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, 246

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

• Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview by Wee Curry Monster

Although currently being conducted at Self-determination, its a reprise of a disucssion that has been raised by the same two editors User:Gaba p and User:Langus-Txt at Falkland Islands,Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and other articles such as Luis Vernet. It refers to a historical event in the Falkland Islands in 1833.

In 1833, the British government sent a warship to expel the Argentine garrison that had been there for 3 months. Whilst the garrison was expelled as planned, the existing settlement remained under the British flag. There are two contemporary eye witness reports on this incident, the reports of captains of the British and Argentine warships present. Both confirm the summary above and are verified by other records.

In its modern sovereignty claim, Argentina claims the entire population was expelled and replaced by British settlers. Noting the above, several prominent historians point out this is untrue.

Langus-Txt and Gaba p would like to replace a neutral text that summarises the above with text that re-inforces the Argentine claim. They argue it doesn't matter whether a source is contradicted by the historical record, what matters is that it is recorded in a source they can quote - even when the source references a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source that makes a different claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised at WP:NPOVN repeatedly and at WP:RSN

How do you think we can help?

I would hope for a neutral 3rd party comment on the correct approach to dealing with a sensitive matter reflecting the differing national agendas from a neutral perspective, rather than as demanded to reflect particular national agendas.

Opening comments by Gaba p

As I see it Wee is engaging in WP:OR to attempt to present some sources as documented facts and others as untrue or invalid or just lies. The disputed source is the book Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands by Lopez. The source states verbatim: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". From Wee's perspective, the historical documents present a version that contradicts the above statement (WP:OR). My point is that we present the sources that make contradicting claims (as we already do: Cawkell and Harpers) but also present this one since there is no valid reason not to, other than it conflicting with sources Wee seems to like best.

The two edits of mine I assume Wee has a problem with in that article, are:

1. A ^{[citation needed]} tag for an official Argentinian claim. Wee attempts to source this claim with the Lopez's book claiming Lopez "is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position". I argue that that book represents the official Argentinian version as much as the books by Cawkell & Harper represent the British position. This for example is a valid source for an official Argentinian position. Lopez's is an investigative historical book just as those by Cawkell & Harper are.
2. I introduced the sentence: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British.[7], where the ref [7] points to Lopez's book. Wee removed this whole statement arguing that the author does not analyze British sources (accusing me of citation fraud). I responded that such fact is in the name of the book: Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Opening comments by Langus-TxT

"The existing settlement remained under the British flag" is an erroneous statement, as some of the settlers did leave as a consequence of British seizure.

Having said that, the problem here is being misrepresented by Wee Curry Monster. The real issue is that he insists on doing his own interpretation of historical records to "select" which secondary sources are wrong and which are right. This is called Original Research. The proper guidelines for selection of sources is WP:IRS, where you won't find anything remotely similar to "whether a source is contradicted by the historical record or not".

The question was recently raised at Wikipedia:NPOVN#What_is_a_NPOV.3F, but only achieved tangential comments that didn't address the question. Fours months ago, the same question was raised by the same editor at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. The comments that time were quite explicit, but WCM insists that they favored his call for original research.

So the real question here is: is it ok for us to pay attention at the "contemporary eye witness reports" and get ourselves in the analysis proposed by WCM in his opening statement? My answer (backed by the comments in the second thread and insight gained from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ) is NO.

Self-determination discussion

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We await all opening statements before we begin, however, while we wait, Langus-TxT please do either of two things: Either remove comments from uninvolved parties or add the members to the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question to parties: what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict? What is the most prominent viewpoint among modern historians? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij, before we begin, I would like to clear up the issue with involved parties. We should not be using the comments of Wikipedia members unless they are notified and included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the above query. The prominent viewpoint among neutral modern historians reflects the contemporary sources. There were 2 populations present at the time.

1. A garrison sent some 3 months before to set up a penal colony for the Republic of Buenos Aires. This had mutinied killing the commander after only 4 days.

2. An established settlement, formed by Luis Vernet.

The prominent viewpoint is that the garrison was requested to leave by the British warship and complied, the established settlement was encouraged to remain.

Like I say thats the neutral academic sources, the Argentine Government publications repeat the claim of an expulsion. Lopez referred to above is an Argentine official and if you refer to the source he references, Goebel, Goebel makes no such claim but confirms the above see [1]. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist I left a comment in the talk page of both editors asking them if they could stop by. Is that what you meant?

Regarding the neutral modern historians viewpoint the problem is defining neutral. I have no reason to believe Lopez is not neutral more than I have to believe Cawkell & Harper are not neutral. Lopez is not acting as an Argentinian official but as an author, thus his book is by no means a statement on the official position of Argentina on the matter.

I'd like Wee to expose his reasons to believe Lopez is not neutral if he is in fact making such a claim. In the case that Wee should make the claim that Lopez is not neutral, I'd like to remind him that Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet, a highly biased source, is used extensively in all Falklands related articles; the use of which he has defended time after time.

Let me also quote Wee on a previous discussion regarding the inclusion of contradicting sources (Laver vs P&P's pamphlet):

"...On the one hand [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time, Wee defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. I don't see what could be different this time between these contradicting sources. Gaba p (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comments, and I apologize to the editors if they felt it was inappropriate. I'm leaving the links to those to threads as the matter discussed is exactly the same.

Before continuing I urge everyone to review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. I question the idea of "neutral" sources mentioned by Czarkoff, as every writer I've read takes a side on the dispute, even if subtly. In fact, that's part of the problem here: that some of the civilians stayed on the islands is a fact that is remarked by British-biased authors, who prefer to ignore or downplay those who did leave and the whole Argentine garrison who was indisputably and wholly expelled. --Langus (t) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Czarkoff said that. I believe he asked about modern sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Langus refers to Czarkoff's mention of "what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict?". He's asking for neutral & modern sources and Langus questions (as I did before him) the disputable neutral quality of any source (be it modern or not) As I said, I have no more reasons to believe Lopez's investigation is not neutral as I have to believe Cawkell's investigation is not. Gaba p (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, however if you look at the italics he is simply asking what modern scholars have to say about the subject. Neutral as in, don't look for someone who is taking a stand or forming an opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that approach is problematic, because sources that Wee Curry Monster calls "neutral" are pro-British texts to me, even if subtly, and vice versa. The intersection of "Neutral according to WCM" and "Neutral according to Langus" is probably an empty set.

