my comments on their talk page and instead just deleted them there too. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've messaged them on their talk page, explaining WP:TPO to them in an attempt at educating and preventing further deletion of comments, where they promptly ignored/deleted that comment instead of replying. I've also attempted discussion at Talk:Cannibal Corpse, where they deleted my thread (in violation of WP:TPO) instead of discussing the topic of the thread. How do you think we can help? Perhaps other users could message him or help in the discussion? Though, based on past actions, they may just continue ignoring and deleting any attempt at discussion. If nothing else, a block from editing could be used due to their repeated ignoring of policies and refusal to communicate with other users (communication is important for anything to get done here). Summary of dispute by Hafizh AhmeedPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Cannibal Corpse discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Immigration_debate
Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor did not notify the other editors of this case within 72 hours after it was noted that they had not notified the other editors. Editors should resume discussion at the article talk page. A new request for dispute resolution can be filed here at any time, but the filing editor must notify the other editors. A Request for Comments may be used by any editor. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement (the latter only after notice of discretionary sanctions under ARBEE). Editors are advised that walls of text are not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Basically I asked that the following: - the statement "well supported" be removed from the description in the first paragraph. - the article be restructured in a way that would present all statements (theories, hypothesis etc.) in a pro/con/critice/refute critic/debate manner so that anyone can asses the information and come to his/her own conclusion. - one of the presented theories rests upon several statements of which one is a negative one, and the other is relevant only when the first has been supported. As such I asked for supporting "evidence" for the first statement. No is provided in the article, none was given by the editors. - i DID NOT ask for the removal of content, but a change in the way it is presented. - i did ask for the addition of content (pertinent to the theories being used, or created as, political tools) - all efforts have been shut down by editors. I will let you asses the neutrality of their argument if you so chose - in my opinion rejecting this on the basis of statements that fly in the face of information presented in the article is not balanced or neutral at all - on of the editors has started an investigation on me. while I have no problem with that - having already explained all my actions - I still consider it as an intimidation attempt. - I repeatedly stressed the conundrum of what is considered a mainstream source at a time when Wikipedia itself is a mainstream source used for fact checking - thus anything on Wikipedia has the potential of becoming mainstream, supported or not. - since the debate is going nowhere, and taking into consideration the point mentioned above, I feel that this is the last resort - arbitration. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive debate on the talk page. How do you think we can help? By enforcing a neutral point of view. By removing the foregone conclusions contained in the article. By enforcing neutrality and balance (for example the article hints towards one theory as being used as a political tool yet the editors did not mention that others were used, or even created as political tools - which in my opinion is bias). By allowing the restructuring of the article such that any person accessing it may asses each statement (theory, hypothesis) based on its supporting argument Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KIENGIRPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by IovaniorgovanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BorsokaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Immigration_debate discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Daimler Company/Archive 1#Overgrown hatnote
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed due to lack of response. Participation at this noticeboard is encouraged but voluntary. The filing editor presented a proposal to shorten the hatnote. The other editor has not responded. This doesn't establish consensus, but it does establish a reasonable effort by the filing editor. The filing editor is advised to edit the hatnote as they have proposed, and to discuss their edits further on the talk page. If the other editor reverts the edits but does not discuss them, see this paper. Either party may use a Request for Comments, which does establish consensus. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview FULL LINK to dispute. The disambiguation hatnote at Daimler Company is too long and convoluted. It reads like an example of how not to write a hatnote according to established guidelines about brevity and relevance (see WP:1HAT and WP:RELATED). Yet, all my attempts to rewrite it and bring it in line with the guidelines have been systematically reverted by the other user. I proposed three subsequent versions of the hatnote (1, 2, 3), each one with increasing breadth to take the other user's points into account, while moving the excess information to the article lead, but all three attempts have been bluntly reverted, and the hatnote remains unchanged. