Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 99
![]() | 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 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
![]() | Closed at the request of the filing party. Its been 26 days with little or no resolution. Please try WP:RfC or WP:MEDIATION. — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Reliable sources--including news reports describing the attacks, official statements by the Israeli PM, and secondary analyses--state that Hamas began directly firing rockets at Israel on June 29 or June 30. Other reliable sources state that Hamas only began taking formal "responsibility" for rocket attacks after a July 6 Israeli attack on Khan Yunis killed Hamas members. Even though all of those sources explicitly attribute the latter claim to Hamas, and my opponents acknowledge the ambiguity of the "responsibility" language, outspoken anti-Israel activist editors have deleted the Israeli claims on the grounds that the sources are somehow less than reliable. The discussion on the talk page speaks for itself. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion. How do you think we can help? You can examine the sources in a neutral manner and suggest a proposed wording. Summary of dispute by NishidaniNothing to say here, because the report falsifies the evidence (all sources do not attribute to Hamas a claim that they took responsibility on the 7th. (b)'outspoken anti-Israel activist editors' is the editor's way of writing 'people who disagree with me', and implies the editor has already profiled people who do not agree with him as animated by some pathological hostility to a state. It's a smearing caricature.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KingsindianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The issue here is when Hamas rocket fire started. There is a long discussion here. The basic source here is Nathan Thrall. The full quote by Thrall is given here. Several points now:
This is not the venue to be discussing conduct, so any accusation of "anti-Israel activist editors" is out of place. Needless to say, it is false, TheTimesAreAChanging has already made up his mind about me and nothing will shake it. Kingsindian (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ShrikePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We should stick to what sources say pretty simple .Thrall source its only one source and we may use it but there are other sources like analysis by Goldenberg that are too important and as TheTimesAreAChanging said we shouldn't advance one POV that rockets that where fired before was not by Hamas while other sources clearly say that where fired by Hamas member.We should definitely include this information.--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Comment by -scheSince someone in the discussion section has noted my silence, I suppose I'll comment out loud: meh. My main interest is keeping the article well-copyedited, I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the "30 June" claim should be included. On the talk page, someone discussed changing "which Hamas itself began following an Israeli airstrike on 6 July which killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis" to "which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas)". This was shot down (ugh, did I just make a missile pun?) because the July 7 date was not "according to Hamas", but "according to several sources independent of either Hamas or the IDF". Perhaps the solution is just to say that, i.e. to say something to the effect of "which Hamas itself began either (according to several sources) on 7 July after an Israeli airstrike on 6 July killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, or (according to Israel) on 30 June". -sche (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IRISZOOMPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As others have explained here, the problem is not correctly described here. The claim is not made by Hamas but neutral authors. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC) It's not only one source, it's several of them. One more was noted by me yesterday, an article written by Noam Chomsky. See this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The BBC source says "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility." Thrall says "[On 7 July,] Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets." (Which may include the rockets fired before.) Both of those claims are explicitly attributed to Hamas. By contrast, Goldberg says "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad [emphasis added] killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day [Hamas] unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over. Israel was forced to retaliate for the rockets with air raids." Ynet reported: "For the first time since the end of the IDF Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, the Hamas military wing is behind rocket strikes on Israel, with a wave of attacks overnight Sunday (June 29) and early Monday emanating from central Gaza refugee camps completely under Hamas control. There a number of Palestinian factions active in Gaza and though Israel views Hamas as responsible for any rockets fired from the Gaza territory, the group generally avoids such direct attacks on Israel. In the past 24 hours, however, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have been launching rockets from the Dir al Balach, Bureij and Muasi refugee camps...Monday's rockets were of an older make known to be in the Hamas arsenal...The IDF said Mohammed Zaid Abid was killed after the army launched a targeted attack against his rocket launching cell minutes before they planned to fire at Israel. Abid was identified by Palestinian media as a member of the Hamas military wing." So Ynet cites the IDF and Palestinian media for information on Abid, but neither Ynet nor the later analysis by Goldberg directly attribute the claim of Hamas rocket fire on June 30 to Israel. Even if the Reuters article quoting Netanyahu were the only source, and this was an "Israeli government POV", it would be grossly misleading to suppress it in favor of the official Hamas POV. Nishidani and Kingsindian appear to believe, because they are fans of Thrall's work and have praised it on Nishidani's talk page, that Thrall had some mechanism for determining the earlier reports of Hamas rocket fire were false and for verifying the official Hamas claims. That is sheer nonsense.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Core of the disputeAttn: Nishidani,Kingsindian, Shrike,-sche, IRISZOOM and TheTimesAreAChanging
OK, let's take on thing at a time. We are not discussing proposed changes yet. What we are doing is gaining consensus on what the core of the dispute is. This should be easy, let's not make it complicated. The proposed 'core of the dispute' is:
Can we all agree on that? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks everyone. Now let's move on. Can someone ID the section of the exact sentences in the article that we are trying to summarize in the lead?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) The content we want to summarize2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Immediate_events. Starting from "On 29 June, an Israeli airstrike..." to "Early on 8 July..." Kingsindian (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Proposed changes to the leadWhat are the proposed changes to the section of the lead cited above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Nishidani These persistent criticisms and commands to other editors are personal attacks:
They will not be tolerated here. Stop personalizing the discussion and limit your comments to issues concerning content and sources. Do not mention other editors or speculate about their intelligence, motivations or behavior. This is your only warning. If you continue, you will be asked to leave this discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawing from this case. Will another DRN volunteer please take my place?
