Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 71
![]() | 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 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |
Islamism
![]() | Inactivity of Ahmed 313-326. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by BoogaLouie on 23:59, 7 May 2013 (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
Deleting citations and not giving an edit summary
talk page and third opinion. Not really any other editors involved or i would have taken the dispute to WP:RfC How do you think we can help? convince Ahmed 313-326 of the importance of explaining his edits, following wikipedia rules -BoogaLouie (talk) Opening comments by Ahmed 313-326Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Islamism discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
talk:fractal antenna
![]() | This appears to be a conduct issue, which we can't help with here. I suggest Administrators' noticeboard/incidents if the problem continues. CarrieVS (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Some individual has been editing the talk page of other contributors. My comment was de-faced as well. Have you tried to resolve this previously? He kept editing and deleting other's comment. How do you think we can help? Please take appropriate actions. Opening comments by 96.237.171.111Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
talk:fractal antenna discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others
![]() | Filer may file his concern at (an) appropriate wikiproject(s) as his concerns are broad, spanning several articles in addition to, more unspecified articles.Curb Chain (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I concur in the close, but additionally because this listing is stale, with significant participants having chosen not to join in. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Corporations are legally NOT the shareholders. I have posted this on TALK and provided numerous references. Unfortunately, various users revert my edits that I make, which I make to avoided insinuating that shareholders are owners. I have asked them all to discuss on the TALK page, but they usually do not do it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to ask Admin on my TALK page for help and instead I was eventually blocked. Then, after the block, admin told me about this page. How do you think we can help? You can stop people from generally referring to shareholders as owners. I have made this same argument several times in the past. Admin archives these arguments and hides them away forever, making it impossible to simply refer to the argument. The result is that I must redo the whole argument every year or so. Opening comments by DiscospinsterPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Blue-Haired LawyerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by SrnecI do not enjoy participating in this side of Wikipedia. Sigiheri doesn't know how to edit or discuss at Wikipedia. Replacing reliably sourced material with contrary reliably sourced material is not the right way. Opening a discussion when you've been reverted by multiple editors and then restoring your text again and again claiming that the others must discuss with you is not the normal procedure. His point of view is in fact valid and there are reliable sources that back him up. He should add them appropriately to highlight to readers that an intellectual debate exists on the status of shareholders and the nature of ownership. If you want to know why his assertions are extremely tendentious, see this and this (GoogleScholar searches). Overwhelmingly, reliable sources just plain assume that shareholders are owners. We have a right to do the same—not to suppress contrary opinions, if they are reliably sourced, but to build upon the basic definition of the shareholder as owner. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by LegacypacPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The editor is putting in junk that can not be sourced and deleting basic corporate law facts that are so basic they do not even need to be sourced. His sources do not agree with his POV. Further, he has been blocked for edit warring and I just nominated him for another block.
corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, though I am a regular volunteer here, I'm not opening or taking this for discussion, just making a couple of notes:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC) More Volunteer Notes:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
|
![]() | Resolved base dispute, will work out details on article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 19 May 2013 (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 made some edits on this page. They were all deleted. In retrospect, I believe there is justification for the deletion of some of my edits on this page. On the other hand, i believe one particular edit definitely needs to find mention in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. The background is this: Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat as of now. He was also the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 when communal riots took place in Gujarat. By unofficial accounts the death toll was over 2000. The Chief Election Commissioner of India at the time was JM Lyngdoh. Lyngdoh had postponed the state elections in Gujarat which were scheduled to be held shortly after the communal carnage on the ground that the atmosphere in the state was vitiated and not conducive for holding elections. By all accounts Lyngdoh was a highly respected officer. Modi's response was to target Lyngdoh for being a Christian and speculating that Lyngdoh meets Sonia Gandhi in Church and falsely insinuating that Lyngdoh is an Italian (like Sonia Gandhi) etc. This constituted an undermining of the constitutional post which Lyngdoh occupied. The Prime Minister of the time Atal Bihari Vajpayee was from Modi's own party and had reprimanded Modi for using foul language against Lyngdoh. And Lyngdoh hat hit back at Modi claiming that Modi was using the 'language of menials' and that he did not understand things like athiesm. Basically i want this information to be included in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. I am noticing a lot of criticism in the wikipedia pages of Mr Modi's critics (see for instance the wikipedia page of Digvijay Singh) and there is no reason why Mr Modi should be treated like a holy cow on his wikipedia page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried discussing this on the talk page of User:Drmies How do you think we can help? Allow me to include this information (of Mr Modi's attack on Mr Lyngdoh shortly before the Gujarat elections of 2002 and shortly after the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002) in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. I am prepared to keep this very brief but i do not believe this should not be mentioned at all in the wikipedia page of Mr Modi. Opening comments by DrmiesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
These edits constitute a BLP violation, basically: undue negative information of a fairly trivial kind whose effect can only be to disparage the subject. That something about a politician, something supposedly bad, is reported in the paper is not immediate grounds for inclusion. Read the material proposed by this editor, judge if its tone is neutral, and weigh if it has any encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Narendra Modi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. Though I am opening this for discussion and posing a couple of questions, I may not be available to take part over the next two or three days and I invite all other DRN volunteers to jump in. Next, please do not take these questions to imply a particular predetermined answer or POV on my part or an attempt to be critical. They are genuine, neutral, uncritical, "I'm uninformed and want to hear your answer" kinds of inquiries.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
@Soham321: Drmies has indicated that with some reworking and proper contextualization that the edit in question may well be suitable for the article. Are you all right with this going back to the article talk page — please, let's do it there rather than on any individual user's talk page, so that the community has a better chance of weighing in — to work out the details? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk:Conservatism in the United States
![]() | Requesting editor is, in effect, accusing the other editors of article ownership, which is a conduct complaint rather than a content dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. Even if this were a content dispute, however, it appears to me that both sides are entrenched with no middle ground possible so it would not appear that much could be accomplished here. As a neutral third party it appears to me that the listing editor's opponents do have a point: the point being pursued by the IP editor seems to be far too minor a point to make in this survey article. If the IP editor still wants to pursue this matter, I would suggest that s/he try a request for comments, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath for its success. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I intend to add a very relevant, highly important, but small section to this article. As I had figured, the article is captured by subject interested editors and stone-walling by them is keeping this historically significant section from being added. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Long dialogue on the Talk page for the article. How do you think we can help? Make the users aware they are being overly protective of an academic page which reads like a virtual Fan-page, to the topic it deals with. Please read the discussion in on the Talk page titled, "Communist Emulation Section Missing". Yes, I'm the IP Editor.
