Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 12
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Seventh Day Adventist
![]() | Not a dispute between just two editors. There is a clear consensus involving multiple parties against the position of the listing editor at the article talk page, who appears to be alone in his/her position. Closed as already decided by consensus. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
i keep correcting it but editor keeps reverting it back. it is incorrect information which is written on their site especially in the opening paragraph which is what i am correcting. firstly and foremostly it is not a christian denomination. it is a religion that began in the mid 1800's. to be christian denomination one must believe Jesus is God. John chapter one, In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word WAS God. ... and the word became flesh.." In the founders writings Ellen G Wight implicitly states " 'The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God almighty'. Ellen G.White (1903, ms 150, SDA Commentary V.p 1129). The second is they state that Jesus used to be Michael the arch angel. [1]. I dont want my corrections to be refused. It makes Wiki a very poor source of information if it doesn't allow the truth or the facts. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
By not changing the changes I make. They are verified with references. 203.31.34.130 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Seventh Day Adventist discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
New Amsterdam (TV series)
![]() | Instructions say, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." If the RFC does not bear fruit, feel free to relist here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The article regards a tv series about an immortal. The section in question (about the events in his immortal life) has undergone some back and forth and tendentious and accusatory discussion on the article talk page. As the focus of the tendentious posts, I am likely going to address that user's (Barsoomian's) conduct via another noticeboard. That leaves the content dispute remaining to be resolved/mediated/refereed/whatever. We are trying to find middle ground on:
Users involved
Barsoomian's behavior has muddied the waters, making more difficult to resolve what should be a fairly straight-forward issue.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have sought to defuse the situation via the talk page, apologizing for any perceived slights and seeking input from the other users. I have initiated discussions on each of the other two user's talk pages (MJBurrage about the initial reverting edits, and Barsoomian about civility and tendentious user conduct).
I have initiated an RfC regarding the content, but I am thinking that some more eyes on the dual issues of section format and sourcing issues might make for a more stable discussion. Such would definitely make for a better article. Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) New Amsterdam (TV series) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Iraqi Turkmens
![]() | Moved to MedCab as preferable forum, per mediator suggestion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is currently a dispute regarding the Iraqi Turkmen article. Somebody seems to continuously create new accounts in order to remove my edits. The main issues include:
Users involved
If you look at archive 1 of the discussion page you will see that this article has previously been disputed. I’m assuming that it is the same individual[s] but with a new user name.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have previously tried to resolve this issue (see archive 1 of the discussion page) but due to my long absence it never got resolved. Recently, there has been a minor edit war whilst I was trying to improve the article. I have tried to resolve the issue on the talk page but my edits are still being removed and I feel as though I am not being taken seriously by this user. Furthermore, I have used sources which was already in the bibliography [and is still being used by this user] yet they remove my contributions which come from the same source.
I need guidance on what I should do as I do not usually report anything. I strongly believe in using a range of academic sources [one can see this through my contributions]; however, this certain individual questions every single reference I use. I just don’t know what to do anymore. I am only really active on Mondays and Tuesdays and therefore feel as though this issue will never get resolved. Turco85 (Talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Iraqi Turkmens discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi there Turco85 and MamRostam03, and thanks for posting to this board. I've had a look over the talk page, and it seems there are several issues with sourcing and with possible undue weight. I think this case would be served well by mediation - would you both be willing to open a case at the Mediation Cabal? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers
![]() | See closing comments at the bottom of discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
We are currently at a standstill in our discussion about the use of the median to summarize statistical data. On the one side, several editors (6+) feel that the use of the median and the resulting graph is well within the guidelines of wikipedia policy and also that it improves the quality of the page by making it easier to read. The other side feels that it constitutes original research and want the median and graph removed or altered. This debate has come up several times throughout the 2+ years that the median has been on the page. Each time there has been a consensus which resulted in keeping the median on the page. But this recent discussion has resulted in a standstill with equal (or close to equal) number of editors on each side. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
A lengthy discussion has been done, but the editors are split, both in support and opposition to the use of the median.