Offer for WikiProjects Interwiki dispute resolutionUser:Keithbob has indicated his withdrawing. If it is of interest to move this issue toward resolution, I can offer to look at this under my interest in Interwiki project cooperation. I have read and have familiarity with both the Hebrew version and the Persian version of this Page. As a non-editor of any of these pages, including the English version, my viewpoint would be neutral, though all participants would need to accept that this be done under very strict adherence to WP:MoS and WP:Lede for all policy and guidelines. If this is agreeable then it would help to have the representative statements for the SUPPORT and OPPOSE clearly restated here below by at least one representative from each side. Otherwise, no response within twenty-four hours shall be a strong indication that the matter has become stale and suitable for being closed. FelixRosch (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
To FelixRosch
Offer for WikiProjects Interwiki dispute resolution IITo all three editors; The clarifications were all useful. @Nishidani; It has been requested that all editors joining the discussion at this point confirm that they agree to follow a strict reading of WP:MoS and WP:Lede in order for me accept the further moderation here, if you could confirm this or your concerns otherwise at this time. @TheTimesAreAChanging; Your clarification requires there be an acknowledgement at this time concerning WP:Lede policy and guidelines which clearly state that anything which is placed into the Lede must be a summary of settled material already existing in the main body of the article. This is not to say that you cannot develop your material in the main body of the article first in order to establish it following regular Wikipedia rules for editing and verifiability, however, WP:Mos and WP:Lede are very clear that the Lede must contain only information which is first settled in the main body of the article. @Kingsindian; As you are likely aware, any editor is allowed to edit the main body of the article following the policies and guidelines for verifiability. This applies the all edits, and if an edit is documented with a reliable and verifiable source, this should be acknowledged as such following Wikipedia policy for verifiability. Unless any of the editors state their concerns plainly against Wikipedia policy for WP:MoS, WP:Lede, and WP:Verify as I have quoted it in the above text, my inclination is to recommend that the question as it relates to the Lede section can be considered as addressed and to close this matter as resolved given a 24 hour period for any return responses below. If you could acknowledge your concerns and-or confirmation in the space immediately below. FelixRosch (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
|
2014–15 RB Leipzig season
![]() | No extensive talk page discussion as required by DRN and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia. If other editor will not discuss, consider the advice I give here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Nikebrand keeps on adding contentsthat are nonsense and notin a proper way. He seems to tranlate directly from German without taking into consideration grammars and proper English writing. This is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_RB_Leipzig_season Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to talk to Nikebrand about how the article contents should be for team season articles and how proper English should be used, but Nikebrand does not seem to want to make a discussion. How do you think we can help? I need the opinion of others. Summary of dispute by NikebrandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2014–15 RB Leipzig seasonPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
![]() | DRN does not accept content disputes that are already being discussed at other venues. In this case there are already two discussions underway one at WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Some editors claim that the question of the environmental impact of fracking is still unknown, and some recent WP:MEDRS reviews say that. However, several recent and well-cited MEDRS sources say that there are very serious risks. There are no MEDRS sources which say fracking is safe. I believe the correct course of action is to summarize the conclusive MEDRSs, and quote the inconclusive MEDRS reviews Have you tried to resolve this previously? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Health_effects_of_fracking, however, I have since been repeatedly accused of edit warring, without diffs, at User_talk:EllenCT#September_2014 How do you think we can help? I believe moderated discussion with help from intermediary editors will be productive in resolution. Summary of dispute by AlexbrnDecline DR. There are recent/active threads on this topic at WT:MED and WP:RS/N, where the consensus is already established. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
While this board is for content disputes, not user behavior, in my view this is primarily a user behavior issue. Turning to content: The key content issues have to do with sourcing and WP:CRIT.