Opening comments by RjensenPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by The Four DeucesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
A source presented by the IP briefly mentions that a conservative activist, who is not even mentioned in the article, conducted a smeer campaign against a moderate Republican candidate, which he apparently adopted from tactics used in internal fighting in the Communist Party. To generalize from that story that conservatives emulated the Communist Party's tactics is to provide undue weight to a single incident. In order to include this theory we would need to show that it has been advanced by scholars and received significant attention. I request that this submission be refused because no other dispute resolution method has yet been tried, beyond discussion on the talk page, and no other editor has expressed support for the IP's view. TFD (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Talk:Conservatism in the United States discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Economy of Greece
![]() | Early closure: The involved parties haven't discussed the issue on the article talk page. Talk page hasn't been edited since April 18th. Crashdoom Talk 21:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Citation overkill; multiple sources used to make the point that "shipping" is a major component of the Greek economy in order to include the item in the article's factbox. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion How do you think we can help? Explain to the other parties that they do not need more than 2 sources to make the same one-word point, and that the sources should be current in the context that they wish to include the item in question. Opening comments by Dr.K.This is a misuse of the purpose of this noticeboard. At the very top of this page it is specified that this noticeboard is for content disputes. References are not content. References are used to support article content. The OP has waged a longterm edit-war to remove references supporting the content in the article of Economy of Greece. Ironically the references the OP is asking that they be removed are used to support content that he removed without a valid reason in the first place. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot remove content and ask for sources for the content and when the sources are supplied to complain that they be removed. There has also been a long, relevant discussion on the talkpage of the article which the OP abandoned on 14 April only to return more than a month later to restart the edit-war without apparent reason. In conclusion: The request by the OP on this noticeboard that this is a content dispute is invalid. Also his edit-warring to remove valid, reliable sources from the article is unjustified and his points have been rebutted on the article talk after a lengthy discussion. Let's not waste any more time on non-existing content disputes. Let's instead find a few articles to improve by adding references and not removing them as requested in this case. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Thanatos666Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Economy of Greece discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Port Imperial Street Circuit
![]() | Insufficient discussion here. I encourage editors to work to find a suitable solution, but it may not be worth fighting over to any great extent, the article will still improve over time :). Otherwise, an RfC may be a more appropriate solution -- Nbound (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The issue centres on the inclusion of images in the article. There is some debate between editors as to their value to the article, and whether or not a consensus has been acheived. Those in favour of including the images claim that they are needed because they show readers where the circuit is located, and that they provide a visual representation of the circuit environment. Those against including the images claim that they do not actually show the circuit, since nothing has actually been built yet, and that building on from this, there is no evidence supplied to substantiate the claim that the images show the location of the circuit. Furthermore, there is dispute over whether a consensus has been acheived, and what that consensus is - each side claims that a consensus has been reached, that that consensus is in their favour, that the other party is operating on a false assumption, and have been editing the article accordingly to the point of edit-warring. There is a third image on the page, showing the circuit layout over the streets of New Jersey that it will use. This image is not being debated, as its merit has not been question, but rather, has been accepted as a useful image. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Users have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but exist in a stalemate. How do you think we can help? By offering some additional voices to the argument to try and reach a consensus. Opening comments by DjflemPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Issues are being addressed at Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit. Djflem (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by The359Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by The BushrangerPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Port Imperial Street Circuit discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take the case. I know we do not have opening comments from both sides, but I have seen the page in question and the read the talk page to get feel for the issue. I'd like to open with a discussion on exactly how everyone feels about each of the images.
