Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Peter Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Peter Proctor#References (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chantoke (talk · contribs)
• Nucleophilic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Wikipedia page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Wikipedia represents a major conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the Wikipedia dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.

I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.

Opening comments by Nucleophilic

Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.

Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima facia WP:original research and not allowed.

That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been significant discussions on the Talk page, going back to at least 16 Dec 2012, and the issue is not yet resolved; so it is appropriate to solicit more input here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there was one communication on Dec 16. But the real discussion did not start until Dec. 29, right over the holidays, when many editors take a break. This was followed almost immediately by chantoke transferring it here. Also, to descalate, I suggest "faculty" be changed to "faculty/staff" to reflect any uncertainty. As I noted, I was walking away from this matter until chantoke escalated it. Nucleophilic (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, incorrect. The discussion requesting his proper academic credentials has been at least since May of 2012, as in this request by editor Smokefoot. Chantoke (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Proctor discussion

Hello All, I am a volunteer for the Dispte Resolution project. I am placing a COI (Conflict of interest) investigation template on this page as that needs be sorted. Looks like the article has other issues such as a promotional tone and overall notability of the subject. A lot of careful work has to be done here -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, you bear all the earmarks of a sock or meat puppet. You and chantoke have a similar edit history of editing pages of only local Indian interest, when there had been no such on the relevant page before or anything even close to it. What are the chances of this happening at random? Likewise, no prior edits on a subject, then suddenly show up in the middle of a dispute to "mediate". Perhaps you thought nobody would notice. Also see: wp:concensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of Peter Proctor, I concur with nucleophilic. It is not clear that Chantoke knows how wikipedia bio pages differ from regular articles. This article was also brought into mediation without giving any other editors a chance to provide input. Also, as nuclephilic notes on the article talk page, it mentions "hair loss" only once, and that in passing without mentioning the subject of the bio. If he is using this page to promote a business (or whatever), he is doing a very poor job of it. For now, I will pass over the issue of Wikishingaki as an unnecessary complication. Bandn (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is important because he sells medicine online. Reporting faculty positions at two prestigious institutions is something that would help sell product because it would enhance his reputation. Chantoke (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishagnik: I too am a volunteer here at DRN. I notice you just added your name to the list of DRN volunteers [1] two days ago. Assuming good faith, we can conclude that you acting with the best interests of WP here. On the other hand, since your impartiality has been called into question, it may be best for the integrity of the DRN process if you stepped aside participate simply as a normal editor, and let one of the other 40+ volunteers serve as the primary mediator for this case. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, will defer to your judgement but I am sticking to my point -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the topmost opening statement, I take it that the primary issue is what sources are available to justify including the person in the Category:University of Texas Medical Branch faculty. Is that the only issue? or are there additional concerns about WP:PUFFERY and sourcing? Focusing on the faculty category: all inclusions in categories must be supported by sources, per WP:Verifiability. For facts in the body of the article, footnotes are often used to provide the sources; but even for categories (which may not be mentioned in the article body) sources must also be provided if requested. I take it that the only source provided so far is an email address at the university ... which doesn't quite demonstrate that the person is a member of the faculty. Nucleophilic: are you aware of any source that says "proctor is a member of the UTMB faculty"? --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to comment by Noleander: The sentence that is being discussed is at (Link 1). It reads as follows:

"He has been on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch. He is engaged in drug research and development."

The three citations provided in support of this sentence by Nucleophilic at Talk:Peter Proctor are first, 1 second, 2 and third 3.

The references have several issues.

With regard to the first, it lists his address as being at the Department of Opthalmology, but does not list his specific affiliation with the institution. According to his self-published resume at Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/pub/peter-proctor-md) he was a "Research Instructor" at Baylor at that time.

I do not see where on the paper his specific affiliation is is indicated.

For example, you may have your address listed in a lab if you work there as an independent researcher, or volunteer, which is also very possible considering Dr. Proctor has been reported in the article as an independent researcher.

In the second link provided, he is not primary or last author, but third, which means he was not the primary researcher. Again, the address could have referred to him being a volunteer or independent researcher working with the lab.

The third link at 3 did not work.

The references are limited as they were published by Dr. Proctor himself.

Someone has stated that I do not seem to understand the concept of WP:BLP. It is true that I am a relative novitiate to biography articles so I will quote from the source to avoid my own potential misinterpretation. From Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Exercise caution in using primary sources."

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

While those articles certainly qualify as reliable sources in reflecting the content of his research, they do not specifically list a faculty appointment. Doximity is a self-entry website, and also does not qualify.

I also looked in the Baylor Alumni Directory which can be found online for current faculty at Alumni directory or of which a physical copy can be ordered at Alumni website, or by e-mailing Barbara Walker or Nyree Chanaba at alumni@bcm.edu.

Although the directory is very comprehensive, as an older clinical instructor, I acknowledge he could have been missed, although I do not believe this would be the norm as Baylor likely very actively seeks alumni donations.

Nucleophilic, looking at the article history, you appear to be its major author, so I would respectfully request you to supply something more reliable. I do not want to deny the good doctor his faculty history as he certainly is a figure in the history of redox research, and this should be fairly acknowledged if accurate. At the same time, the conflict of interest issues have been discussed above and on the talk page.