We need a clear outside opinion about wikipedia's policy regarding the use of a median and if it would be considered original research. Jdm64 (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's Comment: I observe that there is a fairly recent (7 days) RFC on the Operating Systems page with a No-Consensus closure. I also observe that there hasn't been any discussion on the web browsers page. While I do note that there is a bunch of text blocks of viewpoint on the OS page, I think it's still too early for people who aren't hip deep in the issue to understand it. I also think that some sort of outside opinion (RFC, 3O, etc.) and discussion needs to occur on the web browser page before it comes here. Hasteur (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, people. I'm a mediator here at the DRN and hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. Firstly, as has been mentioned, we do need remember that there has been an RfC, which ended in no consensus. The key policy here seems to be WP:OR and specifically WP:CALC - essentially, if the median is a routine calculation, it can be included; if it is not a routine calculation, it should not be included. WP:CALC seems on what a routine calculation is, allowable calculations include "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". It seems to me that a routine calculation simply presents information from the sources, in a slightly different way, in a manner which is uncontroversial (for example, saying that someone born in 1991 is 20 won't be disputed). The problem with any statistics used is that they are not just re-presenting the sources; they are manipulating them. There need to be a clear reason why the median is important enough to be included in the article - why not any other statistical analysis, for example? Thus, it seems to me that any statistical calculations are not routine, so should not be included without support from sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Useerup (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Based on my reading of the explanations here, and on the RfC, I think that the median is a synthesis of the "source" data into something that is more readable by the average reader. I think it would probably be appropriate to cease including the median and focus on reporting the graphs to give a rough comparison for the different sampling systems so that users can form viewpoints on the available data. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
We need to remember that it is not our job to provide accurate statistics; our role is merely to report what others have published. Statistical analysis is just that - analysis of numbers. As with any other subject, an analysis of anything should only be included if it has been made in another source. That is not the case here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Closing discussionSince my last post here, the discussion has just been going in circles, with both sides restating the same arguments. Moreover, we are starting to see people attacking the conduct of other users, rather that commenting on the content in questions. This is completely counter-productive, as it shifts the focus off the issue in hand. It seems to me that DRN is not going to resolve this dispute; therefore, I am going to close this discussion. I believe that a more formal approach is needed to this dispute, so I would recommend that a case is opened at the Mediation Cabal. Hopefully the issue can be resolved there. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
|
360networks
![]() | Improper forum for this request. Will leave note on requesting editors's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
This article was deleted without notice after being posted for nearly 2-years with no reported problems. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have posted to his Talk page but he is unavailable until 11.24
Looking for guidance on how I can recover the article and make revisions to resubmit. 360networks was acquired by Zayo and there is some time sensitivity in making the appropriate updates. Skeoch.s (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 360networks discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Jane Beale
![]() | No discussion yet. Only reverts and adds. Hasteur (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I keep editing, with a reference, that Jane Beale has announced she will not be on the EastEnders programme as a permanent character and thus, she will be departing next year. The source says that the door has been left open for her to return but it does NOT say she will be returning next year, it just says she is departing over the next few months. I put this in the introduction but for some reason some people feel it's necessary to revert these changes. Fair enough if you want to change the box that includes her not departing, but the bit in the introduction is perfectly valid and I see no good reason why it should be not be accepted. Users involved
I have not been given a good enough reason why it shouldn't be accepted.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
No.
By accepting my changes that are perfectly valid. JackJackUK (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Jane Beale discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
User:Jimriz
![]() | Closing for no discussion — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
user JimRiz keeps adding a link to a company which isn't the correct registrar for .VC despite having the name NIC.VC Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Have reverted, and added comments that NIC.VC is just a registered domain, not the registrar, and this has been removed
need a 3rd party 76.77.75.72 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) User:Jimriz discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Nic.vc is a authorized registrar in the .vc namespace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.190.24 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Closing note: There's been no discussion on any talk page about this matter, which is a requirement for a dispute to be listed here. I've looked at it, however, and you are correct, the introduction of links to nic.vc and whois.vc are linkspam. Please be sure to leave a progressive warning about the linkspamming on the spammer's talk page each time it occurs. I've left one and reverted the spamming today. Now that they've been warned, reverting linkspam is an exception to the three-revert rule since it is a form of obvious vandalism (but it's still not a good idea to tempt fate). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Billy Fox (politician)
![]() | Discussion has been quiet here for about a week. Closing as resolved. Steven Zhang 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement over including references in the article. Since 2007 there has been a link to an RTE programme [1]. Last month the link was removed by User:One_Night_In_Hackneyas a broken link [2]. I have tried to reinsert a working link but it has been repeatedly deleted along with a link to a speech by John Bruton which I had also added. The justification given seems to be that there are too many sources, and that John Bruton does not refer to the Provisional IRA. I think that if there really is doubt about who killed Billy Fox then it is even more important to have reputable sources listed and the reader can make their own judgement. John Bruton also refers directly to the Provisional IRA. Users involved
Other users have already been informed via their talk page and the article talk page.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References
Advise on whether to include the 1) RTE link and 2) Bruton link. Thanks. Flexdream (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Billy Fox (politician) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
In general, I think the article presents the information quite clearly (in the current version), with circumstances of his death are disputed with various paramilitary groups such as ... + it covers all, with what appear to be appropriate references. I see that Flexdream thinks that two additional references should be added - shown in this diff. I don't see much harm in additional references, but nor at the moment do I see any particular benefit; whilst exceptional claims need exceptional sources, I'm unconvinced that it is necessary to have three references to verify the fact that the Provisional IRA are one of the groups which RS's have said were involved. I don't really believe it's "clutter", but I don't see any real benefit; I think it will be helpful if Flexdream could explain here a little more about why the extra refs are of benefit, and also it will be helpful to see why the other parties - in particular RepublicanJacobite - believe they are not. I have one additional possible suggestion to RepublicanJacobite: if there is no great harm in adding the other ref/refs except for having two or three [n] tags, then how do you feel about adding both or all three in a single numbered footnote with <br /> so that the refs are just one footnote-number, but several refs are shown within it? And a suggestion to Flexdream - in your further response, it would be helpful if you could assign your own preference/importance value on the two links - perhaps you'd be content if just one more were added? Chzz ► 06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Kamala Lopez
![]() | Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute had originally been addressed on Oct 10, 2011 through dispute resolution. The argument is about the appropriate venue for an opinion about a film made by Lopez that webberkenny wishes to pound into the article. The back and forth on talk pages for Mr. Stradivarius and Drmies is enlightening about the very personal stance he/she has taken. The bottom line: Mr. Stradivarius made it very clear after our first Dispute Resolution go round that...