An immediate concern comes to me on that last picture, which can be addressed by a simple cropping of the bottom half which removes the staircase. So please consider that option when you respond. Opening comments can still be filled in if you wish, so I can get a better perspective of your individual stances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Lappert's
![]() | The page in question has not been edited since April 2012. Howicus (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview delete war from (17:02, 2009 July 6) to (17:00, 2012 April 24) Have you tried to resolve this previously? not able. How do you think we can help? an editor needs to reverse an under-the-radar delete war on Lappert's a California and Hawai'i based pair of family companies (son in California and his step-mother in Hawai'i). The edits are from California and Hawai'i... Opening comments by MichaellappertPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 68.24.131.128Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 72.235.238.59Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by HaruthPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 75.7.229.209Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
DRN Volunteer CommentIm not taking the case at this stage (and others are welcome to take it aswell), but a link to the previous discussion (it wasnt on the Lappert's talk page) would be appreciated. Also if you took part in the discussion you should add yourself as an involved user. Expanding on what your position and complaints are exactly would also be good (ie. what is your position, and your argument for it being so). Lappert's discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Homeopathy
![]() | Both parties have agreed to remove the mention of cancer from the lede, however cannot agree on the mention further in the article. I recommend taking the case to WP:RfC or filing a case for formal mediation. Crashdoom Talk 20:57, 22 May 2013 (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 reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy. The study referred to discusses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) which specifically includes homeopathy but its clear in the study that the authors claim CAM in general could lead to increased risk of cancer. They don't specify the use of homeopathy can increase the risk of cancer. Whilst we can guess or theorise that this may be the case, that is not said anywhere in the study. Wikipedia:No original research says analysis of sources is not acceptable. I claim that to say the use of homeopathy increases risk of cancer from this source can only be from analysis of the study, ie original research. Also, as this source doesn't specify the effects of using homeopathy and only generalises under the CAM umbrella, it is a study that relates to Alternative medicine not Homeopathy, and so should be moved to the relevant article, not used in homeopathy. All the other editors listed believe it is valid to make the analysis/assumption that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer as well as believe that this study is a clear study relating to homeopathy by itself. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing on the talk page including pointing out specific wiki policies. How do you think we can help? By helping clarify the wiki policy in this situation. A consensus is unlikely to happen without external help as this is an issue between me holding one opinion and several other eds who hold another. Opening comments by Zad68I think I'm going to have to apologize to Cjwilky and the other editors involved in this DRN. Although the explanation given in the Dispute overview is a bit unclear and does not identify the issue I am bringing up here, and I agree with the other editors in being confused about the objections to having the article state "homeopathy causes cancer" when it does not, I now agree with the end result of the edit suggested: In sentence in the 5th paragraph in the lead, source PMID 12974558 (Malik) should be removed along with the phrase "such as cancer", and Malik can also be removed from the "On clinical grounds, patients who choose to use homeopathy in preference to normal medicine..." sentence as well (no article prose change needed there). I said on the Talk page I thought Malik was a review article and I was wrong, it's not, it's a small 2003 prospective primary study. It's sometimes OK to use the background sections of primary studies but I don't think that's OK here: We have PMID 17285788 (Altunc), a recent systematic review article and a high-quality secondary source
Opening comments by BruntonThe disputed statement in the article does not say "that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer"; it says: "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." This statement is adequately supported by the sources used. I'm not sure that there is much of a dispute here; it seems to be more a single editor disagreeing with every other editor so far involved in the discussion (who they describe as "the skeptic gang" and "signed up Skeptics ") based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of what the disputed wording actually says. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by JoelWhyFirst of all NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT HOMEOPATHY IS A CANCER RISK! The article (and the source) explain that people who use homeopathy may "risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." (i.e. Had they gone to a doctor immediately rather than first seeking diagnosis/treatment from a homeopath, they may have been properly diagnosed sooner.) The sourced article discusses Complimentary and Alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy is a type of CAM. Moreover, the article specifically says that 71% of the subjects in the study were using homeopathy. This is not synthesis. It's directly on point. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by TippyGoombaCjwilky opens with the statement:
He objects to the following sentence in the article:
The claim that cancer is a risk of using homeopathy is a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. From what I gather, this is his only objection. The objection is addressed by the explanation that he misunderstands the difference between something causing cancer and something delaying cancer treatment. The sentence does even imply that the homeopathy preceded the cancer, a prerequisite for the causal relation that Cjwilky is imagining. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by LeadSongDogUpon consideration, I think I'd better just sit back and watch this play out. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by AlexbrnI have checked the source and am happy it properly supports what WP says. I don't really get what this dispute is about, since the complaint seems to bear no relation to what the texts are actually stating. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by DaffydavidThe dispute opened here is an inaccurate description of the article and the disputed material. I cannot see how it has been represented as CAM leads to an increase in cancer. They are clearly stating - " Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process." They further state that the CAM used 70% of the time was homeopathy. CJ's argument is the same as arguing that a study on murder weapons states that 70% of the time guns are used but since the study title is "murder weapons" we shouldn't use it in an article on guns.--Daffydavid (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Comment by AndyTheGrump (not listed above)It appears that Cjwilky has completely failed to understand what the source in question claims: it does not suggest that CAM increases the risk of getting cancer. Could I suggest that perhaps Cjwilky should read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Gaijin42 (not listed above)I am uninvolved, and have come across this dispute from this posting. The phrases in the article are absolutely adequately sourced by the study. Nobody is attempting to insert a claim that homeopathy causes cancer. The text is that those who delay standard medical treatment of cancer, and instead use CAM (including homeopathy) have worse outcomes. This is directly stated in the study. Frankly CJwilky has a really bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT as there is a clear consensus from other editors that the statements are adequately sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Comment by JzG (not listed above)The source says that people have worse cancer outcomes when they use alternatives to medicine. As the study notes, homeopathy is one of the most widespread alternatives to medicine. The study includes a figure of 70%, making homeopathy the dominant alternative to medicine among this group. Several secondary sources make the link. Cjwilky does not like this. That's not a surprise, he doesn't like very much about the scientific consensus around homeopathy. He is a believer. His opinion is every bit as relevant as the view of a young earth creationist on matters pertaining to evolutionary biology, and for exactly the same reasons. You can't resolve this dispute to everyone's satisfaction, because the dominant view among homeopathy believers is that the article should be deleted and rewritten from their perspective, which would be an abject failure of WP:NPOV (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy). Guy (Help!) 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Homeopathy discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not "taking" or opening this matter for discussion at this point in time, but just want to make a couple of comments:
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take this case and I believe that we should be able to resolve this issue in an amicable way to everyone's satisfaction. I would like to request that comments are posted below, or in response to this message, just to keep things tidy and easy to read for anyone else who wants to help out. From reading over the talk page and the opening statements, there appears to be a bit of an issue with what the provided reference is actually stating and it seems the context may have been misunderstood in some way. To clarify the current status of the dispute, as per the talk page and here:
I would like to open the discussion by asking Cjwilky why they believe the source states about cancer being a risk of using homeopathy and why they believe it should be removed. + Crashdoom Talk 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your dispute. You are correct that we should clarify breast cancer in the study and not generalize to all cancers. However, numerically I believe you are misreading the study. the 70% is not of the whole proportion, but of the portion that delayed due to CAM. "Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. [...] Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)".