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing it on Talk page. How do you think we can help? I tried to explain to the other user how disambiguation and related hatnotes work on Wikipedia, but to no avail (in fact I was told to "just leave it alone"). Can someone familiar with the subject please point out why the current hatnote should be rewritten per existing guidelines? Summary of dispute by EddaidoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am sorry to have to say this. 1. I did not write the hatnote under discussion. 2. It must be a great deal clearer than this particular editor would like the hatnote to be. I am not sure that this editor does in fact understand the matters involved. 3. (Again counter to what is said by her/him) I am not alone in my concerns about this editor's plans - please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:Daimler Company/Archive 1#Overgrown hatnote discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to resolve this issue. First, will the editors please read the mediation rules and follow the rules? Be civil and concise (even if you don't think that the hatnote is concise). Comment on content (including the hatnote), not contributors. Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the hatnote, or why it should be left as is? Third, if there are any other issues, identify them briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsThe hatnote should achieve the following:
This can be achieved by a simple hatnote such as the last one I proposed (3). Instead, the hatnote is not the place for:
which is what the current hatnote does and is precisely what WP:1HAT says that should be covered in the lead (or in the dab page) instead. This is a case of disambiguation like thousands of others on Wikipedia, and I don't see why it should not adhere to the established guidelines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk:Borderline personality_disorder
Closed as premature. While there has been brief discussion on the article talk page, it has not been substantive or extensive, and further discussion might be useful. (Then again, it might not, but we have to try.) The filing party has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page after reading the original research policy, the medical reliable sources policy, and other policies. (Also, usually User:Doc James and User:Jytdog are right about policy, and they are worth listening to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I'm trying to add a few additional items to the "Literature" section of the article, which contains a list of books which involve the psychological disorder that's the subject of the article. The provided references for two of them are to Amazon pages which describe the books and explicitly state their connection to the disorder. The other editors assert that merely by providing those references, I am performing "original research", and that I must instead find other sources that assert the connection. I don't believe that that's "original research" as Wikipedia uses the term. A third item is sourced in a note by the author of one of those books, which she posted to a mailing list about her books. While the medium is a mailing list, the note is by the author herself; she regularly posts on that list. I have trouble believing that the information is unreliable just because the medium is a mailing list. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to discuss it on Jytdog's talk page; they referred me to the Talk page of the article. How do you think we can help? Please clarify the term "original research" as Wikipedia uses it, and whether it applies in this case. Determine if information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable regardless of the author of that information. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This has not been sufficiently discussed at the talk page for DR to happen yet. The OP has not really engaged there. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Doc JamesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We need secondary sources that discuss the literature about BPD. We do not ourselves simple pick primary sources and than add our opinions about them as that is original research. The content we are discussing is this. Amazon is user generated content not quality secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:Borderline personality_disorder discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.
Closed for various reasons, including as outside the scope of this noticeboard and as questionably filed. The filing editor says that they are willing to let a third party decide, but a third party, MarchJuly, has already said that if User:Diannaa says that it was a copyright violation, it probably was a copyright violation. So now a fourth party says that if User:Diannaa and User:MarchJuly say that it was a copyright violation, it was a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. This noticeboard is not the forum to question an administrator's opinion about a copyright violation. The filing party is advised to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse, who will explain (possibly in great detail) about copyright violation. The filing party is also reminded that copyright violations can result in being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Me and Diannaa are disagreeing over if an edit I made to Train horn was a copyright violation. Diannaa says that it's a violation since I used the actual descriptions provided by the source in the table, instead of rewording them. I contest this because A. The source is cited. B. It's short information that is barely a sentence. C. The offending text is the actual language of the standard.