Talk:Environmental impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#WP:WEIGHT_of_new_study:_.22Proximity_to_Natural_Gas_Wells_and_Reported_Health_Status.22_.282014.29 et seq. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Martine Rothblatt
![]() | After 5 days no one has shown up to participate except the filing party. I am therefore closing this request due to non-participation. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview An editor on this site is using a name for a subject that is no longer the person's legal name. The person in question has requested that their legal name be used. An offer has been made to provide the legal sources for this name change (which has been in effect for more than 20 years). After several attempts to get the editor to comply, even presenting a new sources for that shows the legal name. An arbitrator is requested, in order to resolve this issue. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to calmly explain the situation, and provide legal sources for the article, however, the editor refuses to accept the legal documents, and is accepting an erroneous getty images caption as their proof, only. How do you think we can help? I would like someone who can step in and help us resolve this matter, as a legal document is a more accurate source than a photo caption. Summary of dispute by RothRepPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 12.30.109.2Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please see my comments at the Martine Rothblatt talk page and the BINA48 talk page. -12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC) and edited: -12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC) A connected contributor, RothRep (and IP 66.151.103.11), has reverted for no legitimate reason and deleted valid sources, such as the New York Magazine article. RothRep deleted that Bina's real name is Beverlee (see source below) and that Martine & Bina have two children together and adopted one another's children from prior relationships (see source below). What RothRep has reverted/deleted: My source is a New York Magazine article that clearly states that Bina Aspen's given name is Beverlee. Period.
Also, the IP that filed this dispute resolution noticeboard thing, 50.59.109.37, has never commented on any talk page on Wikipedia, contrary to what he/she has written above. This DRnoticeboard claim is the only thing she/he has ever posted to Wikipedia. See here: Special:Contributions/50.59.109.37. -12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC) RothRep / 66.151.103.11 / 50.59.109.37 doesn't own the Martine Rothblatt or BINA48 articles. -12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) -12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Martine_Rothblatt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.109.2 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 66.151.103.11Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Martine Rothblatt discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: Another [option] for the participants is to take this issue to the WP:BLPN notice board where editors are very familiar with the policies that cover this kind of a situation. (but you can't do both, it's either here or BLPN, one or the other)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Another administrative note: Just a suggestion, not a requirement or demand: There are at least three different IP addresses showing up at the article talk page, at RothRep's talk page, and here, 12.30.109.2, 66.151.103.11, and 50.59.109.37, which makes it unclear who's who and whether or not everyone who needs notice of this filing has received it. It would be well if everyone who wants to participate here would create an account, identify which of those edits belong to them, and thereafter only edit when signed into that account. I've given notice to RothRep and to those IP addresses, but if they are dynamic IP's the notices may never be seen. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Gospel of Matthew
![]() | It appears that the parties involved cannot come to an agreement. I Suggest going to WP:DRR and wisely choosing what the next step should be. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is about how Due and Undue Weight policy is to be understood. Andrevan, who is a new editor on the article, wishes to add material about the date and composition-history of the gospel of Matthew, and other editors regard the additions as unnecessary because they over-represent minority views - undue weight, in other words. In a nutshell: the majority of scholars believe that Gospel of Matthew (GM) was composed after 70 AD, a minority argue strongly for a pre-70 date. This isn't in dispute between editors. We mention it in the lead and again in the "setting and date" section, with RS. Andrevan wants to add more on the minority viewpoint, specifically from a scholar named Maurice Casey (note that nobody denies Casey is RS). Other editors almost unanimously (one exception) feel: (a) the question of date is already adequately covered, and (b) adding more about the minority view would unbalance coverage of the topic. There's an important extra point: Casey's idea isn't just for an early (pre-70 AD) date, but for a very early one, about 50-60 AD. So far as I know he's the only scholar who holds this view. It's been pointed out to Andrevan that Casey's view has failed to gain traction in the academic community, but Andrevan's reply was that "academic traction" isn't a policy. My answer was that "traction" is indeed a policy, it's how we tell how much weight to give to different views. Given that neither side has managed to convince the other, it seems that an edit war is looming - quite unnecessarily in my view.