As such, the only way we can have "neutral" sources would be if you decide it for yourself which of them are really neutral, or if you choose to believe Wee Curry Monster over me, or Gaba p over WCM, etc. --Langus (t) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might help the mediators to understand Langus's issues with any source I propose if they refer to this post of his [2]. Its worth quoting:

You encourage someone to stay but if they choose to leave, then they were apparently expelled. Fundamentally I think the problem here is that rather than seeing the Argentine position described from a neutral perspective, Langus and Gaba want the article to give the Argentine POV and thats why there is a conflict. When you use a source to describe the Argentine POV from a neutral perspective they falsely claim it is WP:OR because it doesn't represent their POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I take over your house at gun point claiming that it's mine from now on but you're welcome to stay as a guest? If you leave then it's because you are choosing to do so, right? I mean, I encouraged you to stay. This analogy is intended to demonstrate how you attempt to ridicule and minimize an invasion.

I think the problem actually is your double standards, let me present your comments once again:

"...On the one hand [referring to Langus & me or just to one of us, I'm not sure] you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. [referring to P&P's pamphlet] That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Merely four months ago you defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source (and a quite biased one, it is worth noting) when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. Now the tables turn and so do you, something I'm sadly already used to. Gaba p (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course forgetting that Vernet frequently expressed a preference for British protection of his settlement, Vernet had sought British permission for the venture, the multinational nature of the venture and the number of Britains involved. But this is your WP:OR and we express the opinions expressed in sources not WP:OR. My point Gaba is that the neutral sources are not contradictory and the one source you have suggested attributes a claim to the author that the author doesn't make. By all means include a rebuttal but one based on reliable sources that make verifiable claims. OK? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that my friend is that no source will ever be neutral to you if it backs an Argentinian claim, as you are demonstrating right now. You are deciding which sources are neutral based on your WP:OR and you are deciding Lopez is not neutral while giving us no source to account for that claim. It's quite hard to argue with that you know? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers. It seems people wish to confuse the mediation process by claiming something different from what they were previously arguing so I encourage the mediators to look at the rather rambling and confusing talk page discussion.

Further if you look at my edits I do not favour either British or Argentine sources; I judge sources on their merits and you will never hear me reject a source solely because of its nationality. Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above. Further it isn't a British claim "we only expelled a garrison", in fact no part of the justification for British sovereignty refers to whether the population was expelled or not. That is completely unsourced WP:OR by Gaba and Langus in an attempt to lower the historical record to be a British claim in line with the modern Argentine sovereignty claim. Whereas as I've pointed out above, neutral academic historians of all nationalities suggest that the Argentine claim is false.

The only reason I would reject the use of a source, is on those occasions where the source makes a claim that fails verification. Again in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud. Despite clearly indulging in WP:OR themselves, Langus and Gaba loudly accuse others of doing the same for checking the reliability or otherwise of a source.

Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison. Langus and Gaba wish to add a statement that, according to Lopez's book, the population was expelled and this is confirmed by British sources. My issue with that claim is (A) it relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN since the argument is that since Lopez's book is supposedly based on British sources ergo the claim must be confirmed by British sources and (B) Lopez refers to Goebel who does not make the claim attributed to him. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers", source for this entire claim of yours please? I ask because I have not seen this in the official UN release used as a source in the article. Could you provide a source?

"Neutral academic sources of all nations reflect the summary above", source please?

"in the case of Lopez, the claim attributed to Goebel does not reflect Goebel's research; ie the author has committed citation fraud", source? Starting to see a pattern here Wee? (Hint: WP:OR)

"Currently the article now reflects what Gaba and Langus now acknowledge - that Argentina claims the population was expelled but that historians only note the expulsion of the garrison", misleading in every possible way. The conflicting sources state that settlers were expelled versus only a garrison was expelled. This is nowhere to be found in the article because you edited it out, remember? Even more, the Lopez book is used (because you put it there) as a source for the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit whose logic I still can't understand.

The issue here is very simple: Wee refuses to accept the inclusion of the sentence "On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British." (sourced by Lopez's book) because he dislikes or disapproves its implications. Sadly for him, that's not a valid reason to keep a source out nor is it his extensive WP:OR on the matter.

I recommend Wee to please go check WP:ASF because I believe it states clearly the path to follow in these cases, ie: present the sources and attribute them clearly. Gaba p (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly [4] and I quote:

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has been challenged before and supplied before [5]. This habit of demanding cites repeatedly for the same thing is hampering any move forward in the discussion.

Again you're accusing me without justification of conducting, WP:OR no that is not WP:OR, it is verifying the claim made in the book. If Lopez refers to Akehurst, where he attributes a statement to Goebel and when checking that statement we find it contradictory, we shouldn't be using it. If I were to conduct my own research of WP:PRIMARY sources and conclude that Lopez were wrong that would be different, Lopez did the research I am merely checking his claim and finding that it doesn't match. The simple question arises here, why would you use a claim made in a source you know fails verification?

Neutral academic source [6]

Just to point out for the benefit of the mediators, this has challenged before and supplied before [7]. I've lost count, what is it, 10 or 15 times now?

Just to be sure, you're claiming I've edited that out of the article. Current version [8]

Rather plainly I have not.

Were you to apply WP:ASF, the claim made by Lopez is attributed to Goebel, as I have pointed out repeatedly, Goebel does not make the claim ascribed to him. To do so is citation fraud. See [9], again this cite has been supplied repeatedly. The only reason for objecting to that statement I have already pointed out above, your response is nothing but an accusation of bad faith and you haven't addressed the main reason why - the statement is falsely attributed to Goebel.

I've also repeatedly pointed out to you, it is not a British claim, it is not part of the case made for British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, its what neutral academic historians point out and I've asked you for a source to back up your assertion its a British claim rather than a reflection of what neutral histories state. You have not supplied any such source, further you are unable to provide any source to verify any such claims.