My opinion ultimately cannot be entirely objective, because there is not enough good evidence in one direction or the other. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

In this situation, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim in the setting of an encyclopedia article, particularly with regards to WP:BLP. I would not include the sentences about him being on faculty until references are provided that directly reflect this, and are not authored by the subject. I would not close the door on it, but I think it would be unwise to include something like a faculty appointment out there for a physician practicing telemedicine, without more explicit confirmation. Chantoke (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (Ramwithaxe; changed to avoid confusion in this discussion)[reply]

Comment For any concern about me being a sock puppet please refer me immediately to the Adminitrators Noticeboard. They will handle me accordingly. Coming back to the article, did you know that the explanation of the puzzling repeated failure in human trials of neuroprotective agents and antioxidants effective in animals by noting the uniquely high endogenous levels of the antioxidant neuroprotectant uric acid in humans is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself? It is also interesting to note that him being a part of a group that is credited with the fantastic supposition regarding diabetes, inflammation, and fibrosisan underlying common etiology involving electronically activated processes in such symptomology and is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself - seven times to be exact. Did you know that according to the good doctor he has reported the conditional pro-oxidant properties of uric acid and further proposed that oxidative stress figures in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemic syndromes in general? And the list goes on. My point being that apart from Dr. Proctor no-one knows about these fantastic contributions to humanity (and Nucleophilic of course). And Nucleophilic, BTW for being close to the subject you dont have to be a blood relative. In fact by virtue of our discussion so far, we are close. If I was to compose a Wikipedia article about you before today, an article would have said Nucleophilic is a scolarly contributor to Wikipedia, but now I will be tempted to add ... who jumps to conclusions about editors being sock puppets based on the ethnicity of subject of the articles they contribute to. As if such editors cannot understand basic concepts like MOS and templates that apply to all Wikipedia articles. You see how NPOV can be compromied even with very little interaction? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I concur. I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, which I believe refers to a duplicate account. I would be happy to submit my IP address or whatever other information you need to verify this. Chantoke (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I'm going to continue to assume good faith. This matter has gone entirely too far for the issue involved. As I noted, I was walking away from it, when Chantoke filed this request for mediation, far too soon in the process, IMHO. Contrary to assurances, there was no real attempt to resolve the matter on the talk pages. Just a couple of exchanges and pow, here we are. Also, if he has any support for his accusations concerning me, let him present it. And no, I do not expect his and Wikishagnik's IP numbers will prove the same.

Likewise, no other editors were given the chance to give their input (it was over the holidays). Been here for six years and I have never seen anything like this. Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation. My suggestion is to take this back to the talk pages and let the process work it's way thru there. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just noticed that another article editor,Bandn, is now posting both here and on the talk page. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply references, or concede that you do not have any. The issue has been on the talk page for several weeks. "Just a couple of exhanges and pow, here we are." and "Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous [sic] escalation." Here is my first edit 1. Here is your edit removing my citation needed tags 2. This is me changing it back 3. This is you undoing my edit 4. This is me finally switching it back to how it appears currently 5. Literally we have gone back and forth 5 times, and we have been discussing this since December 16th.

Other users on the talk page have also been discussing this with you since May of 2012 Smokefoot Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "accusations", please stop making this personal. I am only asking for quality references. If you can't provide any, and none are forthcoming, then by definition the process has already worked itself out and we can move on. Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop Wikipedia:Canvassing by recruiting editors of the page that favored your opinion in the past, as you did a few hours ago here and back in May of 2012 here for this previous talk page discussion. I have contacted all of the remaining past editors of the page as well, to make sure all opinions have a chance to be represented. Best, Chantoke (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you bring up the subject. It is not Wikipedia:Canvassing to notify past editors of a page who might have special knowledge. Rather than canvassing, I contacted one editor who might be able to clarify some of the issues. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond.

However, it is Wikipedia:Canvassing to bring in a new editor to support your point, as seems to be the case with Wikishagnik, who had no connection with the article at all or anything remotely related to it and whose record of edits resembles your own. Seen editors banned for no worse. As I noted, what are the chances that two editors with a history of editing wikipedia pages of only local Indian interest would show up on a page at exactly the same time? The mind boggles. Finally, note my suggestion to replace "faculty" with "faculty/staff" just to resolve any ambiguities and to conclude this matter. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: though you claim to have notified "all of the remaining past editors of the page", this is not on their talk pages. Pehaps you can clarify this statement. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, incorrect again. You contacted one editor, Djem3, after the debate had started, because he had agreed with you in a past talk page discussion. You diid not contact any of the other editors that had contributed to the talk page. Those are the editors that I contacted, not everyone who had ever edited the article. Neither is mandatory, but you were selectively canvassing. Where did you get the idea, other than your circumstantial evidence, leading to false accusation, that I was related to Wikishagnik? Not all Indians are related, and not all people interested in India know each other. You are walking on very thin ice there. Chantoke (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Straw. I tried unsucessfully to contact drjem3 because he knows about the subject than I do and might be able to answer some of the questions. Did this right out in the open too. As for your sock or meat puppetry-- don't insult our intelligence. What are the chances that two editors with the same rather specific posting interests (obscure local indian subjects) should show up on the same completely-unrelated article at the same time, particularly when one of them has never posted to anything similar before. Likely the probability is in the millions, if not billions, to one. So this is either collusion, or a Guiness book of records coincidence. Which one seems more likely? Nice try though. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This dispute has gone on too long and I am losing sleep and developing a stomach ulcer from it. I would like to withdraw personally from dispute and defer to the opinion of the remaining DRN discussion participants regarding past faculty affiliations. Best, Chantoke (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Agree this has gone on too long. I concur with Nucleophilic's compromise proposal that "faculty" be replaced by "faculty or staff" or words to this effect. I have also removed the COI tag since it is not in contention here. Bandn (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment:Apparently too late, but just in case, I register my concurance with Nucleophilic and Bandn. Tempest in a tea-pot. Drjem3 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________