Webberkenney refuses to abide by that decision. I believe he/she should be admonished for vandalism as he/she was in Nov 2008 and blocked from editing this article. Users involved
I believe the most telling statement about webberkenny's state of mind is from the Mr. Stradivarius talk page on which he/she (Webberkenny - ed) states:
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Several administrator talk pages and a previous Dispute Resolution ruling has not resolved this issue.
Block webberkenny from editing this page. JHScribe (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Kamala Lopez discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. For those interested, here are the talk pages this dispute has been carried out on:
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Clerk's note: The requested relief, blocking or a topic ban, is not within the power or scope of this noticeboard. If that is actually the only relief desired, a request ought to be made at WP:ANI (please leave a note here so this discussion can be closed, if you do so), but — and I do not mean to imply anything by this, but just to make you aware of the issue — please be careful about WP:BOOMERANG should you care to go forward with that suggestion. Is there some other manner in which we might help? — TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi
![]() | Resolved — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The issue is: what is the proper spelling for the title of the article? Should it be the spelling of Maharshi (with one ‘i’) (which is said to be the Sanskrit origin) or should it be spelled Maharishi (two 'i's) which is “recognizable to readers” and “consistent with English-language sources” as specified in WP:TITLE and used exclusively in 15 English dictionaries, 3 encyclopedias and misc. other books? See complete list of sources here Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
On November 9th I created a fully sourced, article for the mainstream term: Maharishi. Five hours later Will Beback, removed all of the content of the article and merged it with an unsourced article, headed by an “Unreferenced” clean up tag. Rather than revert this disruptive edit and begin a possible edit war, I opened a thread on the talk page of the merged article and suggested that the title of Maharshi (one 'i') be changed to the mainstream spelling of Maharishi (with 2 ‘i’s). I cited WP:TITLE which says:
Despite my citing of more than a dozen English dictionaries, encyclopedias and books which use that spelling exclusively, Will Beback refuses to concede that it is the mainstream spelling and will not provided any sources to justify his opposition. Instead Will Beback seems to want to continue to disrupt Wikiepedia process by making comments that assume bad faith and personalize the issue rather than sticking to discussion of content. I would like to have input from uninvolved editors in the community. Sources that spell Maharishi with two "i"s
By allowing uninvolved editors to comment on the content issue and any relevant behavioral issues. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
We are here because 1) per this page: "This noticeboard is for resolving Wikipedia content disputes". 2) Will Beback has egregiously obstructed the progress of a reliably sourced article both in his removal of that newly created article and by refusing to recognize the overwhelming list of objective sources on the talk page 3) When asked: do you have any sources? (to support your actions) he replies:"I haven't looked". 4) He continues to assume bad faith, criticize and politicize a comprehensive list of two dozen mainstream sources and usuges on the talk page 5) He assumes bad faith and makes false claims such as above: ["Keithbob is not reviewing both sides and making a neutral determination. Instead he is promoting only one side, the side where he has an interest"] in attempts to intimidate me and gain the upper hand in a content dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Clerk Question: The complaint is over the spelling of the article title and the redirect limbo as to which one gets the name and which one gets the redirect? Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Take note everyone, this is how experienced Administrator, Will Beback, behaves when his bias against a topic is so strong that he cannot bear to bring himself to accept the obvious reality that "maharishi" is a commonly used term in Western culture as verified by two dozen dictionaries and encyclopedias and comments from uninvolved parties. By his own admission he has not researched the subject and yet he continues to deny, oppose, obstruct, and then in desperation, attack the people who participate in this objective community process for expanding and improving the reader friendliness of the encyclopedia. Absolutely shameful behavior. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments please, by editors not involved in this disputeMaharshi is the correct spelling, not Maharishi, which is one of the idiosyncratic misspellings of Hindu terms commonly employed by MMY and the TMO, apparently so as to be able to trademark them. The alternate spelling "Maharishi" is associated almost exclusively with MMY. See Websters, eg. [11] Apart from the common use of Maharshi rather than Maharishi for other persons who have used that honorific, his own title is frequently spelled Maharshi, not Maharishi, particularly in Indian sources who know how the words are supposed to be spelled. In 1955, his first book on TM used "Maharshi Bal Bramachari Mahesh" not "Maharisi". Beacon Light of the Himalayas, and that spelling continued to be used as he came to be called Maharshi Mahesh Yogi by 1957 [15] as did ads published in the US as late as the mid 70's [16] I should think that Maharshi should be the preferred spelling for this particular article, with the alternate idiosyncratic spelling confined to the MMY-related articles only. Fladrif (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm a neutral mediator here