As pointed out to you at WP:NPOVN back in May, we do not present matters from the British and Argentine POV to achieve a NPOV, we achieve a NPOV by describing the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No Wee, I asked you for a source stating precisely the entire part you claimed. This one does not so you were wrong before or purposely twisting words just a tiny bit to adjust to what you want them to say (as usual) That said, this is a correct source for the Argentinian claim that the population was expelled, including the garrison which of course is part of the population. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wee my friend that is the definition of WP:OR. If you have a source then present it, do not put forward your own analysis as a fact. And you haven't addressed my request of copy/pasting the part that proves Lopez is committing citation fraud. Could you please do so? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Correction: neutral academic source says Wee. I have no reason to believe you that Cawkell is a neutral source any more than I have to believe you that Lopez is not. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Wee you have. You edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. You deleted the mention to Lopez research and then used it as it were an official Argentinian source to reference the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination", an edit that I still can not understand. What is it that you are not comprehending? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That is WP:OR since you have absolutely no source to back that statement up. As WP:ASF says: "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree". Sources disagree hence we present both sources. You are trying to wikilawyer a source out based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The British claim part was not present in the version of the article you defiled (go see for yourself) so I have no idea why you keep insisting on this. Perhaps to divert attention from the fact that you are hell-bent on obscuring a source you disagree with? Gaba p (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Achieving a NPOV is very hard to do when you keep biasing this and other articles to suit your British preference Wee. Gaba p (talk)

The source does verify the claim and could you please point to the edit where I removed the source that the entire population was removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I never said that. It was you who brought that point up, who knows why. I just pointed out that the garrison is a part of the population hence the Argentinian claim is backed by British sources. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused me of removing that source, it was in my edit of 24 August, could you point to it, please. And again your claim now is different from the one you were making in talk. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, here it goes: you edited out (deleted , removed, made go away, etc...) the sentence mentioning Lopez research^[4]. You removed both the source and the statement. Comprende? Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I have repeatedly addressed that, I even provide a link to the correct page in Goebel using Google books. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I told you it was inaccessible to me and asked you to copy/paste the part where you understand it disproves Lopez as a source for everyone to see. Is that so hard to do? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've told me that, could you please point out where? I can of course copy the text at some point this evening if I have the time and would have done so already if I'd reaslise you requested it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't access the book you're pointing to, please copy/paste the section you are referring to as disproving Lopez statement", Gaba p (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC). Asked two days ago. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you a couple of reasons why Lopez is not a neutral source, Lopez is a former Argentine ambassador responsible for the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. Secondly the claim attributed to Goebel isn't made by Goebel and I've provided you a link. You have given no reason as to why you consider Cawkell a none-neutral source.

"Lopez is a former Argentine ambassador" <-- wikilawyering + ad hominem

"the claim attributed to Goebel isn't made by Goebel" <-- still no source presented for this claim. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The preference is for neutral academic sources, that is simply the point I was making. And I have provided a source - repeatedly. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste the exact part that claims Lopez is either committing citation fraud or is wrong in his analysis/conclusions, not just a link to a book. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the edit above reflects the comments in this discussion. And I've given reasons why I removed the comment attributed to Lopez - it relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN and it fails verification. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a sourced statement that doesn't adjust with you pro-British position, as you routinely do in every Falklands related article mate. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement is attributed to Goebel but Goebel doesn't make the claim. You can't report Lopez attributing a statement to Goebel that Goebel doesn't make. This is not WP:OR or WP:SYN, simply WP:V and WP:RS a claim has to be verifiable and this one is not. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more time (10th time now?): present the source where this is stated please. How hard can it be if it's so clear? Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I've presented it, as far as I can see its only today you've claimed you couldn't access it. Its not hard at all - I've already done it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented nothing but your own WP:OR and WP:SYN Wee. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut the personal attacks. Your assertion this is a British claim as opposed to historical record needs a source. It isn't part of the British case for sovereignty at all. Simply put WP:V and WP:RS a claim has to be verifiable and this one is not. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion? Where am I stating that it is a British claim? It's the name of the book, I'm not asserting anything Wee. Really, at this point you're either being purposely dense or willingly trying to waste people's time. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Your edit asserting this to be a British claim for which you refuse to provide a reliable cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ans as I already pointed out that claim was already gone from the version of the article you defiled. One. More. Time. Go see for yourself.

Again a NPOV is reporting the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective, the personal attacks and bad faith accusations are not needed. I have repeatedly addressed the same point you've made and you're refusing to address my concerns. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed each and every one of your points while you keep diverting to side issues. You still have not presented a source to disprove Lopez but yet you still keep saying it is not valid as a source. Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) You have not provided a source for your assertion this is a British claim as opposed to historical record - and the histories are in agreement. Only in political texts are historical facts disputed.

I don't need to provide such a source because it's not in the version of the article I edited. I'm sure now that you are playing dumb, this must be the 3rd time I say this. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B) You have not answered why you would wish to use a claim made in a source that the original author did not make but which is attributed to him. You accuse me of WP:OR and WP:SYN but don't address the question at all.

I have no access to any source claiming that Lopez is wrong or committing citation fraud. You say you do so you present such a source along with the copy/pasted part where this is stated. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C) Rather than addressing the concerns expressed about your sourcing of material you simply make accusations of bias.

The concerns about that source are your own based on your own WP:OR and WP:SYN. You have yet to provide a source that claims Lopez is wrong or committing citation fraud as you claim it does. Gaba p (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info, raised at WP:RSN see [11]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a source, only today as far as I can tell did you complain you couldn't read it. I remain unaware of a previous occasion where you told me, I would be grateful for a diff please.

Note I have provided a source below, so I would be grateful if you would now address the question please. Specifically, why you would wish to use a claim made in a source that the original author did not make but which is attributed to him? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[12] OK found it, I apologise I missed it. Had I not done so I would have responded immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, do you own a copy of Goebel's work? --Langus (t) 03:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, do you? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

As long as this is a clear point of view dispute, I would ask party to present the modern sources on topic, so that DRN volunteers could make their mind without diving into your chat. Please properly format the citation, so that assessing the sources wouldn't involve hunting for the information about their authors, publishers, publication dates, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the breaking down of sources along national lines to be helpful. Nationality of the source shouldn't be a factor. If you're going to break this down I would suggest academic and political (national Governments). Wee Curry Monster talk 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than suggesting this method you are FORCING US to use it: [13][14][15][16]

Czarkoff proposed a path and WCM disobeyed. I'm not going to participate in a dispute resolution driven by the same problematic editor who brought us here in the first place (who wants us to analyze PRIMARY SOURCES!!! --> WP:OR). --Langus (t) 12:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being a WP:DRAMA queen, no I am not forcing anything and I quote "I'm prepared to change them according to nationality ", neither you or Gaba have the right to refactor my comments. You're both trying to disrupt the mediation process. I've removed Gaba's rubbishing comments, they were of no relevance and were ignoring the request for the mediator. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. First you device your own argumentative process disregarding completely the path suggested by the editor and now you deleted my edits commenting your presented sources as if this article belonged to you and (a WP:OWN behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop in several articles). I'll take the time to re-introduce all my comments in a new section, but note that it was you who started writing your comments into my comments which now you present as refactoring and act as if I was doing something reprehensible. Can't say I'm surprised, sadly. Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I comment on your sources? Answer no. Did the mediator ask you to comment on other editors sources? Answer no.