Comment: Now that we have established good faith all around and agreed upon socket puppetry actions required, if any, can we focus on the content of this article (WP:FOC)? Can we get rid of the entirely self referenced content and wait for the Doctor to achieve more in life for which he gets duly recognized, which in turn can be quoted here from independent and neutral third party sources? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Wikipedia. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Wikipedia articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Wikipedia - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I agree, viewing the dispute resolution guidelines discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (pyramid), it is centrally important to not focus on the editors but the article. I agree with the recommendations given by Wikishagnik above. Chantoke (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have encountered many problems with articles related to Peter Proctor, which I have discussed in detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 24#Peter Proctor and conducting polymers. I tend to share the views of Smokefoot on these matters. In my opinion, Proctor and McGinness get far more coverage on Wikipedia than they deserve. --Ben (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation - In trying to summarize various discussions taking place above I note that a large part of the discussion centered on which discovery should be credited to whom and who was the first to find it etc. There was also a large discussion that centered on who deserved the Nobel Prize etc. All participants to this discussion are reminded about (WP:NOT#FORUM) and that specifically citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Editors should have further stressed the need for NPOV by focusing on (WP:YESPOV) wich specifically states that in an article Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.. By ignoring Wikipedia Policy and engaging a debate on this topic editors turned this discussion into a debate and allowed it to spiral out of scope for article talk pages. Please remember that talk pages are meant to discuss the content of an article and not views of editors about the subject. Can we get some comments from Noleander at this point? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? - @Nucleophilic: you suggested using the term "faculty/staff" for the article. I didn't see the source which supported that ... could you again provide the source and a quote from the source which says "faculty/staff" or something similar? PS: To all: the DRN forum is limited to discussions of content only. Any discussions of behavior (e.g. canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc) are not permitted here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The sources are the addresses provided in the subject's published papers. E.g, this publication and this list his address as "Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine". Similarly, this lists his address as UTMB Gslveston, Department of Pharmacology. BTW, according to pubmed, the subjects first papers were in 1970. e.g, this one [2], which also contains an address not listed in the bio. I posted this material on the relevant talk page in reply to an inquiry for sources. Exactly how they were to be incorporated was left for later. I also posted these links to the papers so they can be read directly. Doubtless, I can find more. In wp:reliable sources peer-reviewed published papers like these are at the top of the list.

True, as is custom in the sciences, these do not list the subject's exact position. BTW, "research instructor" is a faculty position at most institutions. Often, the first rung on the academic ladder. IIRC Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows the use of material like this. In any case, I suggest "faculty or staff" to get around any ambiguity. I was preparing to back off on this issue (which seems trivial) subject to input of other editors when Chantoke brought it over here, compelling me to respond. A reading of the interchange will show that I was trying to reply to Chantoke's questions as well I could. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleophilic: I don't see anywhere in those sources that Proctor was faculty or staff. I think it would be a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the article to even imply that Proctor was on the faculty, which is a very significant position. Proctor has been working, according to the article, for decades in areas of high-profile research. If you cannot find one single source which says "Proctor is on the faculty/staff....", in plain words, that absence is very telling, and the info should be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, In academia, if somebody is not "faculty", they are "staff". Least that has always been my experience. Do you assert that he was not working at these institutions in the face of what the papers say? If he was, he was one or the other. You-all do what you want, pending other information. Which was what was happening when this "dispute" was brought here. Sheesh. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in WP we do not use "my experience" as a source. From your failure to supply sources, I take it there is no source which says "Proctor was on the faculty (or staff) of ...". Since there is no source that says that, the material cannot be in the article. If Proctor is notable enough for a WP article, there should be some sources discussing his career. The lack of sources is significant. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Wikipedia to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your input. If there are any specific changes to Peter Proctor article you think should be made, please describe them here (with a rationale). As for the bigger issue about violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they want to lodge complaints at WP:AN or WP:RFCU (again, WP:DRN is not the appropriate forum for promotional issues, because that is considered a behavior/conduct problem, and DRN is limited to content issues). --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, chantoke seems to have just changed his name to User talk:Lenny Kaufman. Unfortunately, this makes it that much harder to keep up with his edits. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleophilic: Could you reply to my question above about 4 posts above under Sources? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done above. Nucleophilic (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleophilic, you can check the contribs by going to Contributions under toolbox on the left. I guess you are confusing namespace change with sock puppetry and the former is allowed and does not change the stats of a user. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know the difference. It is just that User:Chantoke, now dubbed User talk:Lenny Kaufman, keeps doing things that make it difficult to track his posts. Deliberate? Beats me. Examples include hundreds of posts to single sites that fill up his edit list and using different names in his user links. It is true that the contribution list changes in accord with the name change, but other stuff stays with the old name. For an example or three, see this page. Now, he does a total namespace change. After a while, ya just lose track. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this is not the venue for conduct disputes right? Please stop making accusations about your perceptions in regard to what you think they are doing. Please address only the content dispute moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This dispute is ridiculous and has gone on too long. I would like to withdraw it and close the discussion. Please let me know if this is alright. Thanks. Lenny Kaufman ^talk 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can withdraw at any time - participating in DRN is entirely voluntary. I think it would be best to leave the discussion open for a few more days to see if other uninvolved editors can provide additional insight (such as when User:Benjah-bmm27 and user Smokefoot provided input). Even after the DRN case is closed, relevant issues can still be discussed at the article talk page and other dispute resolution forums, such as WP:RFC. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would like to recuse myself from the discussion and will not be making further edits to the article. Lenny Kaufman ^talk 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pelarmian (talk · contribs)
• Boundarylayer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, BoundaryLayer wants to include a controversial claim that its symbol, the well known peace sign, was used by the Nazis. Following lengthy discussion with BoundaryLayer, I reported the existence of the claim, citing Time magazine and Ken Kolsbun's history of the peace sign.