at DRN. It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it. The number of dictionaries which do not even list the one-i version is quite compelling as to what the average member of the public would look for when they come here. A note should probably be made in the article about the variation in spelling, but I find the argument that the widespread use of the name came virtually exclusively from its use by MMY and the TM movement to be somewhat weak when I can do a publication-date-limited search at Google Books and find 60 books published between 1800 and MMY's birth in 1917 that use the 2-i version. If I take what was said above as gospel and that MMH did not begin using the 2-i version before 1955 the count increases to 374 books. (In both cases there could be some duplicates or other false hits.) By comparison the single-i version gets 2,180 and 3,990 publications, so the single-i version was far more common during that early period but the 2-i version was not by any means unheard-of. If you then repeat those searches for the period 1955-2011, the two-i version has about 55,000 publications with the single-i having about 40,000; if you limit it to 2000-2011 it's 24,000 2-i to 16,000 1-i. At the end of the day, though, the argument which bears the most weight with me is that I've never been interested in the subject before — which is not to say that I've never had contact with it — but nonetheless, I wouldn't even think of looking up the single-i version. Indeed before reading this listing, I didn't even know that the single-i version even existed. I might have been uncomfortable basing a wiki-decision on my personal experience were it not for so many dictionaries including the two-i version and excluding the one-i version. At the article talk page Will Beback says that he's sure that there are as many sources supporting the one-i version as the two, but does not list them. At this point he might convince me to change my mind if he were to present them, but he has not chosen to do so. In short, the two-i version may have been popularized, either intentionally or unintentionally, by MMY and TM but if that's the case then they've been sufficiently successful at it that it's the more common form. Finally, about the procedural point raised by Will Beback, if the listing editor had come here requesting the page move, I (at least, I can't speak for the other mediators here) would have bounced this to the requested move page, but the listing editor only requested neutral comments and that is an appropriate use of this noticeboard. If consensus cannot be achieved, then it can still go to WP:RM. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no further comments, I will summarize the feedback we have received from editors not involved in the general topic of Maharishi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM. (Note: While his participation in this forum is apprecoiated I am not including User:Fladrif in my summary of uninvolved editors since he/she has extensive experience editing the MMY and TM articles and the TM ArbCom of 2010.) Therefore I summarize as follows:
So it appears that 4 uninvolved users feel that the article title should be Maharishi and that Maharshi (one i) should redirect to Maharishi (two i). One editor agrees that Maharishi (two i) is the commonly used spelling per dictionaries but also feels that Maharshi (one i) should have its own article since it is a prevalent spelling within the concept of Hinduism. Therefore there seems to be a clear consensus amongst the uninvolved members of the community that the main article should be called Maharishi (two i) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Thank you to all those that participated in this community forum.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
|
See Also list
![]() | Dispute is resolved. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is discussion on the talk page about reducing or removing the See Also list. Users involved
I have created a See Also list with all related article names. In my opinion it meets the criteria for WP:ALSO which says "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." However, I am open to feedback from the community.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Yes, Talk page discussion
By providing comments from uninvolved editors (ie those who did not participate in the 2010 TM ArbCom and have no past history on the TM article topics). — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC) See Also list discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
DC Nation Shorts
![]() | Article mighr be worth taking to AFD. Steven Zhang 22:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Cartoon Network has a new block of programming coming in 2012 called DC Nation that will broadcast Young Justice, Green Lantern: The Animated Series, and mostly animated shorts. A month ago, several news sites were given some information on it and a Wikipedia article was written on it. Friday night, a preview of the content was shown during the premier of the Green Lantern animated series including two of the animated shorts (Aardman Animations Batman and Teen Titans). Clips of upcoming content was also shown including the previously released Blue Beetle trailer/pilot, Lego Batman, and Gotham City Impostors. I added these new reveals to the article and the editor in dispute has removed them twice under claims the additions are unsourced. The first revert I explained the source despite citing it already in the article. The second time, I added the preview on YouTube to the talk page such that the editor can see it for his/herself. And, again, it was reverted. He/she also removed the section for Teen Titans which was confirmed previously in the article's references. Users involved
The other editor in dispute added the comment "DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER SHORTS, WITHOUT A SOURCE!!" to the page.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Explained source and showed the source on the talk page.