Extensive discussion on article talk page, otherwise no action - but Andrevan has now made a charge that all those who take a view opposite to his is a sock puppet/meat puppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PiCo) I don't mind saying I find this worrying if it means an escalation from a looming edit-war into warfare through wiki-lawyering. How do you think we can help? Can someone please look at the talk page and give us an opinion on how the Due Weight policy applies to the question of coverage of a minority viewpoint in general and the Casey viewpoint in particular.
Summary of dispute by AndrevanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I was introduced to this issue through the Mediation Committee as a mediator assigned to it. I am an atheist software engineer with no particular interest or knowledge of the subject area, but have since learned quite a bit about it.
We closed the mediation as successful but it appears that it is not resolved. Ret.Prof is the user who is pushing to include the minority theories in the article.
However, he persists in raising his complaint due to what I see as, at its root, a valid WP:NPOV issue with this article.
[This is a] violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. It is true that these minority theories should probably not appear in the lead section of the article as Ret.Prof has requested. However, his opponents claim that including these reliably-sourced minority theories with significant adherents in the main article AT ALL, violates WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. There are a number of theories which pertain to the subject and are not linked at all from the main article: the Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, Q+/Papias hypothesis, and Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Including no reference at all for the theories is not proportional to the fact that they do regularly appear in reliable sources about this topic. It has been suggested by Ret.Prof,
that these theories are associated with Jewish, non-religious and Eastern Orthodox perspectives into Western Christianity, leading to this incidence of bias. Maurice Casey, an academic with notable peer-reviewed publications, was a lapsed or non-Christian. Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV. Andrevan@ 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ret.ProfFringe: 50-60 CE date for Matthew WP:Fringe theories: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". Casey 2014. p 96 is as follows:
WP:Fringe theories:To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Here again WP is clear! Such a topic is not fringe There is nothing "new" about the 50 CE date. "Christian scholars" have argued in favor of it for years. What is new is a heavyweight Non-Christian historian now supporting it! Maurice Casey is a respected non-Christian scholar and for him come out in support of a 50-60 date for Matthew is notable. Such material MUST be written from a NPOV. This policy cannot be overruled even by a very large number of user accounts. Therefore the early 50 ce date must be included in the article on the Gospel of Matthew. As far as I am concerned, this is the only outstanding issue that has yet to be resolved...but it is an important one. IE Only ONE issue not TWO! Thanks!
Summary of dispute by PiCoJust restate and also expand on what I wrote above. There are two issues, not one as I stated previously, the two being the date of GM and its composition history. For both the relevant policy is NPOV, which says that NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So does the existing article represent "all significant views"? It says, re the date, that most scholars believe GM was composed after 70 CE and that a minority opinion holds it was before. This is supported by a RS and several others could be cited as well. Re composition history, there's an entire paragraph on authorship and another on sources, both thoroughly sourced. Andrevan needs to demonstrate that Casey's opinion regarding the date (50 CE) is so significant that it can't be subsumed under a general statement. He also needs to demonstrate that the Augustinian and other hypotheses on the sources behind Matthew are equally significant. He also needs to demonstrate that any scholar at all supports the idea of an Aramaic or Hebrew original version of GM (he notes Casey and another scholar named Edwards, but has misunderstood what both are saying). PiCo (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I personally hold to a pre-70 date for Matthew, but I acknowledge that it is a minority position. The early date in itself is not fringe, but a date of 50 possibly is. The connections made between Casey and an Aramaic gospel seem to be dubious, but in any case it would be better to quote someone like R. T. France, whose commentary has received more coverage in secondary sources. I don't think it would necessarily be undue weight to discuss the usual reasons for a pre-70 date: the dating of Luke-Acts and the lack of mention of the temple's destruction. However, a discussion of these reasons should be accompanied by a discussion of the reasons for the majority view. In other words, I would like to see the whole section expanded. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IgnocratesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Andrevan is attempting to enforce what he sees as a WP:NPOV violation by shoehorning a tiny minority view into the article. The dispute began over an early date for the Gospel of Matthew proposed by Maurice Casey. Casey, while a notable scholar, has an idiosyncratic view of the Aramaic origins of Matthew. The majority of editors on the page consider an early date based on that unique conjecture to be WP:UNDUE. More seriously, Andrevan, who has admitted to knowing nothing about the subject, has recently introduced a number of new topics to include in the article, which he claims are being deliberately suppressed due to systemic bias. Ignocrates (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I'm a bit confused by some of the recent edits, so just to clarify: This dispute is not about an early