To read the numbers as you are interpreting would mean that 100% of the study used some sort of CAM Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Going over what's been said just above it appears to me that the situation keeps changing. I've gone over the talk page and things still don't seem to add up. The source in question does state homeopathy as one of the common CAM methods, "[...]Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)[...]". It also states, "[...]CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice[...]". From my understanding of this, Homeopathy is a CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and there was a link found between CAM use and those patients delaying in seeking further medical assistance. The argument presented by CJwilky appears to differentiate based on the discussion and it's quite perplexing to say the least while trying to analyse and come up with a solution. So, a question for CJwilky: Is it just that the source is not explicitly related to homeopathy or is it related to the interpretation of the source in the article? If either, what would you prefer to be done in order to resolve the situation amicably? Crashdoom Talk 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Tippy goes for rhetoric :-/ Responding to the points is what this is about. Gaijin, you are clearly doing WP:ORGIGINALRESEARCH or maybe you can show where the authors say what you are claiming? What we use in the article is what the source says, not what your interpretation of it is. It mustn't be included because its not supported by that study, only your interpretation of it - it really is very simple. Cjwilky (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Arbitrary break/proposed wording
I am quite inclined to say that the revision in dispute is not a violation of WP:OR, but as stated by Alexbrn there is a fine line that can sometimes be blurred. From reviewing the source and the article cannot find an issue that would cause the article to be in violation of any policies or editing guidelines, nor to deviate from the context of the source which appears to be the issue Cjwilky is worried about. However, would a rewording of the offending sentence, as suggested above by Alexbrn, work for all involved editors? If not, then I would be inclined to say that perhaps a WP:RfC on the issue could be more appropriate in order to gauge consensus on the matter as the discussion appears to be at a standstill here between the involved parties. Crashdoom Talk 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Another potential wording "In a study of the effects on CAM on breast cancer outcomes, the study showed that use of CAM which caused a delay in traditional medical treatment resulted in worse outcomes for the patients. 70% of the patients who used a form of CAM used homeopathy. " This addresses cjwilky's complaint, that the study is about CAM, but also states the relevant fact that 70% of the CAM was homeopathy. Zero original research as everything is plainly stated in the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Getting to grips with the data in Original ResearchLets try and sort this proportion business once and for all and avoid some of the generalised statements we've had above. Here's my attempt, please correct anything I've done wrong. I thought its easier to use the percentages as thats what we have in the abstract. You may well feel 5) below is a hypothesis, it is, but its logical for it to be true. Having said that, repeatedly on wiki in the homeopathy article in particular, I hear skeptics say logic is not acceptable, in which case we are left with even less than the below to go on.