Determine if a nationally broadcast preview of content is source enough material. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) DC Nation Shorts discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi you two, and thanks for posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard! I see that you are very focused on your particular dispute, but I think it that in this case it would help for you to look at the bigger picture here. When I took a brief look at the article, my first thought was, is this topic actually notable? Now, I don't edit very much in this topic area, so I might be wrong, but all of the references listed look like either blogs or fansites. Is this topic mentioned in sources that pass Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources? Because if not, then the quickest way to resolve this whole thing might be to take the article to AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Spirulina (dietary supplement)
![]() | Discussion stalled. I will reopen if anyone wants to continue, leave a note on my talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
I am trying to justify an improvement to the page and am frankly convinced I am offering a NPOV version but am being reverted with no proper justification. I need outside POVs to merge the existing version and my suggestion into a proper version while losing the minimum of info. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Tried discussing it but met with a revert edit by another party.
Commenting on the respective merits of both versions of the incriminated paragraphs and hopefully reaching a compromise. Rdavout (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Initial versions in disputeVersion 1:
Spirulina (dietary supplement) discussion
Rationale and suggestion for a version 3Back from my search for sources. My final conclusion is that there is only one secondary source concerning B12 food sources, "Vitamin B12 Sources and Bioavailability" [20]. This was cited as a source but not to its full value as the only secondary source available to us. Regarding the existence of a secondary source...
Now for the extraction of the relevant information from the available secondary source (quoted in full):
To finish, my proposal for a V3: V3b (2ndary source only but more expansive)
|
Soccer in Australia
![]() | Closing - see closing comments below. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The use of the word "football" when referring to Association Football (or Soccer) is a touchy subject in Australia. Those who follow other codes of football such as Rugby league or Australian rules football, do not like the term "football" being associated with Assoc. Football (Soccer). As such where other countries national teams are called England national football team, the Australian page is Australia national association football team. There is an accompanying article for football in all countries that disusses the particulars of the sport in each country, so for England it is Football in England. However the Australian page is titled Soccer in Australia. The simple request, is to bring it into alignment with all of the other articles for other countries and if "Football in Australia" cannot be used, then use the same naming convention as AGREED to for the national team; Association football in Australia. As you can see, this name redirects to the page in question, however the request is that the page be moved to aligh with the same naming convention as the national teams' page. It is also worth mentioning that both this page and the national teams' page do not adhere to the (inactive) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), which stated that Association Football should be referred to as Football (soccer).I suggest this needs to be revisited once and for all. As you will see, all the talk pages on the issue are rather long, heated and lack direction. For mine, Football is Football and should be called as such. Similarly "table tennis" is table tennis. Tennis fans don't ask for it to be called "ping pong" because it is a different kind of real tennis... There was a requested move discussion, which ultimately was overrun by supporters of Rugby League and Australian Rules Football. It is my opinion that one discussion on a topic at a time where a vote can be decided on how many football/non-football fans are online at a given moment is flawed. A proper discussion needs to be had and a decision needs to be made once and for all. Nearly every page to do with football in Australia ends in some petty football v soccer debate. We need to have consistency across all football articles - this is supposed to be an INTERNATIONAL encyclopedia, not an Australian Encyclopedia, thus any Australian football articles should be named as per the standard for the sport. The number of codes that refer to themselves as being a code of football should not come into it. Using the England example again. England participates in Association Football, Rugby League Football and Rugby Union Football as mainstream sports. Ireland participates in Association Football, Rugby League Football, Gaelic Football and Rugby Union Football as mainstream sports. Yet they all share one common thing - the name of theie national association football page is England national football team and Ireland national football team Users involved
Wikipedia is supposed to be all about "good faith". Good faith is not argueing a point because the name doesn't sit well with you personally. All I am looking for is a stardarised naming convention that can be applied to all football articles if not regardess of what country they are referring to, at least for a specific country where a ambiguity exists.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Issue has been discussed ad nauseum on a vast, vast number of talk pages.
The issue needs a concrete definition/standard as the constant debate is very tiresome. Ck786 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Soccer in Australia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. User:Ck786 asks editors to show good faith, but in attempting(?) to present an overview has simply present the case for his point of view. It may have been unintentional, but to begin by saying "Those who follow other codes of football....", meaning the ones he's not interested in, is a bit Freudian. I find these exercises very frustrating since, as User:Ck786 says, there was a formal discussion on a request to move. Clearly User:Ck786 doesn't like the result. Surely we don't have to present all the arguments again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Closing commentsClosing - this isn't the right place for this dispute, for two reasons. First, disputes need to be discussed on a talk page before they can be listed here, and there hasn't been any significant recent discussion about this issue on the article's talk page. Second, issues with article naming are usually better served by requested move discussions than dispute resolution, and there was a broad consensus for the current name at the requested move discussion back in July. To move the page again, there would need to be another requested move discussion with a consensus to move back to the previous name, and this doesn't seem realistic just four months after the previous discussion. You might be right that there is still inconsistency in the naming of articles on football/soccer in Australia, but this would be better served by more talk page discussion than dispute resolution, in my opinion. If any related disputes emerge for which consensus isn't clear, then feel free to bring them back here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I think you are being somewhat obtuse at worst and missing the point at best Silent Billy (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
![]() | Moot, as Viramag appears to have abandoned the dispute. Can be reopened or refiled if dispute resumes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
We disagree on which form/order of the lead is neutral, and discussion between us two seems to get nowhere. I proposed a third option, but that was not acceptable to the other user either. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We have tried discussing the edits, but have not come to an agreement on the lead to date.