date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew as a minority view; we already have excellent sources that can provide that information (e.g., Dale Allison, R.T. France). The dispute is about assigning an early date to Matthew based on the unique conjecture advanced by Maurice Casey. Therefore, an early date as a minority view is not WP:UNDUE, but an early date based on Casey as a source is undue weight. That is the consensus position and the locus of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RbreenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There have traditionally been New Testament writers, usually very conservative ones, who have argued for a pre-70 date for Matthew, largely because it supported the view of apostolic authorship. That idea died a death a generation ago - the consensus is now pretty much the one in the current article. The fact that a scholar like Casey can advance the idea of pre-70 authorship, completely separate from the traditional standpoint, is a sign of the maturity of the discussion. But so far it's just Casey, in a popular book, and until we find out whether the idea is taken seriously by academic writers we cannot pretend that this an academic running an idea up the flagpole. Personally, I have nothing against a pre-70 date - the consensus is a bit stale now, and could do with being challenged - but we can't predict where scholarship will go, and must stick with the picture as it is now. --Rbreen (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by In ictu oculiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by John CarterI believe there is a very real chance that one of the central problems here is very likely behavioral but that this is not necessarily the correct forum to deal with that. One of the basic and more obvious ways to determine whether or not a source is reliable is to determine what other academic sources say on the work in question regarding the subject at hand. One of the easiest ways to determine that is through reviews of the work. I haven't seen any reviews of this book in academic journals yet, although I think I have seen some listings of it in "Books Received" sections indicating reviews are likely in the future. I cannot see any real reason to rush to judgment regarding the academic views regarding this particular matter before we have seen the reviews. I said before that I thought the best way to proceed would be to first start an article on the book itself, and then try to determine how much space to give material regarding it elsewhere. I still think that would probably be the best way to go. There is of course another question regarding how many other single academics have presented other views on this topic, and whether they deserve the same amount of weight and consideration in the article. Given the number of subtopics of this article, it is very easy to see that it might potentially become just a set of short single sentences of the "X says Y" nature regarding many of the topics covered. When there are almost certainly literally hundreds of recent academic works on a given topic, "at least one" stated opinion on any issue will probably include dozens maybe hundreds of different ideas, and I don't think we can necessarily list them all. Another major concern which I have regarding the status of our biblical material in general is the comparative lack of articles in wikipedia relative to the lengthy articles and subarticles in reference sources on biblical subjects. Having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles, there is at least one substantively long named subsection on the date and authorship of the Gospel in one of the leading recent reference sources, and I have to say that I think it almost certain that a standalone article in wikipedia on the topic would be found to meet basic notability requirements, and that it would make much more sense to try to establish such a subarticle and develop it before attempting to effectively write the summary section of the article here. We do ourselves no favors by trying to shoehorn short mentions of every sub-subtopic related to Biblical subjects in one article, as doing so tends to make the articles lack any sort of desirable narrative flow and ultimately makes the articles less appealing to the readers it is supposed to serve. Sorry about the lengtht. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EvenstevenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Traveling, no internet (almost), cannot respond effectively for indeterminate time. Evensteven (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIIIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I wasn't involved as much in the Matthew debate. Maybe like three or four responses from me. I did not support Ret.Prof on Casey's views. Simply this, Casey is just one scholar. It wasn't enough to convince me, and I did some research; And there was little suggestion from other sources that agree or mentioned such similar ideals like Matthew first being written in Hebrew. The date of composition is arguable. There are many dates of composition online. A good average timeline of composition based on online sources would between 50 through 100 or 110 CE. It was rare though that I saw 50 CE being the actual date of composition in agreement with scholars. -- That's all -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Western scholarship against Eastern-Orthodox scholarship is a false dichotomy, since Bible scholars are not employed in the main US and European universities for their religious faith commitments, but for their historical expertise. I agree with PiCo's comments from the talk page of the article
Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Clarification: Talking about other users is strictly forbidden. After the DRN case is closed, anyone involved may bring up user conduct issues in a venue where they are allowed. WP:DRR is a good starting place. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Non-involved editor Jpacobb's commentsAlthough I am not directly involved in this specific discussion, it raises issues which have been concerning me for some time and the following comments may be helpful.