Did the mediator ask us just to provide sources? Answer yes.

Am I prepared to use the same format as the mediator suggest? Answer yes but for a good reason I feel it is unhelpful, if you check most of my sources aren't British.

Can you both just stop the needling, it doesn't help matters. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia not behave like children in a playground. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't comment on our sources because we listened to the mediator and did what he told us to, ie: just presented the sources. You tried to outsmart everyone by creating your own rules and then expected everyone else to just shut up move along. This would not have happened if you would've done what the mediator asked you to do in the first place.

It's funny how you accuse both of us of acting as children and yet is you who refuses to follow the simplest of guidelines in a DR you opened. Gaba p (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster

I do not propose to list sources by nationality, as I base my use of sources on their individual merits and whether the claims made by sources are verifiable. My preference is for neutral academic sources but where I use sources with a POV slant I use them cautiously and attribute opinions to individual authors.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Emphasis added

Please note that this is the source for the claim made in López below and please note this does not reflect the claim attributed to it.

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Primary Sources

Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.

Onslow's report.

Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.

The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial. Both eye witness reports corroborate one another - ie there is no difference in the contemporary record. Source: Argentine National Archive, Buenos Aires, Ref:

Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource: AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22

[17] This gives a list of the residents at Port Louis in August 1833 (some 3 months after the supposed expulsion). The settlement was a diverse mix of numerous nationalities including British, Irish, French, German, Charrúa, the majority of the Gauchos came from what we now know as Uruguay. All were brought to the islands in the service of Luis Vernet. Antonio Roxas is still recorded in the Falklands census of 1851 as a resident and major land owner. Source would be Falkland Islands Government archive, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Sources I use with Caution

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.

Source for the British Government position

[18] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[19] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Conclsion

I trust that is satisfactory to the mediator, I'm prepared to change them according to nationality but I truly don't think that's helpful. The point I make is that neutral academic sources report the same history. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster by Gaba (bullet points)

• I understand this adds a massive amount of repeated content to the section, but I was forced to do this after Wee deleted my comments added to the section above. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

• Do note that this is neutral according to Wee and nobody else Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

• It did? Sources for this claim Wee, so we can see they are not all British praises? Also note that this source confirms that the Argentine soldiers were expelled. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empahsis added

• It is not clear to what author the above cite should be associated with. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Emphasis added

Please note that this is the source for the claim made in López below and please note this does not reflect the claim attributed to it.

• The Lopez book refers to "(S. 25, p. 131)" (which, if I'm not mistaken refers to this book) from where it quotes verbatim what it's stated in the book. This is the source to refer to if you wish to claim that Lopez is committing citation fraud. How is that source you presented supposed to prove your (quite serious) accusation? Could you please explain the relation?
• Note that this this source in no way disproves the fact that settlers were expelled, it isn't even conclusive on whether the soldiers were expelled or not; at least the vague minimal sentence you are quoting.
• Also note that Argentina has never made a distinction between soldiers and civilians, only the British sources have. Argentina claims the population was expelled which is clear in pro-British sources only they refer to the expelled garrison alone and claim the settlers were not expelled (which this one even does not). Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Primary Sources

Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.

Onslow's report.

Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.

• There is a great difference between the supposed orders given to Onslow and what actually happened. Could you provide a link for this source please? Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial.

• Could you please provide a link to where you got this Pinedo quote from so we can see it in it's full form? I could not find it anywhere. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both eye witness reports corroborate one another - ie there is no difference in the contemporary record.

• WP:OR + WP:SYN, we don't do that Wee. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I use with Caution

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.

• 1- Destéfani clearly states a frenchman, not an Argentinian citizen. 2- I quote from this book by Reginald & Elliot: "The Sarandi sailed on the 5th. Onslow himself returned to Britain a few days later, leaving William Dickinson, the senior British resident, in charge..." Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.

Source for the British Government position

[20] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[21] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do. <-- Wee's claim.

• The sentence above is quite simply a lie. There is no distinction made between civilians and the military living in the islands, they were all part of the population that had settled there. This is a made-up artificial distinction pro-British agents like to stress. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"British" theory sources

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

"Argentina" theory sources

• Oliveri López, Angel M. (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...
• Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833. In 1841 the Falklands became a Crown colony and ten years later had been settled by 287 British subjects. By the end of the century the Falkland Islands, still claimed by Argentina, were occupied by some 2,000 people and 800,000 sheep. Note: although the word "settlers" is not used, this source depicts how the distinction between "garrison" and "civilians" is irrelevant to the fact that Argentina was expelled, and the islands later colonized by British subjects.
• Laver, Roberto C. (2001). The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 86. The historical records show that the Argentine departure from the islands in 1833 was a forced exodus and not a voluntary abandonment. First, the instructions to Onslow show that he was to force any troops stationed in the islands to leave; second, Onslow, pursuant to his instructions, gave Pinedo an ultimatum to leave the islands; third, Onslow referred to his superior force and the lowering of the Argentine flag. Only under such circumstances did Pinedo leave the islands...
• This issue was brought to the RSN board by one of the editors. There I pointed out another reliable source: Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University. The higher quality of the source (credible author, credible publication) makes the discussion on the original source moot. Page 306 says "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders." The editor who brought the issue to RSN argues that should be read in conjunction with pg. 300 which says: "... two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison." The editor claims pg. 300 is inconsistent with pg. 306. There is the possible interpretation that the warships went beyond their explicit orders or that their orders changed; including those interpretations will be likely OR and SYNTH; however just including the literal statement on pg. 306 with attribution doesn't seem to be an out-of-context quote or inaccurate from an attribution perspective. I will not be posting more here, since I was looking at this mainly from a WP:RS point of view; but I do think this source should be considered in the dispute resolution process. Those who need the article can ask either me or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Churn and change (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of "Argentina" theory sources

See WP:RSN.

Oliveri López, Angel M. (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...