BoundaryLayer says it's not enough to report the controversy, the claim must be included as a fact. A Third Opinion advised that the article should remain neutral about whether the Nazis used the symbol or not. BoundaryLayer ignored that advice and added an edit saying the symbol was similar to "the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII in usage from 1941 until the end of the war. A number of experts in symbolism have noted that the CND symbol is similar to the Algiz Tudesrune, originally a Nordic runic symbol, but in present day Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or the inverted life rune."

This is tendentious editing. It synthesises sources that don't actually say that the CND symbol is similar to a symbol used by the Nazis. "Experts in symbolism" is also a tendentious phrase.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion requested.

How do you think we can help?

Advise whether or not the article should endorse this claim and whether the controversy is significant enough even to be reported, and, if so, in what terms it should be reported.

Opening comments by Boundarylayer

Hello, I haven't been ignoring the debate, I've simply not logged into Wiki in a few days.

The dispute resolves over the fact that another user does, number one, not wish for readers to know what ominious symbol the republican paper was referring to, and number two, and most bizarrely, they do not wish for the opinions of experts in symbolism, nor the opinion of the former head of the CND herself, to be included in the article.

Linked below is the edit that was recently removed. None of the references provided are in dispute. I would be glad to discuss with the other user, or collaborate on an edit that they would feel appropriate, however, sadly, this does not appears to be something they wish to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&oldid=531168110#Organised_opposition_to_CND

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament discussion

Boundarylayer seems to be ignoring the discussion (see talk page of article), but I've left a comment on his talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer wants to insert into the CND article a statement saying that CND’s symbol was similar to “the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII” The claim is controversial and therefore needs particularly good references, which Boundarylayer does not provide. His edit synthesises sources to produce a statement that none of them makes and on the Talk page his lengthy justifications also contain synthesis and original research.

The source he cites for the “Algiz Tudesrune” is Carl J. Liungman’s Book of Symbols. What Liungman actually says is that the CND sign “can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune Y, turned upside down." He does not mention “the Algiz Tudesrune” and he does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division. (Liungman, by the way, has an amateur interest in semiotics, has not published in refereed journals and is not recognised as an "expert in symbolism" by anyone with academic credibility. His Book of Symbols appears to be vanity publishing.)

Boundarylayer cites Time magazine, which says of the peace sign, “some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet,” but it does not mention “a Nordic runic symbol” and it does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division.

Peggy Duff, the ex-general secretary of CND, is said to support this connection between CND and the Nazis, but in the citation given she does nothing of the kind. She does not say that the CND symbol was the “Algiz Tudesrune” or a “Nordic” runic symbol (she describes it merely as a “runic symbol”), she does not say that “in Germany and Austria it is called the Todesrune” and she does not say that it was “the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division.”

The controversial claims about the peace sign are already referred to in the article. This careless edit only adds Boundarylayer’s original research, which has nothing to do with the history of CND. Pelarmian (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking I think Pelarmian is right about this. --BozMo talk 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH violation? - The primary article for discussing the peace symbol should be (and is) the Peace Sign article. That article already contains a mention of the purported similarity to a Nazi symbol. The article that is the subject of this DRN case is about the CND. The CND article should discuss how the CND participated in creating that symbol, but details about the history of the symbol should only be in the CND article if the sources mention the CND. I'm looking at the quotes from the sources above given by Pelarmian but I don't see a source that mentions both the CND and the Nazis. Connecting two sources together to cause the word "Nazi" to appear in the CND article is a violation of the WP:SYNTH policy. So, my question is: Is there a reliable source that explicitly mentions both the CND and the nazis? Absent that, the Nazi material should be removed from the CND article (but the readers can still learn about it by clicking on the Peace sign link). --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of Young Justice episodes#Edit-warring (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LoveWaffle (talk · contribs)
• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is basically a question over how similar a re-worded statement can be from its source without qualifying as a copyright violation. Particularly, this concerns brief plot synopses for upcoming episodes of the Cartoon Network animated series Young Justice announced via press release. I provided a re-worded version of the synopses for the episodes' entries on the List of Young Justice episodes. Jack Sebastian then removes them, calling them copyright violations, and replaces them with a re-worded version that, in my opinion, is significantly closer to the source material. Since I consider that a copyright violation, I restore the old version (mine) of the page. Jack Sebastian removes them again and...you see where this is going.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Jack Sebastian and I have, in simplest terms, had it out with this dispute. In two different locations, even. However, as Jack Sebastian is now making personal attacks and doing everything in his ability to block me from contributing to the discussion, my hands are now tied.