Non-involved editor Cwobeel's comments(Not involved either, have some knowledge of the subject having studied Biblical criticism as a topic of interest, but I am not Christian.) NPOV guide us to include all significant viewpoints that have been reported in sources that can be verified, and that are reliable. A minority viewpoint can be presented as such (that is explaining in the text that it is a novel or not widely held viewpoint if there are sources that describe it as such), but extra care should be applied not to use Wikipedia to "promote" a minority view above its current standing in the domain in which that viewpoint is being expressed. Minority viewpoints are easy to spot using a number of available metrics, in this case one could use metrics related to the number of sources available, the number of citations in Google scholar, and other such. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Another point to remember, for those of us that are passionate about our views and want Wikipedia to reflect “the truth” is that Wikipedia does not need you - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Non-involved editor Hijiri88's commentsI was watching this dispute from the sidelines for a while. One-person theories can only be discussed if the contrary views of EVERY OTHER SCHOLAR of similar stature is given equal weight. Unless User:Ret.Prof and User:Andrevan are willing to go out of their way to include citations of all the other scholars who disagree with them, this would essentially place the burden on good-faith Wikipedians who don't want to emphasize fringe views. This is completely inappropriate, and should not be allowed. There's also the practicality problem of listing hundreds of scholars who all say the same thing, just to make room for a fringe viewpoint. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Gospel of Matthew discussionGospel of Matthew discussion 01Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew discussion 02In the spirit of cutting a big problem into several smaller problems, I would like to start out by opening up the discussion with the question "should we put the date in the lead paragraph at all?" Note that we are deferring for the moment the questions of what date or how we should handle dates later in the article. I did a review of how some other Wikipedia pages handle the question of dating:
So we have: 9 pages that give specific dates. Of these, 2 mention minority viewpoints. 5 pages with text that could be construed as giving some sort of date information. 13 pages that do not mention dates. I also found Dating the Bible#The New Testament, which attempts to date them all. Consider for a moment the target audience for these 27 pages. How many of them meet the following criteria?
OK, those are my thoughts, but of course my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the consensus of those who edit the page. So, should we mention specific dates or ranges of dates in the lead paragraph? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) I think we should mention the majority view in the lead and leave it at that. StAnselm described it well on the article talk page. Summarizing: 80 to 90 - most probable; 70 to 100 - certainly possible; outside this range - improbable to fantastic. We already have highly regarded sources in the article to support the majority view, so why not use them? Ignocrates (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew discussion 03PiCo has a good point. 99% of the reliable sources date Matthew sometime between 50 and 100 CE. There is very, very little support for a date before 50 CE (I found only two sources referring to the 40s) and the same is true for a date in the second century. Therefore would this compromise work: Although the Gospel of Matthew is undated, most scholars speculate it was written in the last half of the First Century." Nobody can disagree with this???? Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the high opinion these works have in the academic community, I would tend to think that an averaging of them and other similar sources would be the best way to determine weight, adding as well any other high-quality sources I didn't mention. I would assume that the articles in James Hastings' older reference books and others would be useful as well for any information on questions such as those presented here which may have been more obviously held earlier but not so prominent today, as well as some sources like the recent Zondervan dictionary which tends to have a more obvious Christian bias. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew discussion 04There appears to be no consensus as to what to do with the lead, so I am opening up a discussion as to what, if anything, should be done with the body. I would encourage everyone to avoid digging in your heels and try to find some sort of compromise that everyone can live with. If we cannot reach an agreement here at DRN, this is likely to end up being decided by an RFC, with the likely result being that one side gets pretty much everything they want and the other side ends up getting pretty much nothing that they want. If that happens some of you may end up wishing that you had been more willing to try to find a compromise that makes both sides equally unhappy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