As one of the poster at RSN turned up an independent academic review of Lopez:

"Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…"

"The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]"

"Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book"

"This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…"

"readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma."

The reviewer is Peter Beck, considered an appropriately qualified academic at WP:RS. The consensus at WP:RSN is that it is not considered a reliable source.

• Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833. In 1841 the Falklands became a Crown colony and ten years later had been settled by 287 British subjects. By the end of the century the Falkland Islands, still claimed by Argentina, were occupied by some 2,000 people and 800,000 sheep.

The claim made by Argentina is that the settlement was expelled and replaced by British settlers. The comment here is just moving the goalposts and anyway the statement in the article simply reflects.

Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287

I would have added this source myself. I don't see the problem is the sources reliability but the language is ambiguous. Whether it supports the claim made is open to interpretation. It can easily be misinterpeted. I would have thank Churn for adding it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

It seems quite obvious that in the quotes above (at least those without clear bias) the words "Argentina" and "Argentinians" are used to name the garrison (this is consistent with labeling people on duty in other contexts), so I would conclude that "British" theory is the one most supported by reliable sources. This is my cut at WP:NPOV issue. Questions?

Excuse me but the dispute was never which theory seemed more plausible. The argument came about because the editor Wee refused to accept the inclusion of other sources stating a contradicting claim with that of the British. Please take a look here where Wee opened another discussion and is told by 2 different editors that he is in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN and that the source by Risman should be used instead of the Lopez book. The point is that the claim that the population was expelled can't be obscured just because an editor feels it is untrue when there are several sources that state otherwise.

Also, could you expand on your comment about which quote in particular you feel refers only to a garrison and nothing else and why? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but your labelling is what I've a problem with. Its not British vs Argentine rather its what the neutral academic sources say. Gustafson and Goebel are American, Cawkell is British, Destefani Argentine (and I would agree with Peter Beck regarding Escude.) I am going to suggest that I remove reference to Cawkell in the article, in preference to using Gustafson as a clearly neutral source. See [22] Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

– 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

• Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)
• Trofobi (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) and application of MOS:DAB. The disputed content is the disambiguation between the types of swords that might have been referred to as "broadswords".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well aside from trying to discuss it, I put this on Wikiquette assistance, but nothing much had happened except for [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] , until the process of Wikiquette assistance was eliminated, recently.[reply]

How do you think we can help?

I dunno. That's why I'm asking for help. [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] [reply]

Opening comments by ZarlanTheGreen

[ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] [reply]

You did so without bothering to get me to do so myself. You asked, but did not allow me to do so, as I clearly stated I would. I shall restore a part of the opening statement, which DID discuss content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a significant edit [was made] to Broadsword_(disambiguation). I found it to remove a lot of information and removing certain good distinctions that was present in the old version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Trofobi

The changes I made were according to the MOS:DAB (like I understand it), especially the clear and simple formatting and wording shown in the examples there. I have seen by the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ, that I there were better ways to interpret the MOS:DAB and fully agree with their changes. The previous version(s) (123) had some MOS:DAB-unsupported or outdated links (long/great/short-sword redirs and other), missing links (the ships & Jethro Tull), and in my eyes especially a confusing formatting and wording. Can give more details & difflinks if required, but have not much time for that within the next days.--Trofobi (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by JHunterJ

Disambiguation page cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. Entries not ambiguous with "broadsword" removed, remaining entries formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadsword discussion

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 opening comments by JHunterJ and Trofobi before opening this up for discussion, so please be patient. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the "guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a reminder on Trofobi's talk page that we are waiting for him. If I don't get a reply in a day or so we will proceed without him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that everyone has weighed in, I am opening this for discussion. First I would like to ask, did everybody read "Guide for participants" at the top of this page as I requested? Did you read the part that says...

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

ZarlanTheGreen, your initial statement doesn't contain a single word explaining what you want the page to look like and why you want it that way. It is 100% about the behavior of other editors. You need to go back, delete it, and re-write it so that it does not contain the words "He" "Him" "They", or the names of any other editors. What I would like to see is a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be. (if you don't know how to make a diff, just give the exact time and date of your edit.) Then add a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

Trofobi, much of your initial statement is rebutting ZarlanTheGreen talking about other editors. While this is a natural thing to do, I am going to ask you to instead ignore any such comments. They will be removed, (if not by the person who writes them I will remove them myself), and responding just encourages the unacceptable behavior.

I would also like to see from you a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be and a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

JHunterJ, the first half of your initial statement is just the sort of thing I am looking for. Could you delete the later comment about user behavior and expand a bit on what part of WP:MOSDAB we are talking about? I think I know, but I want it from the participants. When someone says a policy is being followed and another editor says it is not, I always like to focus on the exact wording showing which part of the policy and the exact wording of the edit in question.

What I am asking you all for is specific versions of content and specific wording of policy, with no references to user behavior. After we get the content dispute straightened out, if there are still user conduct issues I will advise you as to where to go with those.

Thanks for your patience. We will get this resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fully understand the function of this noticeboard, thus the... "inappropriate" opening comment. Sorry about that. I still would like to report the behaviour, but it seems that has been deemed unproductive, and I can't say I don't understand. Either way, I'm quite willing to go the route of talking about the content. As to replacing the opening comment... Is that really appropriate? Amending what I say, sure, but replacing it sounds a bit like rewriting history. If you insist, I nevertheless will. It should be noted, however, that I did, if briefly (though to be fair, that is at it should be, for the opening comment) comment on the issue of the content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted those parts, with the motivation that asking for the voluntary removal got no result. That is ridiculous! I questioned if it should be done, but nevertheless stated that I still would do so, if you indicated that you insisted it be done, despite my misgivings.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted part of my statement above by request. No problems with the current entries have been identified, and the removed entries were removed because they are not ambiguous with "broadsword" according to the linked articles (see MOS:DABMENTION; I also added a line to WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created based on the discussion at Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)). I am not aware of any policy-based problems with those removals, nor any other problems with the page, so I'm not clear what dispute needs to be resolved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already mentioned, MOS:DABMENTION deals with how to include topics that do not have an article of their own (which is not true of any of the topics that are, or where, linked to, on the page discussed) and not what should or shouldn't be included. Thus it is completely irrelevant. The line in Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created, however, is highly relevant, but it can hardly be said to reflect proper wikipedia practice, policy or guideline, given that it was just put there. It might become an accepted guideline, but I wouldn't really count it as such, just yet. Besides, doing so would open the door to winning these kind of arguments, simply by making up, or changing, rules oneself. While one should assume good faith, the rules should nevertheless be set in such a way as to avoid the consequences of the inevitable occasions of bad faith ...not to mention that actions that has the same result as those made in bad faith, can be made in good faith. Now could you please mention any bit of policy or guideline that supports you, which is relevant or accepted?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ZarlanTheGreen? Can you cite a specific edit and a specific policy it violates? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well, lets see...