We've tried discussing it, but honestly I don't think we're resolving it because we both think we're right. How do you think we can help? A. Who's right here. We both think we're right so I think we should kick it to a third party who can assess that independently. B. If it is a copyright violation, then'd I still want access to my original edit to make it compliant, since otherwise I will have remake the table again, which given only a small part of it was said by Diannaa to be in violation, it feels like an over-reaction, combined with the lack of being provided an opportunity to fix it in the first place. Summary of dispute by DiannaaUser talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Honda Super_Cub
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as not discussed recently. Maybe this is the same question that was asked three years ago. If so, it still hasn't been discussed recently. When the template asks whether there has been recent talk page discussion, it is asking whether there has been significant recent talk page discussion. The filing party is advised to register an account if they want to engage in dispute resolution. The filing party is also advised to follow the instructions and actually try to discuss this on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A footnote contains information that I believe is unnecessary; it reads like an extra trivia tidbit. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion. How do you think we can help? Provide an assessment of whether the footnote is necessary. Summary of dispute by Dennis BratlandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Should I assume that 211.23.25.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who last posted in the discussion two years and nine months ago, is the same person as 60.248.185.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Why not create an account? Seriously.Up at the top of this page, it says, "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." This has sat idle for going on three years, so there is no active, unresolved dispute over the question of whether or not to remove an explanatory footnote that says "The Chinese Flying Pigeon bicycle, with on the order of 500 million in service as of 2007, is the most produced vehicle ever. See Koeppel, Dan (January–February 2007), "Flight of the Pigeon", Bicycling, Rodale, Inc., vol. 48 no. 1, pp. 60–66, ISSN 0006-2073, retrieved January 28, 2012" from Honda Super Cub. It's related to the paragraph on this topic at Vehicle#Most common vehicles in use, explaining where the Super Cub is in relation to these similar superlatives. This footnote was there back in November 2014 when it was reviewed and promoted to Good Article. I would suggest asking for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and see if any other editors there think this is worth getting into. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:Honda Super_Cub discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Riot shield#From_Wikipedia's_main_page,_regarding_my_objection_to_this_page_having_appeared_as_a_%22Did_You_Know%22_entry_there
Closed. The author has started a Request for Comments. This takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I remain dissatisfied with other editors' unwillingness to make it clear on the Riot shield page that throwing projectiles at the police (or indeed, at anyone) is illegal - indeed, to the point of being a felony in many places. I do not think acknowledging this is an unreasonable request, and believe that some way could and should be worked out to say something along these lines in a way which respects everything else on the page. Other editors have, however, gone out of their way to deal with me in a rude fashion for expressing my concerns, and have shown no interest in finding a method of resolving the dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was told my edit to rectify the matter was "unsourced". Believing it was likely, on the basis of my previous interaction, that any attempt I would make to source my edit would be called "original research", I chose to cite the Wikipedia page on "criminal rock throwing", which established the illegality of throwing rocks in numerous jurisdictions. I think it's obvious, given that rocks are a typical projectile thrown at police, that this is relevant. This was also dismissed. How do you think we can help? The comments made in response to my edits are sophistries rather than attempts to guide better editing - they are made to defeat me, not to make Wikipedia better. If my edit is "unsourced", what would be an acceptable source? If my edit is "editorial" because I used the words "of course", why not eliminate those words then? If "Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia", is that a claim that the sources accepted on that page are being rejected on this one, and if so, why? What can I do _right_? Summary of dispute by FreikorpPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Contrary to the above claim, Zachary Klaas DID NOT try to discuss this issue on the article's talk page. I specifically stated my case about why I think his edit in inappropriate on the talk page here: [4]. For reasons unknown to me, Zachary Klass chose not to reply to my concerns and instead started this dispute resolution.We repeatedly explained to Zachary Klass why his edits could not be accepted, pointing to relevant guidelines like WP:CIRCULAR. If he had of actually taken the time to read said guidelines he wouldn't have had to resort to opening up a dispute resolution for the purpose of having someone explain to him why "Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia". To recap the events that have brought us here: Zachary Klass made his opinions known, and a consensus was reached against him. Being angry with this, he then resorted to adding disclaimers to the article, explicitly stating his motivation for doing so was spite: [5]. He then violated WP:BRD when his edit was reverted, ignoring a request to discuss the matter and instead chose to start an edit war. When Drmies threatened to block him if he continued with his "disruptive editing, willfully adding original research, editorial commentary and edit warring", he resorted to wasting more of everyone else's time by opening this ridiculous dispute. I have tried to assume good faith, but it appears Zachary Klaas only wants to be disruptive for the purpose of being disruptive. I suggest resolving this dispute by temporarily blocking Zachary Klaas from editing, thereby giving Wikipedia a break from his persistent disruption and also giving him some time to think about his behavior. Also he spelt my username wrong; I am not User:Freikorps. Freikorp (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not quite sure what this person's agenda is, though I warned them that continued edit warring (inserting OR commentary) will lead to a block. I am reminded of those warning labels one finds in the US--the kind that tell you that water is gluten-free. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Observation by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisAs someone totally uninvolved in this dispute, I have read the summaries given so far as well as the relevant section of the talk page. My conclusion is that User:Zachary Klaas should be directed to Wikipedia's policies on original research and disruptive editing (including its explanatory supplement on tendentious editing). I'm not all that familiar with DRN and apologize in advance if comments by non-parties are inappropriate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Productive suggestion made by FreikorpI would like to point out that Freikorp has suggested on the Talk page for Riot shield that perhaps non-tendentious wording is possible for adding an acknowledgment that throwing projectiles at police is illegal. That is a productive suggestion, can we perhaps look at a solution to this problem along those lines? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:Riot shield#From_Wikipedia's_main_page,_regarding_my_objection_to_this_page_having_appeared_as_a_%22Did_You_Know%22_entry_there discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9
Closed as premature. All discussions at this noticeboard should be preceded by discussion on the article talk page. A very brief statement on a user talk page is not sufficient. The editors should discuss the issue at length on the article talk page, Talk: Yahweh. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview There is a sentence on the “Yahweh” page that reads “The Israelites were originally Canaanites, but Yahweh does not appear to have been a Canaanites god” The issue is with the first half of the sentence “the Israelites were originally Canaanites..” It is a contended position and one that i edited out, the editor General Ization re edited, and asked to list source, i misunderstood, but eventually did list a source for the contention that Israel and Canaan were seperate people groups The source is here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites And all i asked of him was a simple revision That the sentence read differently I would even suggest “Many contend that Israelites were originally Canaanites, though a recent study on the DNA of ancient skeletons from Canaanite cities in the Levant, found that the Canaanite genetic marker can be found in modern day Lebanese, not Israelites; which brings credence tonthe idea that they were two distinct people groups.” Or something to that affect his response was “still not intersted, thanks” And he continues to re edit the sentence as before, despite the evidence that the information is contested Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to just edit the first part of the sentence out, no replacement How do you think we can help? View the source and if it is found as legitimate, tell General Ization that it is, at the least, a contentious position and should be worded differently Summary of dispute by General IzationPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Hasidic Judaism
Closed as premature. The filing unregistered editor has posted a few vague complaints about the overall tone, but has not made any specific suggestions for improving the article. The filing unregistered editor should either edit the article and discuss on the talk page, or propose specific edits on the talk page. Also, registering an account is strongly recommended. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but there hasn't been any editing yet. If discussion fails because the other party does not engage or does not discuss, read this paper. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The page 'hasidic judaism' would benefit from some form of mediation; the page as a whole reads as a religious text. My view is that Wikipedia should not be in the position of deciding which religious views are "heresies" and which are not, while 'AddMore-III' seems to view the page as a chapter in the Talmud. Unfortunately all attempts to discuss it on the talk page and on his page have so far been one sided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posting on his page How do you think we can help? Any third party willing to talk about Hasidic Judaism in history and in the present, on the talk page, would be helpful. Summary of dispute by AddMore-IIIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Hasidic Judaism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed. The filing editor has now posted a Request for Comments, which takes priority over other forms of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same sources.
08:43, 19 October 2016 Picture of a Sunny Day (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY)
Current definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on trans man talk page by the current author and by others on the trans woman page. Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Evaluate the available sources to determine the current understanding of the term trans man. Userwoman (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EvergreenFirThe filing user has failed to provide any RS on the article's talk page. Much of the talk page discussion has been taken up by explaining the basics of Wikipedia to the user. If the user still doesn't understand that their own arguments based on their own opinions does not mandate change on Wikipedia, I'd recommend they use the Help Desk more. I am concerned that this dispute resolution filing is an attempted to extend the debate further, still without any sources given. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GrayfellAs explained on the article's talk pages multiple times, the sources fully support the current wording, even if they don't pedantically repeat the exact same phrase. The former lede of the article (from 2016) was not previously mentioned as part of the proposed change, but it's being presented here as the central part of the dispute. Introducing a new argument, unpersuasive as it is, at this late point suggests shifting goal posts. If we cannot define the dispute, we cannot resolve it, and therefore this is a non-starter. Also, as far as I can tell, neither TaylanUB, nor Equinox, nor MollyMac13 have edited either Trans man or Talk:Trans man, making their invitations appear to be canvassing. Spreading drama from other similar articles is disruptive, to put it mildly. For these reasons, I'm extremely reluctant to lend legitimacy to what I see as WP:CIVILPOV, and have no desire to participate further. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RivertorchPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by EquinoxPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think that any kind of argument, regardless of its scientific backing etc., is going to work here. It's too politicised and it's one of the few areas where Wikipedia is not neutral. I don't have any particular issue with trans men or trans women but it's strange to me that the articles seem to assume that transgender is the norm (ignoring e.g. "TERF" attitudes) whereas e.g. Criticism of Christianity gets an entire article. Equinox ◑ 02:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TaylanUBPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have to broadly agree with Equinox above; this issue seems extremely politicized, and the majority of the involved editors too indulged in their ideology. The page on man clearly states that a man is a male person, where male is defined in the usual biological way we all (hopefully) know. This corresponds with common use and scientific use of the words. The trans man page is in direct contradiction with these definitions. I find it particularly telling that the section titled "Confusion reigns" of the trans man talk page was locked under the claim that it's "pseudoscientific trolling at worst." Apparently, everything on the male page on Wikipedia is pseudoscience now, and not thinking so is trolling? See also this past state of my user page, in which I had documented a ton of biased behavior on the part of editors who could be assumed to be in support of the worldview of the contemporary transgender movement. It took me a long time and a ton of stubbornness to establish that the most popular feminist website of Canada is, in fact, a reliable source about feminist viewpoints. Imagine that. Getting back to this particular topic, I think Userwoman stood behind their position quite well. It seems that none of the opposing editors were able to cite a source that clearly states that trans men are men. Instead, they seem to have flooded the talk page with irrelevant content from the cited sources, personal conjecture, references to theories put forth by individual sociologists, or to sociological theories whose bearing to the topic is rather questionable, and so on. The lead section should summarize the topic in terms that are factual and not ideological. Trans men are people who are assigned female at birth, generally because they are/were female, who profess to identify as male. It's amazing how complicated people are making this. (Yay, I'm still below 2k characters.) Taylan (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MollyMac13Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Colonial OverlordPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The Raincloud KidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the filing party failed to notify the other editors of this filing, although they had more than 72 hours after the failure to notify was mentioned. Second, this noticeboard isn't really the best forum to resolve disputes in which 9 editors have been identified. Normally a Request for Comments works better when there are a large number of editors. The editors are advised that they may resume discussion on the article talk page, and any editor may post a neutrally worded Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in wording the RFC if I am requested to do so (on my user talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk:Hasidic Judaism
Closed as not adequately discussed, and for other reasons, the same as four days ago. The filing party has made some vague complaints on the article talk page, but has not made any specific suggestions for improvement of the article. Attempting to tag the article as NPOV is not a substitute for making specific suggestions to improve the article The filing party is advised again to make useful suggestions for improving the article, and is reminded that edit-warring to tag an article more than three times in 24 hours is considered disruptive editing. The filing party is also advised to register an account. The filing party is advised to propose specific improvements. The other editors are advised to consider requesting semi-protection if the edit-warring to tag the article non-constructively continues. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Generally speaking, the article about Hasidic Judaism lacks NPOV and reads mostly as boosterism. Specifically, I and other editors have wanted to include mention of this documentary about Hasidic Judaism: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/One_of_Us_(2017_film) Although there are other issues, including mention of this film, however briefly, will go a long way towards establishing NPOV. AddMoreIII claims mentioning it is "advertising" but I have no connection to the film; nor was my suggested edit in any way written in "Advertising" language. I only want a balanced portayal of a modern, living religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to discuss with both editors; the following editor told me to "go fly a kite" יניב הורון while AddMore-III made personal attacks. How do you think we can help? I would like comment in general on the talk page about NPOV regarding my banner notice. Summary of dispute by AddMore-IIIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by יניב הורוןPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Hasidic Judaism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#Contradiction