(Undent - maybe someone could add one of those line-things for me?) That being the feeling, I propose as follows:
Gospel of Matthew discussion 05Temporarily withdrawing from the dispute resolution process: Ignocrates has notified me on the ANI that he is taking me to Arbitration to be banned from Wikipedia. Therefore, I will be withdrawing from the process to work on my defense. He has made it clear that content is not the issue ... he wants me GONE. If I survive. I will be back. For the time being I will support what ever the consensus arrived at. Thanks to Guy. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew discussion 06I see that a lot of progress has been made, both here and at the article. Does anyone have any issues we need to discuss? I don't want anyone to feel that their voice isn't being heard. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems that we agreed on a general compromise but when push came to shove, the position of PiCo and Ignocrates was that the article is largely OK as-is. That's not really a compromise. One thing I would like to see is an explanation of the term Markan priority, what it means, how it impacts Matthew, and what are the alternatives to it. We should also explicitly mention which scholars are advocating this in the text. E.g. Davies and Allison like Markan priority, but some church father in 1806 didn't like it. Obviously chronological is better. I'm happy to be BOLD and add this material, but last time I did that I was reverted promptly. Andrevan@ 14:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew discussion 07I just reviewed the article, article talk page, and the talk pages of everyone involved. It doesn't look like there is going to be an agreement, so unless anyone objects I am going to close this case as being unresolved and recommend that the content dispute be resolved though an WP:RFC on the article talk page. This will also open the door for anyone who wishes to pursue one of the user conduct venues listed at WP:DRR -- those can go on at the same time as an RFC. I will be available to give technical guidance regarding where to go with any further content or conduct disputes, but it would not be appropriate for me to take sides. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Natural number
![]() | This case was filed prematurely as there is ongoing discussion between several editors on the talk page. I'm therefore closing the case without prejudice for a future filing should the talk page discussion fail. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The other editor does not talk or discuss, but just reverts the page. The issue is fairly simple, today in mathematics we define natural numbers as 0,1,2, .. and counting numbers as 1,2,3, ... In fact this already appeared lower down in the article. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is just the modern convention as taught at universities and found in most all modern references, some mentioned on the talk pages, some at the bottom of the article. However, the other editor would like to use the wikipedia page as a tool to end the current convention in favor or his or her own preference of not including zero with natural numbers. Some people just have it in for zero, and this has been the case for centuries ;-) On the talk page I invited this other editor to add a paragraph describing a modern school of mathematics that defines natural numbers without 0, but he did not reply, and just reverted the article again. I speculate that the other editor has a more serious vested interest, perhaps having been involved in an erroneous didactic publication and is now using wikipedia to lend false credibility to that other work. This is why he can not discuss the issue on the talk pages. I do not know him or her, this is just speculation of a consistent interpretation. It is true that a convention is not the same as universal adoption, but it is wrong to keep the convention hidden to as to falsely create the impression that the convention does not exist. This is a an encyclopedia article giving information, not a springboard for new ideas. Because a convention is not universal, there is room in the article for a description of natural numbers without zero, indeed the article has a long section on this already, too long perhaps.