As you see, whilst it may be likely that more than 11 of the 20 users of homepathy delayed, its possible it could be 11, 10 or 9, (all of which don't show the claim made by skeptics... and maybe 12, 13, 14 are not significant either?), we really have no idea. I though skeptics were in favour of rigorous trials, and this has a hole unless I have made a mistake. Cjwilky (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Motion to closePer Crashdoom's comment above I think we are really not making substantial progress in this dispute any longer. I personally think it is clear that we have consensus (which is not required to be unanimous) with cjwilky as the lone dissenter. I move that this discussion be closed, and if any participant is not satisfied with the outcome, they may open an RFC, moderation request, or arbcom. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Re zad, he has made no additional comments since the discussion started, and the discussion (and goalposts) have moved far afield since his comment. I think that your analysis far exceeds WP:CALC and is an attempt to find flaw in the survey methodology. In RL that type of logic is fine, but in wiki world that is WP:OR. Further, as stated, your objections have no relevance to the main point - Nobody is saying CAM/Homeopathy causes anything. Quite the contrary! We are saying they explicitly cause nothing! The study compares getting treatment, to not getting treatment. If people pray on both sides, or do homeopathy on both sides, or get placebo on both sides (but I repeat myself), or sit and contemplate their mortality on both sides, it does not affect the result whatsoever - delaying real medical treatment results in worse outcomes. The participants in the survey self identified that the primary method they used instead of real treatment was CAM, and of CAM users the primary method was Homeopathy. This is an irrefutable conclusion as to the study results. Nobody is making any claims as to what percentage of homeopathy/cam users avoid treatment or that CAM . Analogous statistics are very well known - crime breakdown by race vs % of race that are criminal, Car models involved in accidents, vs % of a particular model involved in an accident, gold medals won by country, vs medals win percentage of a particular country etc. It is not a valid objection that the study asks and answers a different question than the one you are trying to discuss. Go find a study that does ask and answer that question. Beyond that, even if I accepted your objection as facially valid, I think you have made major errors in your analysis (again!) The study has not provided any information about non-delaying CAM users. between points 6 and 7 you are attempting to combine answers to different questions in a ay the data does not support. 29% used cam before any vixit. 70% of those that delayed using CAM used Homeopathy. That result stands alone, but attempting to mix those numbers against the 53% or attempt to deduce the number of non-delaying homeopathy users is futile as the information to do so is not provided. This is an error similar to the one in the following math problem http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.missing.dollar.html Although they have not provided the information in the abstract for us to do that analysis, it is explicitly stated in the study that your core objection is wrong. "CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.3) ". As 70% of the CAM use was homeopathy, this correlation is directly applicable to homeopathy. Again, this is not causation, but correlation. You may try to argue that all of that correlation could be due to CAM users other than homeopaths, but that is pure WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Position of Zad68Just to explain my absence here: Apparently I'm the only one in this discussion who is questioning whether the source is a WP:RS in the first place. My concerns are based on WP:MEDRS (it's an old, small primary study limited to one cultural environment), but an argument can be made that WP:MEDRS is not the appropriate guideline because what the source is being used for might not be considered "biomedical information". We do have an up-to-date secondary source (Altunc) that says pretty much what Malik says but is specific to pediatrics and doesn't specify "cancer". The overall message that homeopathy is associated with a delay in seeking treatment and therefore worse outcomes is generally supported, including by Altunc, and I don't think that anyone including Cjwilky is arguing to remove that, at least not in this discussion. So my position is that because the overall message isn't fundamentally changed by the removal of the Malik source and the "cancer" clause, and because I have questions about Malik and WP:MEDRS, I don't really feel strongly enough about it to actively argue here. Again I apologize for not recognizing the weakness of Malik before recommending using WP:DRN (I had both Malik and Altunc up in my browser at the same time and I was looking at Altunc's "pedigree" when I thought I was looking at Malik's). I am traveling now and probably won't be able to engage here until later this weekend, and probably wouldn't anyway. I'm OK with either outcome at this point, I don't feel that strongly about it.
Firstly, do pardon my idleness in the discussion, there's been a few issues offline that have kept me rather busy over the last few days. I can see that from the above by Zad68 it's just the wording of the article which has everyone on the fence. I'd be inclined to suggest a rewording of the sentence to "[...]missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions." which removes the potential implicit connection between homeopathy and cancer. Would the involved editors be in favour of this change in order to resolve the issue and close the discussion? Crashdoom Talk 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Brunton, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the study is about CAM users delaying seeking treatment, the authors make statements about CAM whereas eds here are extrapolating that to also be about homeopathy without evidence. The authors give a proportion of users of homeopathy in the total population of the study (70%), but not in the group that delayed seeking treatment (which I have shown, albeit through OR, could be significant or not, we don't know). That proportion of homeopathy users is being assumed to be the same, or nearly the same, in those who delayed seeking medical help as it is in the whole population, by Gaijin42 and others - its an assumption, guesswork, part of his/her OR. Cjwilky (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Second motion to closeWell, I'd like to say that the first part of Brunton's suggestion seems to have consensus, to remove the mention of cancer from the lede, however I am motioning to close the case as failed because an unambiguous resolution on all issues has not taken place per Cjwilky's complaint. If there are no editors in objection, I would recommend that the discussion regarding the mention of cancer in the Ethics and Safety section is taken back to the talk page and if the issue can't be resolved, taken to WP:RfC. Crashdoom Talk 00:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Bolding of article titles in lead sentences