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the purpose of this noticeboard is to try to address content disputes by discussion. The filing party does not appear to want to discuss, but appears only to want a soapbox. Second, the filing party has been range-blocked for disruptive posts (including this one - the range was blocked shortly after this request was filed). (Also, if the filing party agrees that the denialism is contradicted by the evidence, why delete that phrase?) If the filing party wants to engage in serious discussion, they can register an account (and comply with any discretionary sanctions). If disruption resumes (e.g., from a different range), semi-protecting the talk page should be considered. While unusual, semi-protection of a talk page has been done in the past in cases of tendentious posts on pseudo-science by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a sentence in the article that breaks the Neutral point of view rule. The fact that scientific evidence contradicts HIV denialism is established in a lot of places throughout the article. That's why I think that, at least in the first sentence of the lead, it should not say "contradicted by evidence". It should only state what HIV denialism is. As it is now, it gives the impression that Wikipedia editors are taking sides on the matter, instead of uploading encyclopedic content. User Ian.thomson went as far as subjecting edits to the article to review prior to publication Have you tried to resolve this previously? Just talking in the Talk page. How do you think we can help? By checking all the instances in the HIV denialism article where it says that this denialism is contradicted by science. It will be clear that there is already due weight. Then, say so in the corresponding thred in the Talk page and allow the deletion of "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence" in the lead. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomsonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
OP's edits to the article and posts to the talk page (especially Archive 13) make it abundantly clear that they're trying to water down the scientific consensus however they can. If WP:FRINGE and WP:Lunatic charlatans weren't the case, it'd be WP:1AM and WP:NOTHERE. If OP was a registered user then someone would have thrown discretionary sanctions for alternative medicine and pseudoscience at them weeks ago. This has been going on since the beginning of April. There's nothing to do here but encourage OP to find another outlet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#Contradiction discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags
Dispute resolved, both the involved parties have no other comments to make. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Waddie96 on 19:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
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 cite WP:INFOBOXFLAG to allow for use of flag in infobox in human geographical articles. Caradhras claims that the addition of flag in infobox is nationalistic agenda of sockpuppet and thus should be reverted. However, the flags in the articles in question Shanghai, Wuhan and Beijing have longstanding had a flag in the infobox. Caradhras cites that consistency across articles is necessary as majority of cities in China on WP do not have flags in infobox. I say most major cities do Have you tried to resolve this previously? Spoke on the talk page How do you think we can help? Give a third opinion and assist in preventing an edit war Summary of dispute by CaradhrasAiguoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
For the sockpuppets in question, refer to the relevant investigation. This sockpuppeteer has also openly admitted to socking, further demonstrating the WP:POINTy nature of his edits. I have not formally reported his latest batch of IPs because the latest 2 batches that were reported have been ignored. As to the timeline of the flags being included in the infoboxes, I would describe none of them as "longstanding", considering the age of Wikipedia as a whole: Beijing (4 Jul 2016 by a single-purpose account), Shanghai (22 Aug 2016 by a single-purpose account), Wuhan (18 Feb 2018). All 3 edits were unexplained. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC) User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Vignette (road tax)
Closed for various reasons. First, ZH8000 has not replied, and participation here is voluntary. Second, attempting to use this noticeboard, which has volunteer moderators, for RFCs or ANI-style proposals, is disruptive. Third, the discussion on this noticeboard by third-party editors should be on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page, which has not been semi-protected. Any unregistered editors are strongly advised to register accounts. It really is useful. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. Report other disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hello For clarity, I also edit under IP's starting with 93.(1...), my ISP changes my IP address daily. I've been editing WP for a while and using an IP instead of registering a username is my personal choice. I have tried to insert a sentence detailing how Switzerland's motorway vignette (offered only on a expensive yearly basis) is the most expensive in Europe for tourists and transiting car drivers. As this was reverted by Swiss user ZH8000, I have tried to elaborate on the method I used -- comparing the cheapest vignettes offered in each country, as that is what a traveler passing through once will buy. I have provided a source confirming exactly that (essentially saying that Switzerland is the only country with only a yearly vignette, and that other countries which use vignettes instead of pay-by-km systems offer cheap short-term vignettes aimed at visitors). ZH8000 claims that my addition is not verifiable by that source. Over the course of the last few days I've reinstated the change with minor alterations trying to please ZH8000. He/she reinstated status quo each time. IP user 86.153.135.111 has posted on the talk page agreeing with me and instated his/her own version and was also reverted. ZH8000 reported both of us for edit warring, also accusing us of being the same person, and also requested page protection on RFPP. In order not to write the same thing again: I've provided a short overview of my logic here to EdJohnston. I was told by ZH8000 that my English is uncomprehensible, so please