How do you think we can help?

As I said, Jack Sebastian has made personal attacks and is doing everything to keep me out of the discussion. To be honest, I don't know if I could continue the discussion without doing the same. I need the dispute to be resolved quickly before this escalates and at least one of us winds up blocked.

Opening comments by Jack Sebastian

Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable discussion

It appears to me that there have been third parties who have intervened in this dispute at the article talk page after it was listed here and that discussion has become unstuck. Unless someone objects, I or another DRN volunteer will close this case 24 hours after this posting. If the listing party is considering objecting, however, they need to take into consideration that the listing will probably be closed nonetheless if the other party does not choose to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Juan Manuel de Rosas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lecen (talk · contribs)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs)
• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the past three years Cambalachero and I have clashed over certain aspects of Argentine history. The main issue right now is about Juan Manuel de Rosas who ruled Argentina from 1829 until 1852. I pointed out that he is regarded by historians a dictator and a ruthless one. Cambalachero, on the other hand, says that historians regard Rosas a democratically elected leader.

This issue was discussed years ago in Platine War talk page and was recently discussed in Juan Manuel de Rosas own article. I requested a Third Opinion and Noleander volunteered to help. After a long debate he agreed with me that Rosas was a dictator, that historians generally agree that he was a dictator and that Cambalachero's view is Revisionism and can not be taken as mainstream view regarding the matter. Nonetheless Cambalachero has refused to back down and that's why I came here. I need the help of other authors in dealing with this problem.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• 1) Long and futile discussion in Platine War talk page.
• 2) Long and futile discussion in Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
• 3) Requested third opinion from a neutral editor.

How do you think we can help?

Cambalachero has argued that the article should say that Rosas was a dictator according to some historians but not to others. That Rosas killed thousands of innocent people according to some historians and none according to others. And so on and on. For obvious reasons, an article in Wikipedia can not be presented as two heads sharing a same body. As Noleander remarked: ""If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority"

Opening comments by Cambalachero

First of all, Lecen misrepresents my words. I do not say that historians, as an unified body, say that Rosas was democratic. I pointed that there are many who said so, that the view of Rosas as a dictator is not universal, and that modern Argentine historians have already ended that dispute. Although the historians who did not condemn Rosas were known as "revisionists", the most respected Argentine historians and heads of academic institutions (all there in the talk) point that this "revisionism" has been incorporated into the standard academic knowledge of Argentina; thus, a paradigm shift took place and it is not revisonism anymore. Again, it is not me who says that, it is fully referenced (it may be long or boring to read, but the references are there). And respected tertiary sources pointing the current consensus over a topic are better than discussing ourselves which is that consensus. As for English-speaking sources, John Lynch points himself that Rosas is completely forgotten in it, that nobody studies him; then discussing the current consensus among English-speaking sources is abstract and mostly pointless. To avoid Systemic bias we should consider the body of authors who do work heavily on this and related topics (Argentine Spanish-speaking historians).

In short: Lecen wants the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, "Rosas was a dictator". I think instead that the article should point who considered Rosas a dictator, who did not, and which is the current state of the historiographical dispute (which is resolved). As it is done in the article Oliver Cromwell, the focus of a similar real-world controversy, and checked and edited by far more English-speaking editors: the word is present but always attributed, never in a "Cromwell was a dictator" way, even when we wouldn't lack sources to reference it. Besides, Wikipedia has a policy to avoid contentious labels. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion

Comment - Last week I tried to help resolve the dispute by offering a Third Opinion in the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page. For that reason, I'll recuse myself from acting as a DRN volunteer here. FWIW, my opinion is that there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances. The article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on. At a minium, the article needs to state that "many historians consider him a dictator". The next issue is whether the article can state that "Rosas is a dictator" in the encyclopedia's voice. User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You requested sources and they have been provided. If they are too long or boring for you to read them, step aside and let someone else do it, don't act as if they were not given. As for Lecen's "very strong" sources, check again: they are sources of other topics, making mere passing-by comments about Rosas. They do not adress the historiography aspect of Rosas, they don't have in-depth coverage, their content is trivial. Academics that talk about the historiography of Rosas should take priority over mere google searches for basic terms. Cambalachero (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the sources you provided were inadequate, as explained in the Talk page discussion. Feel free to pick 3 or 4 of your best sources and re-quote them here in the DRN case. Be sure to clearly identify the historian & their credentials. --Noleander (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, you don't have to go very far. An entire chapter of Lyman L. Johnson's "Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America" is focused in Juan Manuel de Rosas' legacy in Argentina, from his downfall in 1852 until the present-day (see Chapter 4, beginning with page 105). The author said: "If Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina's most brutal politician of the nineteenth century, can be reinvented as a symbol of patriotic resistance to foreign oppression..." (page 13). The chapter reveals how Rosas was used by some politicians (mainly Juan Perón, who was also a dictator) as a tool for their own needs. Is every English speaking historian biased against Rosas? --Lecen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This claim about Perón has already been refuted at the talk page. I cited Fernando Devoto, titular teacher of theory and history of the historiography at the "Faculty of Philosophy and Words", and researcher at the Ravignani institute, author of the book "History of the Argentine historiography" (as you see, a much more specific book for the topic at hand). Perón did not promote revisionism in a political manner over the natural work of academic institutions. Here and here you have scanned pages with all the details. As for the repatriation of Rosas’ body, Menem did not intend to start a "cult of Rosas", but rather make a symbolic end to the disputes that once divided the country. Check his speech here. Yes, it departs from the academic background (the fate of the body of a historical man is not part of his historiography), but it reconfirms that the dispute is over.

Horacio González, president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, had this interview. He said about revisionism that "From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first" (in other words, a paradigm shift).

Félix Luna was also a university teacher, Secretary of Culture of Buenos Aires, and received the Konex Award. In the book "With Rosas or against Rosas" he wrote "Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance."

Luis Alberto Romero, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martín and the UBA, wrote this. "Historical revisionism, a historiographical movement that defied that perspective, added original causes – a romantic idea of the people, a hostile perspective of Britain, reinvidicaton of Rosas and caudillos – but ultimately it was built over similar premises, and when it was traducted for the schools it was as a moderate and pacific version, complementary rather than alternative of the dominant one". In other words, revisionism has been incorporated into the standard view of history, and national education teachs that.

Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, director of the National Academy of History, wrote the book "Argentine Military campaigns". He pointed in the prologue that "It is not the task of the one who reconstructs them [note: the historical peoples] to defend or condemn them: just to point how did they acted in the events where they have been involved".

The quotes may be expanded if required, but I hope they are concise enough for the layman now. As you see they are not descriptions of Rosas himself, so that we define ourselves how do historians see Rosas (a task borderline with original research), but descriptions of academics who have already done that job. I may also add that, more than a century after his death and with his political party extinct, Rosas appears in the Argentine currency. No despised dictator would have such honor, which is reserved for the most remarkable people of a country. He also has a national day. Cambalachero (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a dozen sources identified here which state plainly that "Rosas was a dictator" or something similar. To rebut that, I'd expect to see sources that say something like "Historians sometimes claim that Rosas was a dictator, but they are wrong because blah, blah ..". Let's look at your sources to see if they say that:

• Devoto - No.
• González - No.
• Luna - No.
• Romero - No.
• Moreno - No.

I asked you to provide your 3 or 4 best sources that asserted that Rosas was not a dictator, and you did not provide a single one. --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a Latin American historian, I completely agree with Cambalachero. As all history students should know, even those who have skimmed a history book every now and then, certain characters and events are highly controversial. Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of these characters, a person who during his lifetime was lauded by his supporters and despised by his opponents. This has translated into the historiographical study of the person, with academics taking opposing sides in the issue. I support the notion that the Wikipedia article should reflect the complexity of the issue without taking a specific side, the opposite of what is proposed by Lecen.

• Note: What I also find strange is what exactly Lecen plans to do with having Rosas classified as a dictator? What does Lecen plan to do with what he considers the "minority view"?

Lastly, I find Noleander's statement about me ("obfuscate and stonewall") quite insulting. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, for the fifth time, I ask: Can you provide a few reliable sources that state something like: "Contrary to what some historians say, Rosas was not a dictator because blah blah .."? My "obfuscate and stonewall" comment is accurate, because the prior 4 times I've asked that same question, I've received lengthy replies that did not respond to the question. Most recently, immediately above in Cambalachero's reply (where he lists five sources that do not even mention the word "dictator"). --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal (focusing only on the Rosas article for now) - What if we create a new section in the article that focuses on the dictator issue. We include the reliable sources that state he was or was not a dictator. For the short term, we attribute all the sources (that is, we do not use the encyclopedia's voice). Since this is not an article on historical revisionism, we avoid sources that are only discussing revisionism, and limit ourselves to sources that simply state whether or not Rosas was a dictator. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are running in circles here. According to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, tertiary sources (in this case, historians talking about the historians who talk about Rosas) are a better way to determine due weight and academic consensus than reading secondary sources (historians talking about Rosas) and trying to decide that ourselves. As for Lecen's list, I just made a review at the talk page, perhaps you'll see that the list is not so strong as it seemed on first sight. As for your proposal, there is already such a section in Sum of public power#Controversy, which is mentioned in the main article in summary style: "There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order. Of course, it is limited to the controversy of the time being (anything else would easily go off-topic). The historiography of Rosas has a special section, once the proper biography is over. Cambalachero (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not running in circles. (1) Despite being asked five times, you still have not provided any sources that rebut the numerous modern historians that claim Rosas was a dictator; (2) The sentence in the article you cite ("There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento ... while José de San Martín ... ") presents the opinions of two of Rosas contemporaries (politicians from the 19th century). The proposed compromise is suggesting adding material based on the analysis of modern, objective historians. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if a significant number of renowned historians state that Rosas was not a dictator, this information should be included in the article. Which are the sources that state this? A statement in WP must be sourced, so present those sources and if they are reliable then be done with the issue. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Criticism and historical perspective" is the place where any discussion on Rosas' government should and already takes place within the article. Based on this, Noleander's proposal does not make sense.