I've tried to start a conversation on the talk page, but it is ignored. How do you think we can help? Beats me, what can you do? ;-) Surely there is a point to this dispute process. We are probably all busy people, surely there is a better way than daily page updates. ... (I took an interest in this after my junior school aged son had difficulty with a math lesson after not understanding the current page. We shouldn't be including such people in an esoteric debate - rather just giving the direct information. It is an encyclopedia article after all.) Summary of dispute by I don't know who keeps reverting it.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Natural number discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gamergate controversy
![]() | As stated, primarily a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes (ANI is the proper forum for conduct complaints). Also, DRN already has a case pending in regard to this matter; the listing editor may join in there if he wishes to do so, see above, but must limit his participation to content, not conduct, issues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Multiple users have requested that NorthBySouthBaranof and Ryulong cease editing the "Gamergate controversy" page due to heated statements they have made against supporters of Gamergate. They are the two most frequent editors of the Gamergate page and the common denominator of the edit wars which always occur before the article is blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof has suggested he is protecting the page against "single purpose accounts", though according to an analysis only one of the accounts which made edits within 500 pages was created after July (the first events which triggered this controversy occurred in August of this year). When I requested Ryulong allow other users take a more prominent role editing the article, he deleted my comment and requested I "leave [him] alone". Since he seems uninterested in conversing with me, I will request another user notify him of this dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I, and others, have suggested that both users either stop editing the article or tone down the frequency of their edits. In the spirit of this I have also recused myself from any further edits to the article. How do you think we can help? Providing a neutral ground where we can reach an agreement on this matter. Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Decline to participate. The requesting user has 87 total edits on en.wiki, fewer than 1/3 of which are in articlespace and all of which are related to Gamergate since returning to active editing a week ago. The user is not remotely uninvolved and has no business requesting that I cease editing anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RyulongPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
|
Galloway Township, New Jersey
![]() | No recent extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. This is a situation in which I would recommend that the requesting editor consider a Request for Comments to bring other editors into the discussion (which is not to suggest that I agree or disagree with his position; this is merely a procedural suggestion entirely unrelated to the merits of the matter). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a disagreement on whether or not the position of deputy mayor should be added to the article Galloway Township, NJ. The other user, Alansohn states that since no other articles pertaining to municipalities in New Jersey have the position listed and that the position bears no relevance. My argument is that the deputy mayor serves numerous important function in Galloway Township, NJ and that every article on related topics on Wikipedia do not have to follow the same format. Overall, I feel that the above mentioned article is entitled to have the position listed above due to the numerous important functions of that position and that every article on Wikipedia is entitled to be unique in terms of content. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to work out a consensus with the other user on this and other previous disagreements. However, the other user has returned every few months and reverted my edits without notice despite reaching a consensus on our edits to the article. How do you think we can help? To request that the page and content stand that I added, remain in the article, in exchange for me not reverting his edits on other content that I do not agree with. Summary of dispute by AlansohnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Galloway Township, New Jersey discussion
|
Talk:Gonzalo Lira
![]() | Close as failed due to weak participation by the non-filing party and the virtual disappearance of the DRN moderator. If the moderator disagrees with this closure, they have my support in reopening the case and continuing the moderated discussion. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Minor edits are required in regards to the biography of Gonzalo Lira as described extensively in the talk page. Any edit, minor or otherwise, will be deleted including calls for discussion or consensus. Have listed the reasons why some of the details within the biography need to be changed. The biography entry has been "owned" since 2006. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted to Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board to have the entry deleted. Posted request for input regarding NPOV to have that request deleted. Provided chronology of attempts at resolution on talk. Suggested to MILH that we find some common ground as to the changes. Attempted to have a dialog with the user. How do you think we can help? I think we need to address the ownership issue by making it evident. Second, we need to agree to have any notice posted on the Lira Biography or other notice boards stay intact. Third, we need to ask MILH to review the concerns listed in talk on a factual basis. Forth, minor changes do need to be made to the biography. Summary of dispute by milhPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Gonzalo Lira discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi all. Okay, I'll be happy to try to mediate this. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
the edits are in fact minor - I will illustrate the issues and concerns from easy to hard.
PS: I don't hate Lira. Nor do I have any animosity towards MILH who wrote the initial entry in 2006, and I understand that it would be hard to have what held for a very long time be challenged by a random outsider. It would be great if MILH could find four or five key appearances or articles. It would certainly be less effort than maintaining the status quo, an unproductive conflict. BTW, Goaltending "the violation of interfering"[11]
Thanks for the help, but Wikipedia cannot be helped. As a reader I did not realize the pervasive lack of fact that became quite evident when you started to edit a few entries. So Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
From MILH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
|
- ^ http://www.saintgeorge.cl/
- ^ http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/education-preschool-kindergarden-biz-cx_lm_0919preschool.html
- ^ http://thedartmouth.com/1995/02/08/opinion/my-education-at-dartmouth
- ^ http://www.gongol.com/water/
- ^ http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fgonzalolira.blogspot.com
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley#Bibliography
- ^ http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-how-hyperinflation-will-happen
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeHlelQWoEA
- ^ http://thedartmouth.com/1995/02/08/opinion/my-education-at-dartmouth
- ^ http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/selecting-for-cynicism-in-ivy-league.html
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goaltending