![]() | Outside the jurisdiction of DRN (relating to interpretation of MOS:BOLDTITLE on multiple articles). Suggestion is to take to WT:LEAD. If unable to agree on final outcome, peer review may help implement any advice given there in a way that most editors would consider of any encyclopedic standard. -- Nbound (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I have a dispute with User:Shadowjams and User:My76Strat over the interpretation and application of MOS:BOLDTITLE. The specific disputed content has been summarized at User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE. I believe bolding and inclusion of a descriptive title in an article's lead should not be done in many cases per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:BEGIN, while the other two editors believe in more widespread use of bold titles. The end result was that User:Shadowjams reverted several of my edits, which I believe contravened MOS guidelines, and should not have been done when we had an open dispute over those guidelines. (However, I don't think we need any dispute resolution over that, simply clarification of the actual MOS issue.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Significant discussion on the Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Moore tornado talk pages. All discussions ended in deadlock, and finally in reversion of several of my edits. How do you think we can help? I am unsure whether this should be handled as an RfC, posted to a WP:MOS talk page, or handled elsewhere. Primarily, I think all of us would just like to reach a definitive conclusion on what the proper interpretation of MOS:BOLDTITLE is here. Opening comments by Shadowjams2001: and some other editors have been involved in a dispute on the Boston article. What I didn't realize is how far this position had been taken, and a number of long-standing leads were changed without any discussion by 2001: within the last month. I undid those edits. I left the Boston one alone because we're having a discussion about that. I, and others, have been extremely patient with the Boston bombing article lead issue. This is a fundamental misunderstanding with the WP:MOSBOLD style-guideline. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by My76StratMy involvement here relates primarily with two articles: Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Moore tornado. Time constraints prevent me from reviewing the tangential relationship of the other titles mentioned. The guidance at MOS:BOLDTITLE as it relates to 2011 Mississippi River floods is a redundancy caution for titles that relate to a recurring event that is highlighting a specific occurrence within the cycle of occurrences. If the bombing article was titled 2013 Boston Marathon the counsel would apply. The Moore tornado is not singling out the 2013 occurrence from a recurring list as if tornadoes are common occurrences in Moore, they are not and certainly are not akin to annual events like the river floods that are used for the example. --My76Strat (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Bolding of article titles in lead sentences discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Can I interrupt for a second? I think this might be a 'point you in the right direction' case rather than a 'find a solution here'. Is this a dispute about a number of articles, or a dispute about a guideline, with these articles being examples? If you just want to sort out the bolding in the lead sentence on these specific articles, we can help you here. But it sounds like they may be only symptoms of a more general disagreement. If the dispute is over what MOS:BOLDTITLE actually means, and these are only examples, then we can't. We're good at applying policy to individual content disputes here, but deciding what a policy or guideline means in general is beyond our scope. If this is the case, the first port of call is probably WT:LEAD, especially if you think the guideline could or should be edited to make it clearer. CarrieVS (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the move to WT:LEAD would be better and Ill close the discussion accordingly. Peer review may still have some use if the sides can't agree on how to implement the advice given over there. Obviously, in good faith, neither side should edit the leads until this has had some more reasoned discussion at LEAD. -- Nbound (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
For the reversion to boldtext
Against the reversion to boldtext
(Please let me know if this needs to be summarized further, since it ended up a bit wordier than I anticipated to address all relevant issues, but hopefully clearly covers my rationale.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan
![]() | The consensus appears to be against the complainant. Despite the effort you have put into the article, it may be time to WP:LETITGO, perhaps in the long-term consensus could change... But for now, lets just WP:DROPTHESTICK and get back to work. Consensus does not require all parties involved to come to a unanimous decision. -- Nbound (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Note:Neither the resolved or unresolved templates provide an accurate description of this discussion, which has essentially become a holdout situation. I beleive there is enough of a consensus to close this discussion. The notability point has been made, and rejected. -- Nbound (talk) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute If Dispute passes, this is the version that should be posted. Users involved
Dispute overview I created an article of a television personality with the subject being "Francesca Hogi". It is properly sourced and had good enough reception to warrant an article. It was nominated for deletion twice and wasn't deleted as two seperate admins felt the article was sufficient enough not to be deleted. However the members behind my back decided to merge the article to a television show that the subject was in. I don't think the article should be merged at all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried talking to the users yet they claim they gave me a week to have a consensus and they didn't. They talked about other cast memebrs on the television show not having an article. I told them what's stopping them. If you want something done, do it yourself. Properly source and cite references and I'm sure the article will be fine for publishing. How do you think we can help? Understanding my side of the issue and allowing my article to be unredirected. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by WhpqMy involvement started with the second AFD and continued with the merge discussions which was closed as a merge/redirect. I redirected per consensus and then the reversions started, leading us to this dispute. I believe the course of action should be to simply have an uninvolved administrator review the closure. -- Whpq (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by User:KataninI have been heavily involved in these discussions over the past few months and have argued for either the merging or deletion of the article. The reason for the conclusions of "keep" on the first AfDs were not due to the content of the arguments therein, they were because of "Poor discussion quality" and due to a "bad-faith sockvandtrollfest"; essentially due to a large number of sock puppets and ad hominems. I have stated my arguments both on the first AfD and the merge discussion here. I stand by my argument, and believe that this debacle falls under WP:OWN on the part of User:MouthlessBobcat. While I understand that he is proud of his contributions, I still stick by my argument. - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Nathan Johnson
Opening comments by Mr. GerbearI reverted MouthlessBobcat's edits because consensus had been established in the talk page, and warned him appropriately. I felt that the warning level I gave was appropriate as said user has a history of going against consensus and, obvious from his attitude in many of his comments, not a team player. Afterwards, I received this message on my Talk Page, which was reverted. MouthlessBobcat was then issued a 24-hour block for this personal attack. MouthlessBobcat's accusations of racism and hate are unfounded. In fact, I had voted to keep the Francesca Hogi article in the second deletion discussion. I believe MouthlessBobcat has acted and is continuing to act in bad faith. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by FrietjesI do not feel there was consensus to close the merger discussion on the article talk page. prior AfDs were marred by sockpuppetry and SPA !votes, and I do not feel that there were enough confirmed non-SPA non-sock !votes to close the discussion. I also feel as though the speedy closure of the previous AfD was unnecessary per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY. In my opinion, if we just wait a couple months, the last Survivor season will be in the rear view mirror, and we will be able to better judge the notability of the subject. I have no objection to redirecting the article, just an objection to how the decision was made. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I apologize for being so late. Got caught up in a few things. Nevertheless, here it is. The reception section is what I'm mostly concerned about as that is the make or break as to whether the article is suitable for wikipedia. I've updated the sources and added new ones and properly explained how they connect to her nobility. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Bah, ugh I have to politely disagree with you. I'm giving you in the least a WP:NotJustYet. There are more sources of her being a judge in the Miss Maine, beauty pageant. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/20/living/reality-stars-hebert-underwood-help-crown-new-miss-maine-usa/ She has also done more projects outside of Survivor that should be noteworthy. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