• The old version grouped different types of things. The newer edits (any other than my reverts) just puts all links as a mere list, in a seemingly arbitrary order, without any apparent from of organization (which goes against MOS:DABMENTION#Organization).
• The entry Arming Sword was removed [ Deleted comments about the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) ] I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.[reply]

There may be more, that I can't think of right now, but that should cover most of it, I think.

I would also like to add that the removal of the Jethro Tull song was a somewhat clumsy oversight, which I would have appreciated if someone had pointed out to me before. I agree that, that entry should stay there. Thank you Trofobi, for pointing that out (if a bit late).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the points:

• MOS:DABORDER uses groups (sections) for long disambiguation pages (#2), and the broadsword disambiguation page is not long, so it's faster for the reader to keep the few entries in one group (just a mere list), and arrange the entries there (not arbitrarily but) per MOS:DABORDER (#3) -- topics with articles first, with the synonyms like Dao next, and the mentions last (and the newly-added surname holder in a separate section).
• Add the information about arming swords being known as broadswords to the article Arming sword, and I'll be happy to restore the entry to the dab page myself.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You say it's not long? Why? I say it's certainly long enough. Just look at other disambiguation pages of similar length. As to the order... "Dao next"? Are you kidding me? There are several ships and even BroadSword Comics (neither of which can be called "synonyms", by any stretch) before Dao (Sword) appears! What you say, clearly isn't true.
• Please explain why Arming sword has to mention them being called broadswords. Please point to some wikipedia policy or guideline (that hasn't been just recently been added, but which is clearly an accepted part of wikipedia), which verifies this. If you do so, I will thank you for informing me, and gladly back down on this point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created has been clarified based on your misunderstanding of the disambiguation guidelines. Please point to some Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity. "Dao" is a synonym -- it does not have the word "Broadsword" there. "BroadSword Comics" is not a synonym. "Who published that comic? BroadSword." And I am not kidding you; see if you can ratchet down the rhetoric. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created was not clarified. Before your edit, there was absolutely no mention of any requirement that it be mentioned in the article being linked (if you disagree, then please show me where such a mention existed). Thus you did not clarify something that it already said, but rather added something that wasn't previously present. I have no need to point to some Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity ...as I have not made no such claim. I have no need to defend a position that I do not hold, or have ever held. Also, as you can see here (especially in my replies to Czarkoff), I have no problems with having to verify that the topics belong in the DAB, and I have never said or claimed anything to the contrary. As to Dao being a synonym and BroadSword comics not being a synonym... That's exactly what I said. Neither the ships, nor BroadSword comics, are synonyms (nor is Dao, but it's at least somewhat closer to being one). Also note that it says the "recommended order", not the "required order" ...and MOS:DABORDER#When_to_break_Wikipedia_rules: "However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." You need to consider the reasons behind the recommendations, instead of just sternly demand that they be followed to the letter. Why should it be in the current order? Why is the old order bad? The issue to consider, is the usefulness to the reader. How clear and easily readable it is, that is. As to my rhetoric... What rhetoric? Me saying "are you kidding me"? If so, then your standards are extremely strict and you break them yourself, and not just in that comment ...but that's beside the point, is it not?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so we're in agreement that there's no reason to include "arming sword". Yes, recommended order, and lacking any reason to do so, you need to stop sternly and extremely strictly demanding that all other editors leave your edits alone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interjection, but in my opinion this particular dispute boils down to two questions:

1. Do the reliable sources support the claim that removed entries (Arming sword and Dao (sword)) are indeed referred to as "broadsword"?
2. If so, does this statement belong to DAB page or broadsword article?

I would kindly ask parties (primarily ZarlanTheGreen, per WP:BURDEN) to provide the succinct answers to these questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the second question: the statement(s) belong on Arming sword and/or Dao (sword), and once there, the (brief) entry or entries would be added to the disambiguation page as Wikipedia topics ambiguous with the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are great amounts of sources that say that arming swords (and longswords and the such) are called broadswords. In fact wiktionary rather annoyingly only gives that meaning, for the term "broadsword" (much like merriam-webster, dictionary.com, oxforddictionaries.com ...not to mention several books about the middle ages, and most fiction within the fantasy genre (just noting a few examples): fantasy games, such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, pretty much any fantasy role playing game (including all editions of Dungeons and Dragons)... tons of books about the middle ages (or swords or history), but that's a bit harder to verify, with just google. Also, I would like to point out that it is used this way in this clip from a notable (if not accurate) "documentary". If nothing else, I should say that those sources (which are merely the tip of the iceberg. A few of the examples I could find, on short notice) prove that it is a common enough use of the word "broadsword", to be notable enough to merit mention on the disambiguation page, I think (I'd understand being asked to verify that this use of the word broadsword is inaccurate, but that it isn't common? I am surprised that anyone would doubt it, quite frankly). As to Dao (sword)... well if you disagree, then I suggest you take it up its own article, where it is noted that Dao are "/.../often called a broadsword in English translation/.../"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both "Arming sword" and "Dao (sword)" had been marked "^{[dubious – discuss]}" since 6 July 2011 - no change or discussion had been on that issue since then, therefore I felt safe to remove the "Arming sw." link, where in the whole article is no mention of "broadsword". And as I have added both links to Classification of swords & Types of swords, any visitor looking for any kind of "broad" sword will now easily find the relevant existing articles.