More voices discussing the changes would be appreciated, as it seems it's mainly myself and the other user. It's necessary to get outside opinions, and I have also posted a request here, but I'm not sure how else to generate a discussion. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
User:PinoyFilAmPride, User:Glock17Gen4, User:Cyberpower
![]() | Reporting User was indeffed by User:WilliamH for "Oversight" reasons |
Closed discussion |
---|
I am requesting for more editors to look at the current evidence provided and determine a final conclusion, especially since Cyberpower may have not verified his source as compared to the sources I have provided. I am trying to deal with this in a civil manner and would not try to make any personal attacks towards editors nor try to threaten to sue Wikipedia, joke or not. However, I am questioning the source of information regarding Cung Le's Nationality given by both the user Glock and even Cyberpower, who said he was handling the matter. As Wikipedia requires, a source of information needs to be verified. The source for his nationality given by Cyberpower apparently is a user on Facebook that claims to work for Cung Le and knows specifically which citizenships/passports that he holds. I am asking directly for more administrators to step in and view and verify this source to be legit, as compared to all the sources I have provided including direct tweets and quotes from Cung Le himself and his website. I further ask for the admins to tell Glock to stay away from my Talkpage and other ways of communicating because I find his comments absolutely ridiculous, outrageous, and disruptive, while I am trying to deal with this in a civil, respectful, and reasonable manner. All I ask if for everything to be verified, just like Wikipedia requires. I find the co-worker who claims to be Cung Le's co-worker rather suspicious, and evidence must be shown on how he knows the information that is being seeked. If this can not be provided, I ask that Cung Le's Nationality be reverted back to an American of the U.S.A. Please clarify if you can. This is the Facebook user in question who claims to be working for Cung Le and knows exactly which citizenship he holds: redacted This is Cung Le's facebook page (redacted) where a user claims to represent Wikipedia (Cyberpower?) directly posted on Cung Le's wall and received a response from the user who claims to know specifically what type of citizenship and passport that Cung Le holds. However, he has yet to provide enough evidence that 1) He actually works for Cung Le 2) That he specifically knows that he has a Vietnam passport. To me it is highly suspicious, if this can be proven otherwise and that his claims are legit, I will stop from dispute and no longer further try to research this issue. But again, all I ask is for more admins to take a look at this. No disrespect to you Cyberpower, but I just find the current source from a Facebook user that claims to work for Cung as not enough proof Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, I have provided all the sources to conclude that Cung Le is an American citizen of the U.S.A. The dispute is over if he his a Vietnamese National or an American National. I have provided many sources to prove that Cung Le is in fact an American citizen of the U.S. One editor,Cyberpower, came in to handle the situation. He initially concluded that I had provided enough source material, until he apparently talked to someone who claimed to work for Cung Le. I did some of my own research and found that the discussion took place on Cung Le's Facebook wall page. I found the user who claimed to work for Cung Le rather suspicious, as he did not prove that he worked for Cung Le and two) how would he know specifically that Cung Le holds USA or Vietnamese citizenship. I believe that simply talking to someone, that is not the person that is directly being researched (Cung Le), could also provide inaccuracy of information.
I am formally requesting that more editors view the sources provided and finally conclude which are the most reliable of sources. The only two sources provided so far to try and prove that Cung Le is in fact just a Vietnamese National was a "tale of the tape" from a UFC broadcast of 139 that merely showed where he was born. Furthermore, the second on his UFC.com profile only says "Saigon,Vietnam" is where he is from. I have provided significant information to dispute this, as Nationalities/Citizenships can change and place of birth isn't the only way someone can get citizenship. Furthermore, his UFC.com profile includes his twitter where he tweeted he was in fact only a U.S. citizen. That he is an American Wushu athlete, and he has competed for Team USA. My argument is that Vietnamese is merely his heritage/ethnicity and not his current Nationality. Cung Le has also been featured on the Vietnamese-Americans wikipedia for a while. I am asking for more editors to view this and to make a collective decision and finally end it but with reliable and legit sources. I felt that Cyberpower, as helpful as he was, did not verify his source of a Facebook user claiming to work for Cung Le. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC) User:PinoyFilAmPride, User:Glock17Gen4, User:Cyberpower discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Flag of Italy
![]() | Cessation of dispute |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Can't seem to make any headway on this. I had presumed this matter resolved and forgotten all about it, but apparently the user Chrisieboy * has taken up some stance against my edits. He apparently wants me to reinitialize a discussion from nine months ago, which after a few edits by me and then a lot of edits by him resulted in the article having the information I am trying to revert back to at this time (as some anon messed it up five months ago). Obviously you should read the discussion to semi-fully understand the matter, but to summarize:
As I said I had forgotten about this, but reacquainting myself with the aforementioned tedious month long discussion I had with this user last time, I doubt the two of us alone will be able to resolve this in any timely manner. TIA for your time. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Requests to respond logically in edit summaries. Clear refutation at his talk page of claims he made. As mentioned there was a discussion, but it resulted in having the content now attempting to be reverted back to, so it doesn't exactly apply.