|
A Momentary Lapse of Reason
![]() | Closing as discussion has not started (ie. Noone appears to want to be involved). If the issue still remains, perhaps attempt to reach consensus on the appropriate article on its talk page, or by inviting community opinion (via an RfC, Peer Review, etc.). -- Nbound (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
I have attempted to do so at Talk:A Momentary Lapse of Reason#Beds on a beach. See also preceding edit summaries; and this notification. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Parrot of Doom has repeatedly reverted a number of my edits (beaching WP:3RR), while claiming to be "protecting" the article. His talk page replies have not addressed the concerns I have with the article as it stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Parrot of DoomPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
A Momentary Lapse of Reason discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
![]() | This issue primarily relates to user conduct. WP:ANI should be the next stop if there is no hope of the issues being sorted via reasonable and calm discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I have concerns about canvassing for an RfC that are described Hoppe RfC in the "Canvassing concerns" section] of the RfC. I put the Template:Canvassed recommended at WP:Canvassing on two editors who replied before the original biased "Campaigning" description was changed on all 10 wikiprojects by another editor. I also put it on the talk page of another editor the canvassing editor individually contacted with same message. (Since the canvassing editor had chastised me over his interpretation of Canvassing policy here he is aware there is such a policy.) Since WP:Canvass gives no real guidance on what to do once you put in the template, I have assumed that they should remain until editors tagged reply and that the subsection should be left open. I have asked for guidance on the WP:Canvass page but it being a long weekend would be surprised to see a response soon. I assume that this goes along with the policy on all such tags/templates - leave it til the issue resolved or goes stale. No one has replied or even discussed the issue on the RfC but two editors have repeatedly removed the templates, the section or both. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked User:Srich32977 repeatedly in discussions at my talk page to take it here but he did not do so. User:Wikiwind at this diff threatened to take me to WP:ANI if I reverted her deletion. So I figured I should bring it here myself. How do you think we can help? Because of WP:BLP violations on the article which I intend to address at WP:BLPN this week, I think this is a serious issue related to WP:Canvass. And I think it would be helpful to get opinions here on what is implied by the template so that guidance about its use can be added to that policy page. Opening comments by Srich32977Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by WikiwindThis is silly. RfC discussion is currently underway. Carolmooredc doesn't like the direction in which discussion is going, so he is trying to obstruct emerging consensus. There is no evidence that these users are individually canvassed, and he shouldn't use Template:Canvassed as a means of discrediting comments he don't like.--В и к и T 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(Below Srich32977)...
(Below Wikiwind)...
|
Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)
![]() | Other involved editors do not appear to want to take part. Suggest filing editor pursue other means of dipsute resolution - Nbound (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview At Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes a consensus (let's call it a "compromise" as the other involved editors don't like the word) was formed to number the episode list a certain way based on the order in which episodes were aired. Now, other editors are seeking to overturn that. I have offered a compromise, based on MOS:TVs requirement that articles convey the full history of a series. In this case that means identifying 13 episodes, and that "Genesis", and "Occupation/Resistance" aired as 2, 2-hour episodes. I offered a compromise at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) that we should list "13 (aired as 11)", as required by MOS:TV but this has been rejected and the new edits have been forced into both articles. This has been rejected outright,[4] with the only arguments being "consensus can change" and a rehash of issues that were considered at the original discussion. After only a short 2 days, the others have declared discussion over and that a new consensus has been reached, even though they have presented no real arguments as to why my compromise is unnaceptable. In fact, they've completely ignored the suggestion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Essentially, trying to keep a cool head on the talk page, although I had to warn one editor who disrepected the BRD process How do you think we can help? Hopefully, with a mediator, the editors unwilling to abide by the MOS may be willing to accept a compromise Opening comments by Niteshift36Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by FrogkermitPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by JojhuttonPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) discussionWelcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here, but I'm neither "taking" or opening this listing for discussion at this time. Since there appeared to be some confusion about how DRN works, I've left a note at the article talk page to clear up any lingering confusion. As I said in that note, if the editors other than the listing editor do not weigh in here in two or three days, then this listing is very likely going to be closed by a volunteer as stale. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. AussieLegend, the other editors' actions may be justified, depending on interpretation, by WP:CCC, though WP:CCC does state that change of consensus can be disruptive. I do agree that the other editors should have made it more clear on why consensus was changed. I recommend reading WP:CCC. Please comment on your thoughts after reading WP:CCC. Regards, smileguy91talk 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Dihydrogen monoxide hoax