As to Guy's request for a difflink to the version I prefer: the current version (compared to that how I found the article on 28 August 2012)‎. For a brief explanation why it should be retained pls see my opening comment. --Trofobi (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZarlanTheGreen: could you please explicitly name secondary sources unambiguously connecting term "broadsword" with "arming sword" and "dao sword"? We can't make judgment on "plenty" of sources, and those you've linked are very ambiguous. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your request. The sources I linked to, pointed out that countless sources say that straight, cutting, swords (a category into which arming sword, quite clearly, falls), are classified by many, as being "broadswords". Why should they be precise in specifying arming swords? They cover a variety of swords, which clearly includes arming swords. As to Dao... Seriously, just put the words "Dao" and "broadsword" into google, and you'll see that its a word commonly used for it. I'll find you some specific sources, but I've got an appointment I've got to get to right now, so I'll do it later today (or tomorrow).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you connect these is known on Wikipedia as improper synthesis. I request sources that explicitly include into definition the terms you want to add to the DAB page in question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, I'd rather not expand this DR to the content of arming sword. The sources belong there, not on broadsword (disambiguation). If that article arming sword says that they are known as broadswords, then the dab page includes it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am not an involved party if there's a dispute over whether arming sword is to say so. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily IMO. I would better disambiguate the possible meaning in broadsword article and generalize the DAB if such sources are found. Anyway, the issue is a bit wider then this DAB, and I want to get it settled here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (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

• Family therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marschalko (talk · contribs)
• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute relates to the validity of a table created by User:CartoonDiablo, which he purports is an accurate reproduction of information contained in a table in the original source that he cites. I maintain that it is not, for the reasons stated on the talk page. The issue was also subject of a related dispute at Talk:Psychoanalysis. CartoonDiablo maintains that that dispute was resolved in his favor, but I do not think that is clear. In any case, my dispute relates to specific aspects of CartoonDiablo's table, that were not addressed explicitly in the previous dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page at Family therapy.

How do you think we can help?

Preferably, obtain an opinion from someone with expertise in the correct interpretation of scientific research and, in particular, meta-analyses.

Opening comments by CartoonDiablo

Marschalko summarized it pretty well, to the best of my knowledge that image is as accurate of the study as I could make it. The point of contention seems to be the "no effect" in the image which follows the study; it stated that if the treatment was not "proven" or "presumed" effective then it had no significant effect and thus "no effect." CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by previously uninvolved user Snowded

This is a wider issue than the article referenced. CartoonDiablo is pushing this table on several articles, and seems to find it difficult to engage with arguments. We just get a mantra type response relating to this single study - see my comments to him here. The issues is one of balancing sources and over reliance on one source (itself six years old) to give status to a controversial technique. If it is to come to dispute resolution then its more than one article and other editors are involved. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add in the light of comments below. As far as I can see there has never been a consensus to include the table. I've PoV tagged it for the moment but have asked its promotor for evidence of consensus which I doubt. Otherwise I agree prose makes more sense, but even then is over balanced to this one old summary. It needs pruning and balancing. But lets deal with the picture first then that can be handled on the articles concerned. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family therapy discussion

Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer. There was a similar case here concerning the very same table. (That time it was in editable format.) In that case it was decided that the table should be rewritten in prose. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be done in this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another DRN volunteer here. I was also involved in the previous case. My position remains the same, prose is still the best option because it is more neutral (not giving WP:UNDUE weight to any single study) while conveying the same information.--SGCM (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some background on the dispute: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including this DRN, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. There appears to be some misunderstandings over the DRN. DRN is an informal noticeboard, without binding decisions, and DRN resolutions cannot be enforced. DRN only serves as a venue for establishing consensus. Comments like this are inaccurate, most of the editors in the second DRN did agree that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE were at issue here. The edit warring between Widescreen and CartoonDiablo after the DRN should not have occurred, regardless of who was right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this area, but I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR, and does not accurately represent the results in the paper. Therefore, it should be removed. I believe WSC's other complaints about the text also have significant merit. It does seem that the spirit of the earlier DRN result was violated by leaving the table in place, even if it is just an image.—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to leve a comment here? The prose CartoonDiabolo left at the article is wrong an not balanced. The prose contains fatal errors. He did also in other articles about Psychotheray. I think this is disrupting behavior. The "prose" also have to removed. The DRN seems to be not capable to save articles for these wrong statements. --WSC ^® 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repost some of what I said in the talk:

• The "no effect" is not based on absence of evidence, the study made clear that if it is not considered "proven" or "presumed" that it is considered ineffective and mentioned it explicitly which treatments have "little or no effect".

My proposal thus is for editors to point where the image incorrectly says "no effect" when its supposed to be "Unknown" for lack of data on the effectiveness. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that shortening "little or no effect" to "no effect" is unambiguous misrepresentation of source, and thus violation of No original research policy. Furthermore, the text of study explicitly states that "little to no effect" refers to two studies only.

That said, the inclusion of the table either as wikitable or as image results in improper weight on this meta-analysis, which itself contains quite a bit of errata.

Overall I have to note that I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases (except you, obviously), that this table should not be present in the article in whatever format. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:01, 19 September 2012 (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

• Pendulum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Maschen (talk · contribs)
• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum. The article is very long and there is a second article, Pendulum (mathematics), for the mathematics, so the policy of the editors on my side of the dispute has been to keep the math in the article to a minimum.

User:193.233.212.18 has repeatedly inserted a second equation for the true period of the pendulum. His equation is already included in Pendulum (mathematics) but he feels it should be in Pendulum also. There have been 6 revert-restore cycles since Sept 9, including 2 within the last 24 hours so he is up against the WP:3RR. There has been consensus on the Talk page from the beginning, with 5 editors opposed to inclusion of the equation and only User:193.233.212.18 in favor. He hasn't answered the detailed criticisms of the equation on the Talk page, only said that his equation is the best and therefore it must be included.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss it with User:193.233.212.18 in a nonconfrontational manner on his Talk page, but he hasn't replied. He may not have a static IP; I think I've seen him with other IPs, but he doesn't sign his posts

How do you think we can help?

User:193.233.212.18 seems not very familiar with WP standards; he says edit warring is OK as long as the issue is important, and doesn't seem to understand the 3RR. If a mediator could convince him that these are serious standards, it could prevent him from getting blocked.

Opening comments by Maschen

I also tried explaining to the IP at User talk:193.233.212.18 and talk:pendulum, and have reverted the IP number of times, and intend to stay out of it since the explanations have no effect. The IP doesn't seem to understand/may be ignorant of WP policy, and possibly WP:COI applies.

Opening comments by Martinvl

Wikipedia's first duty is towards the reader.

There are two articles related to the equations for the period of a pendulum, one is the article Pendulum and the other in the article Pendulum (mathematics). The second of these articles leads on from the first and is a more detailed account of the mathematics behind the pendulum. As a part-time physics tutor, I believe that 90% of Wikipedia readers researching pendulums will only read the first of these two articles and few will understand the second article.