Appeal to Chrisieboy to be reasonable? Refer me to somewhere where he can potentially be forced to be? Reisio (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Flag of Italy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
He seems to have abandoned his stance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Italy&action=historysubmit&diff=462456830&oldid=462246335 ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Mansoor Ijaz
![]() | This dispute seems to have been resolved by the removal of material on the recent controversy. Please note that I don't think there is a problem with re-adding other material on recent events, as long as it complies with WP:BLP. If there are more disputes on the page that cannot be solved with talk-page discussion, feel free to list them here again. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
In relation to allegations of him being a conservative media commentator and a strong advocate of an war with Saddam Hussien, as well allegation, he asked the Pakistan Embassy in 1996 to give him $15 million dollars, and a recent report in SANA where by he asked for $100 million in exchange for acting as a private off the record messenger for President Zardari and the Unite States govt as well as the person religious faith,ahmediyya all these facts about the individuals are removed, and an edit war has started, despite the fact the majority of editors do not object to the allegations being in the Article Users involved
I have tried to discuss the issue in the discussion section but not got any feed back. I have also tried to explain whilst there are chances the allegation may be false, if they are made by the embassy then that is part of the story I do not want an edit war, so I will no longer edit that article, I leave it up to the moderators to decide how to edit the article further
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Timeone (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Mansoor Ijaz discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi Timeone, and thanks for your post. There are a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that come into play here. Rather than going through all of them, I'll just list the most important one in this case, which I think is the policy on biographies of living people. Here's a quote from the policy: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. It seems to me that including claims like these ones fall foul of the policy, especially when the sources used to back them up rely on a "secret source" (in the case of sananews.com), are obviously pro-PPP (thenews.com.pk) or are absent altogether (lib.virginia.edu). At the moment this just seems to be spreading gossip about Ijaz, and really shouldn't go in the article. To qualify for inclusion, the claims being made should be much more conservative, much better sourced, and of course, neutral. Sorry to be strict about this, but that's just the way things work in Wikipedia. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Template:Ancient Mesopotamia
![]() | No talk page discussion. Discussion required per requirements of this noticeboard. To obtain page protection, apply at RPP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have recently updated the template. This has apparently attracted the attention of an anon user (editing from 2 different IP addresses so far, see list) who now wants the entry Urartu changed into Ararat and wants Proto-Armenian language added to the template. While I have no real problem with adding the language, changing Urartu to Ararat is unacceptable since Urartu is the accepted scholarly, and by far most well-known and most-used name for that specific cultural/political entity. Users involved
User has not responded to my suggestions to take discussion to relevant talk page. Also, I think the user's edits have to do with Armenian nationalism, given his insistence on adding Proto-Armenian language to it as well, and given the fact that the only other edits that IP 75.51.171.39 made was to ask another editor to revert changes made to Armenia-related pages (link to user contributions).
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have suggested to take the discussion to talk page and I have asked the editor on his two talk pages to explain the reasons behind his insistence to change Urartu into Ararat.
That is why I am here; I have never had a discussion with an anon who does not respond to my questions. Page protection would be my first guess, though. Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Template:Ancient Mesopotamia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Kars
![]() | Closed as premature. Please see my comments at the end of the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is POV pushing by erasing the different versions of the name of the city of Kars in other languages, especially of particular countries and ethnicities that ruled the city and/or settled there. The erasing of the city’s name in the other languages does constitute as vandalism for several reasons regarding the article of Kars: The discussion(s) in the talk page between Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists does not settle the "dispute" of the city’s history and its names in different languages at all, because the discussion from both sides (which is still ongoing for years) has nationalist overtones and is an attempt to ignore and overide or alltogether erase the periods of the city’s history each side sees as "incovenient". And despite the near identical pronounciation of the city's name by the certain ethnicities who ruled and/or settled in this city in the past and/or who presently live is relevant. The issue here is not about which ethnicity ruled the longest or had the most impact. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have tried talking about the issue with user MarshallBagramyan who erased the etymologies of the city. His explanation is that that the etymologies are almost identical and by citing which ethnicity ruled the longest or had the most impact, which neither justifies this erasing nor addresses the issue, but is an attempt to ignore and suppress them. I have also given the example of Istanbul and Names of Istanbul for comparison because many versions of that city's etymology is used in many languages (also by by nations which never ruled it, unlike in the issue of Kars which is only about the nations that ruled and/or settled ther whic are delibaretly erased), to this user for the second time. This user has not yet responded. I have also written to user Kansas Bear, who also reverted and has suggested using the talk page. This user has not yet responded. Unfortunately as I stated before this issue has not been dealt in the talk page of the city’s article which is still ongoing for years, because of the nationalistic disputes of Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists.