I further disagree with Noleander's claim that no single source has been provided by Cambalachero. From my perspective, the following sources effectively support the position that the modern historiography aims to provide a balanced look of the individual:

1. Félix Luna (With Rosas or against Rosas): "Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance."
2. Horacio González: "He said about revisionism that 'From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first'." (Quoting Cambalachero)
3. Luis Alberto Romero: Revisionism (Rosas was not a dictator) is now complementary with the view that Rosas was a dictator (Paraphrasing the quote provided by Cambalachero).

NOTE: The term "revisionism" essentially means "Rosas was not a dictator" (for all those that don't get the point). Those who wrote in favor of Rosas, following his fall from power, were called "revisionists" and the title stuck with them even to this day.

That none of these sources directly state "Rosas was not a dictator" does not mean that it is not what they mean. Anyone that does not know what "revisionism" means when it comes to Rosas is simply ignorant of the historiographical dispute. I think Cambalachero's mistake is to not have explained this to Noleander, but I hope my explanation clears things up.

Regards.-- MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Revisionism does not mean that "esssentially Rosas was not a dictator". You have clearly no knowledge of what is under discussion here. You are not helping at all. Not even Revisionists argue that Rosas was not a dictator. Noleander pretty much summarized quite well the problem: "there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances". A fine example can be found in a Revisionist work: "There is no doubt that Rosas can be criticized for his tendency to authoritarianism. Nothing justifies persecutions, throat-cutting or execution by fire squad. But his supporters [Revisionists] are correct when they argue that the official history is determined to place over his shoulders all the violence of his era ... According to them [Revisionists] it [Rosas' rule] was not a bloody tyranny, but a paternalistic autocracy ... which was what national and international circumstances allowed." Source: page 20 of O'Donnell, Pacho. Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Norma, 2009. ISBN 978-987-545-555-9 Thus, MarshalN20, either you start reading a single book about Rosas or get out of here. --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily for me, I do have the book you just quoted. I do not use it very often, but let's see. You quoted "but a paternalistic autocracy ... which was what national and international circumstances allowed" The "..." means that there is a part of the quote that was ommited. For going off-topic, perhaps? No. Let me make the complete quote: "According to them it was not a bloody tyranny, but a paternalistic autocracy, the closest thing to a democracy (from greek "demokratía", "government of the people"), that national and international circumstances allowed." I bolded the part that Lecen carefully removed from the quote. And to confirm that, unlike Lecen, my translation is faithful word by word to the original material, with no removals or changes that modify its meaning, check here, the scanned page directly from the book. Pacho O'Donell is the president of the "Manuel Dorrego" national institute. Cambalachero (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That blatant omission by Lecen is a clear indiciation of source manipulation. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

With regards to Lecen's unfounded accusations of me not reading about Rosas, I disagree with them. In essence, revisionists do not see Rosas as a dictator (in the modern sense). Hence, I wrote the word "essentially".

Again, my view is that a balanced evaluation of the individual is necessary, and not an "encyclopedic voice" telling the reader what to believe.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall: the word "revisionism" means a change to accepted (or prior) historical understanding (or interpretation). You may personally feel that in the context of Rosas, the opinons of revisionists were that he was not a dictator, but WP cannot rely on your personal feelings. I see one quote (immediately above) on how revisionists feel about Rosas-as-a-dictator. What other sources say something like "Revisionists generally believe that Rosas was not a dictator because ... " or something similar? --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal #2