read that if my explanation here is too convoluted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss this on the article talk page, but the same points are being reiterated by both sides. Thus I don't believe that this discussion is moving forward. How do you think we can help? I think we'd all agree that this one sentence is a simple matter. As me and the other IP user can't seem to be able to find an agreement with ZH8000, I believe that a third party might have fortune in helping us along. Summary of dispute by ZH8000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 86.153.135.111I found the claim by accident and a check of the reference that I provided as a replacement fully confirms that the claim is correct and comprehensible In both its versions. ZH8000 just deletes the claim and then just claims that he doesn't have to prove anything. I also didn't find this until after I had posted an edit request on the article talk page so apologies if I jumped the gun. The main problem is that ZH8000 is not a native English speaker and claimed the original sentence was incomplete and incomprehensible (which it wasn't) and apparently misunderstood it as he started discussing yearly pricing (which no one else was discussing). ZH8000 seems to have a larger problem with competence in the English language and the English way of expressing things and even accuses everyone else of the incompetence. This seems to have led to a most of his past disputes. (was 86.153.135.111) but now 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JFGProcedural note: I am uninvolved in this dispute; I noticed this thread because I watchlist the DR/N page and I live in Switzerland. — JFG talk 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC) The IP editors cite a source that says:
The article reflects those facts in the lead, saying:
So far, so good. Then IP editors argue that the cited source also supports their proposed article text:
To further support this assertion, they quote the price of short-term vignettes in Austria and Czechia (€9 and €13). Editor ZH8000 argues that the cited source fails WP:Verification for this assertion, and that it should be thus deleted. An edit war ensued, complete with aspersions of not understanding English well enough to edit. Oops, not useful. This looks to me like a simple case of WP:Synthesis, whereby IP editors use a combination of sources to make an assertion in wikivoice that no source has made. Even if they are right (which is debatable), this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If they want to make a point that Swiss motorways are more expensive than others, they should find sources that actually make this point themselves. Even then, I'm not sure that such a comparison would be encyclopedic. — JFG talk 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
JFG, you claim that to look up a series of tables and see which number is the highest is synthesis. Even if that were true, consider this source alone, without the "cartolleu" reference which simply serves to re-verify its claim:
If all other countries with vignettes allow people to buy a cheaper vignette, then how can Switzerland's shortest term vignette be anything but the most expensive one? (78.0.246) 93.136.22.175 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
JFG made the comment, "An edit war ensued, complete with aspersions of not understanding English well enough to edit. Oops, not useful". Having studied the edit war and the talk page comments, I felt important to address that point because, I believe, that it is the fundamental reason that there is a dispute in the first place. The original contribution by 93.136.77.51 was (if poorly sourced - though a good source was provided in a subsequent revert).
On the talk page ZH8000 declares that
To a native English speaker, such as my humble self, the sentence was both complete and comprehensible. On the talk page ZH8000 has clearly not comprehended it correctly because he launches into claiming that the point is wrong on the basis of the yearly cost of the vignettes.
True as a statement (if very poor English), but not relevant to the point. ZH8000 also launches into a discussion of the cost per kilometre which is not useful either. 86.149.136.154 reverted the claim and reworded it to read (and now with the single reference that does support it)
Clear and completely comprehensible (though personally, I would tweak it slightly). 86.149.136.154 also posted on the talk page that the issue was over the cost of a car transiting the country, "...in a day or two" and not the yearly cost as ZH8000 had wrongly believed. ZH8000 reverted it for the fifth time with the terse edit summary, "the same as before". That summary clearly shows that ZH8000 still believes that the pair of sentences are still referring to the yearly cost of vignettes throughout Europe. Either he has completely misunderstood the revised sentences, or he has neither read the talk page nor noticed that the claim has been rewritten. Being charitable, I would lean toward the latter. The only problem being that ZH8000 also said
but failed to provide any verification of the statement (even claiming " I do not have to proof (sic) anything"). A simple Google turns up a good many websites comparing vignette charges and all confirm that the Swiss "... vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers". For example see [10] or [11] to name but two. Google turns up many more. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Talk:Vignette (road tax) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
While I don't find it necessarily important that Wikipedia track vignette pricing -- a changeable thing not well suited to an encyclopedia -- I will throw in my OR that the IP editors are correct in their comparison of Switzerland and Austria. The websites given as sources in the article support this as well. And I think it should be noted that ZH8000 has a long history of edit-warring and intractability in the face of being proved wrong, and has been blocked three times for it. Eric talk 12:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