Administrators should give their neutral opinions for resolving this dispute and prevent the erasing of the etymologies and periods of the history section of Kars, and exert whatever discipline is possible on anyone erasing them. Noraton (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Kars discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I already posted my explanation on Noraton's talk page and I reproduce it here. The problem is that it's impossible to draw the line on what languages to then exclude. Armenian and Turkish are included for obvious reasons but it becomes a little more difficult to justify the inclusion of other languages just because it was ruled by this or that empire for a period of time or at one time had or has members of a certain ethnic group. The only reason Azeri is being added, for example, is because there's a new community that was established there after the USSR fell. But there's really nothing to point to, say, a specific cultural or social contribution that they have made to the city. It would be the equivalent of adding the Armenian spelling to Glendale, California or Fresno or the Russian and Ukrainian alphabets to Brighton Beach. The names in the lede should reflect a real historical and tangible presence of a certain country, and Russian is far more justifiable than is Azeri or Kurdish or even Georgian in the case of Kars. A meaningful conversation took place and a large number of participating editors agreed to this compromise. Similarly, other editors were asked to provide sources to bolster the case for adding the alphabets but none were forthcoming and, in one instance, one editor even refused to do so. There has been no attempt to suppress the etymology of the name (which sources now indicate to be Armenian), and all the other alphabets essentially reproduce the Armenian pronunciation of the city. It should be noted that in his revert of my edit, Norton (apparently blindly) removed additional information that I had added in the main body of the article, including verifiable sources and grammar tweaks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden
![]() | Closing as stale. This does not look resolved to me, and if the various parties return to editing the articles it looks likely that problems may resurface. In this case I recommend filing a case at the Mediation Cabal for fuller discussion of the issues. If not all parties are willing to undergo mediation, then there is still the option of having an RfC. If you have any questions, then feel free to ask on my talk page, or alternatively, you can file another report here. Thanks. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Edit warring by two Swedish editors (1 and 2 below) who have teamed up, as they have done previously, to go against the opinions given by WP:3O editors. The conduct of user Kuiper is always full of personal ridicule, false accusations and twisted facts. He has stalked me for years, and I would like to have an inter-action ban as recently has been granted on Commons. Links given on the talk pages of the related articles show how he has behaved. The content dispute is regarding whether or not an academic theory from the 18th century, cited by experts in 2003 and 2007, can be included in an article. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
WP:3O, diskussion on the talk pages of the two articles and of Dukes of Östergötland
Give neutral opinions on the content disputes, adjust content to the benefit of the articles, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I think that before we work on the specific content issue here, we should deal with SergeWoodzing's request for an interaction ban with Pieter Kuiper. I have informally mediated a dispute between these two users before, and they have a long history of disputes. I think the request for an interaction ban is reasonable, if only to prevent further drama. I'm in the process of filing a request on this at ANI. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I tried to exit the discussion about Sune Sik before, but as I am stated as a side of dispute here, it seems I have to serve this duty. So, as I see it, the problem is in absence of consensus on whether to include the medieval theory about the ducal title of Sune Sik. The opponents of inclusion claim that this theory is fringe and thus was consequently dismissed by modern studies. The proponent of inclusion (SergeWoodzing) believes it to be notable, true and worth inclusion. Personally I would prefer this theory included with references about its relation to present day theory. I was not participating in other articles discussed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone else please step in here so that this could be resolved? Andejons (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
|
- ^ http://www.http://www.whiteestate.org/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. doi:10.3177/jnsv.48.325. PMID 12656203.
- ^ a b c d Watanabe F (2007). "Vitamin B12 sources and bioavailability". Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood). 232 (10): 1266–74. doi:10.3181/0703-MR-67. PMID 17959839.
Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominantly contain pseudovitamin B(12), which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B(12) sources, especially in vegans.
- ^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
- ^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882.
The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.
- ^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. doi:10.3177/jnsv.48.325. PMID 12656203.
- ^ A. Kumudha; S.S. Kumar; M.S. Thakur; G.A. Ravishankar; R. Sarada (2010). "Purification, identification, and characterization of methylcobalamin from Spirulina platensis". Journal of Agricultural Food Chemicals. 58 (18): 9925–30. doi:10.1021/jf102159j. PMID 20799700.
- ^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
- ^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882.
The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.