(Following up on MarshalN20's suggestion) - We add material to the "Criticism and historical perspective" which addresses the various viewpoints of modern scholars (not 19th c. contemporaries). We include historians that call him a "dictator" and we include historians that say he was not a dictator, but instead was ...blah, blah. In all cases, we identify the historians by name per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I know nothing about Rosas, and I am here because volunteers were apparently requested. It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". See for instance the article on Fidel Castro and the article on Hugo Chavez - in both cases some people see him as a dictator and others as a savior. We need to guard against simply adopting the USA opinion, and to take account of other viewpoints, and the differing standards of other periods in history. One hardly sees a medieval or biblical king being labelled as a dictator, although they certainly wielded more power - and murdered more innocent people - than the average despot of modern times. Nowhere does Wikipedia describe Christopher Columbus or Douglas MacArthur as dictators, although at a stage in their lives both of them were undoubtedly dictators of substantial territories, and wielded absolute power with no mandate from those being governed. I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context. I hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[re-indented to be under Compr #2 .. since it seems to dovetail with that] --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wdford: You make some excellent point. I think you would agree that there is a big difference between (A) a figure that some contemporaries condemned as a dictator (Columbus? McArthur?); and (B) a figure that (some) modern historians explicitly call a "dictator". For case (A), the encyclopedia could omit the opinions of contemporaries if modern historians are silent on the matter. But in case (B), the article should represent what those historians say. Of course, if other historians say "not a dictator" that should be included also. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can not agree with Noleander nor with Wdford. You are both giving undue weight for a Revisionism school, which is not even mainstream. We can't place in Rosas' article two different and opposing views as they had the same weight. It's an absurd. It doesn't make sense at all. Am I the only one who has noticed that so far I have brought sources while Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have given nothing more but their personal opinions? What the f&%@ is that? Since when reliable sources have the same weight as Wikipedians' personal opinions? --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would come out in the proportionality of the material. If there are five neutral historians that say "is a dictator" and only 2 that say "is not", that would speak for itself. Furthermore, if the historian is biased, that fact can and should be presented in the article. It would also help if there was a source that said "The revisionists are biased" or "the revisionists are not in the mainstream". --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the article has to be completely rewritten using reliable sources. The situation has reached such a ridiculous point that what I just said seems novel. We must use reliable sources in that article. That's all. Nothing more. Cambalachero hasn't provided any reliable book that says that Rosas was not a dictator nor that Revisionists are reliable (if they were mainstream as Cambalachero claimed, why are they called Revisionists, then?). What we could do is to add in the "Legacy" section a couple of paragraphs about the Argentine Revisionism and its views relating to Rosas. But the main body of the text must be based on reliable, credible and accepted sources. --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At last, the rabbit comes out of the hat. I completely disagree with Lecen's intentions.

I support Noleander's second proposal.

The Luis Alberto Romero source is actually pretty clear in that "revisionism" is on the same level as the traditional history of Rosas (in Argentina).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for an outline of a new paragraph (or subsection) within the Criticism section, which goes something like this:

Many modern historians consider Rosas to be a dictator or tyrant. Historian A wrote "blah blah". Historian B wrote "blah blah". Historian C write "blah blah". Other historians, generally affiliated with Argentinian revisionist school of thought, are more sympathetic to Rosas. Historian D wrote ".he was not so bad because blah blah...", Historain E wrote "..blah blah .". Historian F suggests that the revisionist school of thought is biased because blah blah. Revisionist Historan G suggests that F is biased because blah blah.

Of course, every sentence would be sourced to a reliable source. The final two "bias" sentences are just placeholders in case there are documented allegations of bias ... there may be none, in which case those "bias" sentences would not appear. --Noleander (talk)

I have two questions: 1) How is it possible to write an entire article with opposing views if Cambalachero hasn't brought a single source so far? 2) How am I able to write an article about a person if every paragraph I'll have to present two opposing views? Would you like to read an article written the way you proposed above in the quotation? Do you believe the average reader will like to read it? It would be confusing and boring and absurd. There is not a single book in English that gives any credibility toward Argentine Revisionism. Why should it even be mentioned in the main body of text, then? --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Narcissism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Individualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Penbat (talk · contribs)
• Shadowjams (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Link between Individualism and Narcissism is in violation of WP:IRS. Attempt to remove the content has resulted in an ongoing edit war. Repeated requests have been made to discuss the content on the talk page, but other users have refused to engage me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeatedly asked the other users to engage me on the talk page. Tried to seek advice at WP:AN#Burden of Proof. Tried to tag the content instead of delete it, but Wiki-markup does not seem to allow tags on links.

How do you think we can help?

Enforce WP:IRS, and remove the content until sources are cited and a case has been made.

Opening comments by Penbat

Opening comments by Shadowjams

I'm hardly involved in this outside of concerns about edit warring. For context see WP:AN#Burden of Proof and the previous ANI at [3]. The only new comments were added within the last few hours, and the old discussion from December 29 was accompanied by the originator of this being blocked for edit warring. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism, Individualism discussion

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Babak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Babak Khorramdin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Boboszky (talk · contribs)
• Espiral (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Wikipedia-Editor, I’m trying to resolve an issue I’m having with the user Espiral in regards to the articles Babak (given name) and Babak Khorramdin (both related to the same point “etymology” of the given name Babak). Based on the work of the renowned Iranologist Richard Frye available on Encyclopædia Iranica, I’ve edited both articles adding the fact that the given name Babak is the modern Persian form of the name Pāpak (or Pābag), which derived from Middle Persian. The link to the article can be found here http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babak-3rd-cent-ruler I’ve therefore restructured the paragraph and removed the reference to “arabicised”. As per the Wikipedia article, Arabization refers to “a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture and Arab identity.”, which doesn’t apply since Babak (in it’s current form) is a Persian given name only in use in Iran and Azerbaijan and isn’t in use in any Arab country. Since my changes keep being removed by the user Espiral, who doesn't accept the given sources and since we unfortunately couldn’t come to any agreement via my talk page User talk:Boboszky I would highly appreciate your help to defuse the argument, in order to have objective content on both pages. Many thanks in advance. Boboszky (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We tried to come to an agreement via my talk page User talk:Boboszky

How do you think we can help?

With an unbiased approach on the matter and a detailed review of the given sources, I hope to clear the matter.

Opening comments by Espiral

Babak, Babak Khorramdin discussion