To provide an extra view. I found the closed edit request on the article talk page. I also found the extended and slow motion edit war in the article. I had a suspicion that the IP editors may be the same user, but to clear that up, I performed an extended node search and the IP addresses fall clearly into two groups of dynamic IPs with no common factor. They are two independent IPs in two different countries (UK and Croatia). The reference provided in the edit request (and also the penultimate version of the claim) checks out completely and fully supports the point that the two IPs are making. I should observe that the original version of the claim was also supported, but I believe that the references supporting the linked components of the claim were swapped. It seems ZH8000 is of Swiss nationality and I just wonder if he does not want this particular slur on his country's taxation system documented (my opinion, for what it is worth). The point is valid and certainly belongs in the article. Having had no direct contact with ZH8000, I cannot comment on the other points raised here. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well what the hell is the way the business is done here?? Where do I put this? I'm getting tired of this, I've encountered clearer explanations and less bureaucracy in a court of law... 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
|
Citizens (Spanish political party)
Closed as outside the scope of this noticeboard. While this did begin as a content dispute, it has become a conduct dispute with personal attacks, and we do not accept a case that involves current conduct issues. The editors are encouraged to resolve the conduct and content issues on the article talk page. They may report the conduct issues at WP:ANI but should read the boomerang essay first. If the editors really want to resolve the content issues and are willing to work with a more experienced mediator who will demand that they focus on content, they can request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I added: - a properly referenced mention to some allegations by a former diplomat about the political party Citizens; this diplomat has a history of successfully uncovering intervention by foreign intelligence services in European affairs (see Talk page or here [12] or here Torture Biz: Selling Our Soul for Disinfo Rubbish|publisher=European Tribune) - two recent events that happened in the same week, both of them having Carlos Carrizosa (member of said party) as a central figure.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Endless conversations in the Talk Page. They have become increasingly acerbic and I sense this is exactly what Impru20 wants. How do you think we can help? By convincing user Impru20 that his or her frequent invocation of misquoted and misused Wikipedia policies is not sufficient to erase those properly referenced texts. Summary of dispute by Impru20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It should be noted that this noticeboard is for content disputes only, yet this is also being seemingly brought to discuss editorial conduct. I will explain my case here, but the reporting user should know this is not the place for this: The issue started when user CodeInconnu introduced contentious content in Citizens (Spanish political party). I initially removed the whole "Funding" section he created (maybe in a precipitated way), but I then resorted to creating a discussion in the talk page about the issue. From the very first comment, CodeInconnu engaged in personal attacking on me throughout the discussion: 1)
As a summary: The discussion has gone badly. Very badly. There is no point of agreement in sight and it seems there will never be. We've reached the point where we have both engaged in edit warring and where we have both violated WP:3RR, and I'm just tired of all of it. This user has not acted in good faith during the whole issue, and it just seems he has acted like this to infuriate me, get me out of my nerves, to have an excuse for bringing me here. If that was his aim, well, he was successful at it. Nonetheless, I feel really disgusted to receive such a treatment from an obvious disruptor. I will engage in this dispute resolution if no other, most severe punishment is applied to us (engaging in such a fierce edit warring, I understand that we should probably receive a block each. In such a case, I would willingly accept it, as I am aware our behaviour has been far from exemplary). Nonetheless, if this dispute resolution resumes, I just wish for CodeInconnu to stop his personal attacks on me and to ignore me in Wikipedia from now on, as well as for a third, independent party to actually check what is going on at Citizens (Spanish political party): I am disengaging from the discussion there and I am refraining from making further edits there in the short term. I've already got heated up enough with this whole ordeal and, seriously, I don't think any person should be treated like this in any discussion. Cheers. Impru20talk 20:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Citizens (Spanish political party) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:History of_the_function_concept#Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī
Parties have agreed on compromise wording. Biblio (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Roneln on 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
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 very important statement, supported by numerous outside reliable sources and by Wikipedia itself. the section i added described the important work of Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and his contribution to the development of the function. these show clearly,the early stages of the method.i also want to add al Bruni contribution at the same section supported by another source ill provide. Have you tried to resolve this previously? adding sections,edit sections,supply reliable numerous sources. How do you think we can help? this piece of information is based and supported.should be included at the history of function article for all wikipedia users. Summary of dispute by WcherowiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have been trying to help Roneln understand what a reliable secondary source is by analyzing the sources he has come up with and pointing out their faults. I have not yet broached the topic of WP:SYNTH, trying to deal with the easier concepts first. I actually hope that he can find a reliable source so that I can spend more time on other projects. Talk:History of_the_function_concept#Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|