At various times, four different formulae have been given in this article:

where is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and .

My analysis of these formulae is as follows:

• The first of these formulae is the formula that is taught to 17 and 18 year-old physics students. (I am a part-time physics tutor for this age-group).

• The second of these formulae shows an approximation to the correction needed when the angle θ is not small and is a real-life example of the Taylor series, an essential part of university level maths for engineers and scientists. In practice this formula will ensure that a longcase clock is accurate to better than 0.1 second per day.

• The third of these formulae adds nothing to the second other than additional accuracy - of the order of microseconds per day.

• The fourth of these formulae give an exact solution, but its relationship to the first equation is rather cryptic. In addition the function M is not one that is taught in a standard engineering or physics degree course.

From the reader’s point of view, it is essential to include the first of these equations in the article as this is the formula that is always taught at school or university. Thereafter, either the second or the third is highly instructive (I prefer the second), but the fourth equation is only really of interest to applied mathematicians and in practice is only encountered in university maths classes, never in university (or school) laboratories. I feel therefore that the fourth of these equations is out of place in a general article about pendulums, but is ideal material for the article Pendulum (mathematics). Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 193.233.212.18

Talk:Pendulum discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. Edit warring is usually not something that DRN handles. Consider taking this to WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page, so there's not much else that DRN can do.--SGCM (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SGCM: You wrote "It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page". I looked at the article talk page, and there were discussions 13 Sept to 18 Sept, and the final comment (18 Sept) was "I've initiated a DRN case". After that, there are no more comments on the article talk page. So it looks like the parties have simply shifted the discussion here to DRN and would like some uninvolved editors to help reach consensus. Or is there another talk page I'm overlooking? --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "Period of Oscillation" section of pendulum should be a summary of the entire Pendulum (mathematics) article (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE). I would expect to see the 2 or 3 most important formulae represented in that section. My opinion is that the two most important formulae are:

The other formulae, including the infinite series, seem a bit too arcane for a top-level summary ... because they do not occupy a position of prominence in the Pendulum (mathematics) article. I guess my point is that the underlying differential equation should be included in the top-level article before resorting to the infinite series or the "M" arithmetic-geometric mean formulae. [From uninvolved editor] --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander, in the discussion, of the four involved users, only User:193.233.212.18 supports inserting the following formula into the article, and has been edit warring to keep it in:

Which, as the discussion indicates, has no support from any of the other five editors. The consensus seem to be that the formula should remain in the Pendulum (mathematics) article and should not be placed in the Pendulum article. The Dispute Overview of the case states that the DRN case was filed mostly to stop User:193.233.212.18 from edit warring, which is something that DRN is not equipped to handle. If desired, I have no objections to the continuation of the DRN case--SGCM (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get picky, but ... :-) The first sentence of this case is "The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum." And the case was filed by one of the "majority" participants, not the IP. It is often the case that a majority will "gang up" on a single editor, yet sometimes the single editor is correct (I am not saying that is the case here). DRN is supposed to be a haven for such persecuted souls. For that reason, the case should stay open a few days and let the IP present some source-based arguments on why the AGM formula is important. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your view, @Noleander, I agree. As you pointed out, SGCM, this is not the venue for dealing with the editwarring problem, since we have consensus, so I would be agreeable to terminating the dispute resolution process. Sorry, I guess I should have read the requirements on this page closer. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, on talk page, but I have concerns due to the limited pool of opinions.

Location of dispute

• Braveheart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheLou75 (talk · contribs)
• TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs)
• Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. For example, here, here, and here are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen here. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite its light content and even though there is a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid that although the article has obvious flaws, the established editors of this article have gotten used to the status quo and are reluctant for any changes even for improvement and it would be difficult to solicit a neutral third party opinion on the article's talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk Page, but there is limited input due to only a select few amount of editors looking at the Braveheart page.

How do you think we can help?

The opinion of neutral third parties with no prior attachement to the page would be very helpful.

Opening comments by TheOldJacobite

This is ridiculous and unnecessary. Per BRD, Lou75 should have started a talk page discussion when he was reverted the first time, rather than reverting back to his preferred version. And when he was reverted the second time, he should not have reverted again. At least he did make a talk page post after that, but he should have allowed time for discussion before rushing off to dispute resolution. I have not even had time to read his talk page comments, much less had time to respond. It is really rather ridiculous to claim there is a dispute when there has barely been a discussion of the issues. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Gareth Griffith-Jones

Braveheart 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

• Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mvblair (talk · contribs)
• 69.120.203.168 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In May 2012, I asked for guidance (on the Columbia University talk page) about adding a former professor (Jesus de Galindez) to the notable people section of the article. By September 2012, I had received no input, so I added a line in the "notable people" section of the article regarding Galindez.

Within four hours, user 69.120.203.168 deleted the information I added, saying "Galindez belongs neither w/political nor literary notables; in any event, polemical and unsubstantiated statement made is inappropriate heremadestatement."

Two days later, I asked user 69.120.203.168 to clarify the deletion both on his/her talk page ("69.120.203.168, I noticed that you did a wholesale delete of the information regarding Jesus de Galindez from the list of notable Colombia University people. There is a section in the "talk" area of the Colombia University page that has been open for more than two years. Perhaps you could post concerns there. Galindez is a very well-known author and political critic. Don't you think having his name in Time makes him pretty notable? The event of his forced disappearance was big news at the time because of his stature. Don't you think that makes it appropriate to add him to "notable people" from Colombia?") and on the Columbia University talk page.

Seven days later, after not having heard back, I re-added the information.

Eleven hours later, user 69.120.203.168 deleted it again, saying "Mvblair (talk)prior statement was clear; plus, prior 2 sentences about heads of state or founders of nations; subject is not that but a writer."

The following is the statement in the article that is in question: Spanish political writer Jesús Galíndez, a visiting lecturer, was disappeared from Colombia University, allegedly for criticizing the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

Other sources are corroborative, but not as concise.

Any help that fellow editors can provide in terms of resolving this dispute would be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a section on the Columbia University talk page open for several months. After the deletions, I reached out to user 69.120.203.168 on that talk page and on his/her personal talk page. User 69.120.203.168 did not respond to either request for clarification.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to know whether or not the information I added is worthy of being in the article. If it is valid but not in the right place, should I create a new paragraph in the Columbia University notable people section to discuss Galindez?

Opening comments by 69.120.203.168

Columbia University discussion