![]() | Editor in question appears to have understood applicability of WP:NOTABILITY to his additions. I would suggest taking the matter further to the edit warring noticeboard (WP:ANEW), if the editwar resumes. -- Nbound (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview On May 23, User:DanDan0101 made three consecutive edits adding a section about a pair of webs.com websites to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax article. I reverted the addition, but he has repeatedly reverted me and it has gone back-and-forth for the past few days (though I don't believe either of us broke 3RR). DanDan admits to being Daniel Sun, so the addition is somewhere between an autobiography, a conflict of interest, and pushing a self-published site. I have attempted to explain why his addition is inappropriate, but he continues to re-add the material. The websites are entirely non-notable, and one does not exist yet. I am not the only person to revert the addition: 50.46.154.28 also did so here (though he isn't really part of this dispute). OK, I give up — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed on DanDan's talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like DanDan to learn what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion in the article. Opening comments by DanDan0101Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Dihydrogen monoxide hoax discussionI am a DRN volunteer and this appears to be a clear cut case so I will comment early, the webpages dont meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements and should be removed. As stated in the previous discussion between the involved users Wikipedia is not for things WP:MADEUP in one day, even if the creater thinks the site is the WP:NEXTBIGTHING -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Post closure comment: This is a good faith move, Chris857. I understand now what the editwar actually meant and why you kept putting up-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Khan Noonien Singh
![]() | Consensus that information is not integral to understanding of the character, and does not belong in the lead. -- Nbound (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2013 (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 In the lead of Khan Noonien Singh I proposed that it should state what is said in the original "Space Seed"- Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1. Episode 22. 1967-02-16. NBC." the line Marla McGivers quotes i.e. "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.". This should be summarised to "probably a Sikh, from northern India". We had consensus on the talk page for this some months ago but this user David Fuchs keps reverting this to simply "Indian". I don't think this is accurate and what the actual script of the TV episode alludes to. I also feel as an adminstrator he is strong arming articles, and threatening me with WP:ANI. There maybe a case of WP:OWN here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried talking. I've got other editors involved. I've even got WP:Consensus, but he just overides it. How do you think we can help? I think in the case of resolving dispute with administrators it is best to get a peer review. I think I'm quite a reasonable editor (I have my faults and can get frustrated), but I don't think I have unreasonble here. I have managed to get WP:consensus with other editors apart from him. Opening comments by David FuchsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
User:Sikh-history primarily edits and advocates for topics related to Sikhism. Where this comes into play is his insistence that the article on fictional character Khan Noonien Singh prominently feature the character's (supposed) Sikh ancestry, and that merely describing the character in the lead as Indian (which is not in doubt) as opposed to North Indian (which is said by a character but never verified as true in the canon) is "on a personal level [...] quite insulting and verging on racism". Likewise, mentioning in the lead that during the character's development he started as a Nordic character is somehow problematic (although we have a specific reliable source stating that; the facts are not in dispute.) I cannot address the user's deep-seated concern that somehow saying just "Indian" is problematic and insulting, despite the fact that we cannot describe him as otherwise without going beyond what the primary source says. There's other issues, such as trying to use articles referencing Wikipedia as sources that show how Wikipedia should reference it, but my main concern is that the user is incapable of constructive, source-based editing when they have decided on an outcome promoting Sikhism. If I'm not described as insensitive and borderline racist in my conduct, or of somehow abusing my adminship, I'm likened to a person with autism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 99.192.74.156Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I have been actively involved in the discussion of this matter on the Khan talk page as well, so let me add my 2 cents. The page currently reads, According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman Sikh from the Asian continent. I support putting changing that to, According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman who is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". For me the use of the phrase "described as" rather than "is" permits the more specific "northern India". I'm not sure the lead can say "Khan is Indian" or even "Khan is Asian" because we don't actually have a source for any definitive "is" claim. I had previously thought there was a source for the "Khan is Indian" claim, but I don't see one in the article. If someone has such a source, then I would support making the text read, Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman from India who, according to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". Finally, I don't understand why the discussion got moved from the Khan talk page to here or why I was left out of the discussion here, but here I am anyway! 99.192.74.156 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (I have a dynamic IP address, but if you check the Khan talk page all the current comments signed by IP addresses starting "99.192" are from me.)
Discussion of Khan Noonien SinghHello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. Sikh-history, can you please clarify on your views on the character description of "Indian" and what you believe is incorrect about that label? smileguy91talk 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks SH 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It is true that "we can...easily cite Khan's origin as India" and have that properly cited, and would be an acceptable solution, but we do need to consider Sikh-history's opinion in a final solution to this dispute, since he opines that the label "Indian" is offensive, and can be compared to this, as Sikh-history said: "It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, people describe it as a duck, but because the duck did not call himself a duck, therefore it is not a duck". Yet the official website labels him as, and forgive me if this is offensive, Indian. Any further opinions? smileguy91talk 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Memory Alpha and their handling of thisI've had a look over at Memory Alpha (Memory Alpha is a Star Trek wiki, it is limited mainly to things directly related to the series), and the two following pages may help the editors discover other ways to handle Khan's ethnicity: Please note that the exact sentences will be covered by copyright. Details can be found here: [17]. Nbound (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC) From the second link we can deduce that Singh is from "northern India," and can be justified as being "northern Indian". It does state that the area is populated by many Sikhs, but never states that Singh himself is a Sikh. smileguy91talk 20:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The character was originally conceived of as a Nordic superman by "Space Seed" scriptwriter Carey Wilber before his ancestry was changed in script revisions. According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman, "probably a Sikh" from northern India,[1][discuss] who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s
uninvolved passerby Somewhere in the article (bio/history), the quote seems appropriate, but probably NOT the lede, as it is not a important part of his character. He could have been from any location as far as the plot/acting/script was concerned except for that one line. Nothing is obviously influenced or affected by his nationality or religion It is never mentioned again in any medium of the character. (great warriors... so are vikings, zulus, mongols, visigoths, etc) . On a meta level, this entire discussion appears to be a WP:COATRACK for someone's indian/north indian/sikh politics, and really has very little to do with the character or show. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
|