Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Unable even to discuss key changes on Global Warming
Closed discussion |
---|
Around 2005 I made the mistake of trying to add a link onto the global warming page. I found that there was an organised group of people who stopped others editing the article. After several years of trying to edit the article to better reflect the spread of evidence, I realised that more than likely the same people who write the wikipedia pages were also writing the articles, reviewing each others articles and preventing anyone with a contrary view from being published. As a result I am boycotting Wikipedia (with one recent exception). However, I still feel I should be able to raise areas which should be added even if to attempt to add them will result in a co-ordinated attack with the intention of removing me (as happened to many other people). The simple fact is that the Kyoto protocol is coming to an end this year. I have read the protocol and it is very clear that the "commitment period" ends. There is nothing about a second phase and despite the editors oft used rule "It's got to be in the peer review literature", no one has even attempted to demonstrate any legal or other basis for saying there is a second phase to Kyoto. I know I cannot edit the article however, I do not see why this should not be properly discussed. But as usual, any discussion of any nature which contradicts the eco-political bias of the editors has been squashed. 82.14.206.26 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Rachel Corrie
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview An overview of the actions and intentions of Rachel Corrie on the day of her death is being repeatedly deleted from out of the lead section of the article on her. The deleting-editor gives as a reason for deletion that these specific details are disputed, but will not demonstrate how they are disputed nor provide reliable sources that confirm that contention. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. I've recently initiated four topics of discussion on the talk page specificly about the lead and these issues (two of which have been ignored). 2. I've asked for details of what exactly is considered to be disputed info. 3. I've reworded the contested info to attempt compromise and so that it meets Ankh's obections (i.e so that it does not imply anything that is disputed by the various sources). How do you think we can help? I'm new to this coming to this board so I don't know exactly. Perhaps help us decide how to get out of this apparent impasse? Opening comments by Ankh.MorporkPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Rachel Corrie discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Braveheart
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, on talk page, but I have concerns due to the limited pool of opinions. Location of dispute
Users involved
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 TheOldJacobiteThis 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 JacobiteThe '45 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Gareth Griffith-JonesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Braveheart discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
List of people who have been called a "polymath"
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A variety of IP users have stated that Steve Jobs should not be on the "list of people who have been called a polymath." One user repeatedly states that the IP users are probably the same user. When the user described an IP user as "probably the same user," I finally lost my temper with him. Several days later, this user made several statements implying that I was using those IP addresses as sockpuppets; I responded asking if he was accusing me of using those IP addresses as sockpuppets. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is the first place outside of the discussion that I have done so because my computer's limited capability makes it difficult to search for the proper procedure. All help pages I have visited have implied that I should ask here because there's a dispute at the core of this. How do you think we can help? At the very least, steer me toward the proper procedure. Opening comments by Dream_FocusPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
List of people who have been called a "polymath"Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Columbia University
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
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 69.120.203.168Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Columbia University discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. DRN requires extensive discussion on a talk page before the dispute is brought to the noticeboard. It's a bit too early for DRN, the discussion so far has only occurred through edit summaries. Consider asking the IP to continue the discussion on the talk page, and if he remains unresponsive, it becomes a conduct issue.--SGCM (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This dispute has been deferred to the talk page for now. The case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Innovation Journalism
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The editor OpenFuture has listed 'Innovation Journalism' for deletion, referring to it as a 'neologism'. OpenFuture turns it into a personal matter before even talking to me. One editor suggests, without providing any arguments whatsoever, that innovation journalism – a serious form of journalism covering innovation – is a synonym to yellow journalism. Instead of questioning the argumentation, OpenFuture responds to this "Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture". Have you tried to resolve this previously? It's difficult for me to discuss the article after it has been turned into a personal matter. How do you think we can help? Please stop personal attacks. It is the article that must be discussed, not my person. Opening comments by OpenFuturePlease limit to 2000 characters – longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Innovation Journalism discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Comment – There is an active AfD underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism. It was initiated 10 Sept and is still underway. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Question – I'm a volunteer, and I'd like to help. One approach we could take here is to let the AfD run its course, and then we can see if there are any remaining issues after the AfD is over. In other words, the top priority now should be finding sources and presenting them in the AfD. After the dust settles from the AfD, we can see if there are any open issues. Does that sound acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Comment – I would appreciate third party involvement. Mediation is needed. --dnordfors (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolved? I put a notice on the PfD suggesting the dispute was resolved, since it can not be shown that Innovation Journalism is a non=notable neologism, suggesting removal of the deletion-tag in 48 hours unless anyone thinks otherwise. I do not know if this is the right procedure, please correct if needed. --dnordfors (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Minorities in Greece
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, see this and that sections in the talk page. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview This dispute is an old one, closed without resolution, probably due to my inability to edit here. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 11#Minorities in Greece The issues we have:
Yes, see the links to the talk page of the article and the previous dispute resolution request in this page.
An experienced, neutral Wikipedia editor's opinion would greatly help. This dispute resolution request was deleted here twice due to no attempt made in the talk page of the disputed article. Please examine the above links to see the attempts made previously for a resolution. Filanca (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Comment from party AtheneanDiscussionComment: This case was initiated manually, and does not follow the normal DRN section layout precisely, but that is okay. Still waiting for party Athenean to post an opening comment. --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Family therapy
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
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 CartoonDiabloMarschalko 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) Comment by previously uninvolved user SnowdedThis 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) 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) Family therapy discussionHello! 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)
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) 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
Sorry to say that so. But no One of you drn-guys have an idea of psychotherapy research. You have no, or just a superficial understanding of scientiffic work. Anderen you didn`t understand what wp:NPOV really means. I think you shoundn`t decide such komplex issus. --WSC ® 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Revised imageHere's the revised image for the study. As it turns out the only thing that was concluded to have no effect was schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. All other studies were inconclusive because they were either based on combined therapies or not consistent enough to draw a conclusion. And again for the nth time, this isn't just "one study" it's a review of 100+ secondary studies so you would have to consider 100+ secondary citations or thousands of primary citations to be undue weight as well. It's why the NIH image has no problems with undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
We are back in square one: the table (as wikitable or image) isn't ballanced regarding the total amount of sources, and the wording "No effect" misrepresents the phrase "little or no effect" (pretty obvious that little effect is some effect, which doesn't intersect with "no effect", isn't it?). Probably now it is time to close this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Second Revision/additional studiesPer the other objection here's the second revision to the image.
Panic disorder
PTSD
Personality disorders
CBT
Depression (hospitalized and moderate)
Bipolar disorder
Panic Disorder
PTSD
Anxiety disorders
Bulimia and Anorexia
Personality disorders
Alcohol dependency
Family/Couple's therapy
Bipolar disorder
Anorexia
Alcoholism
Straight down the line original research and synthesis. Your advocacy of one method is showing here. If you want to write that stuff up and get in published in a peer reviewed journal then, and only then, could be use it. ----Snowded TALK 19:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Tables should not be images on Wikipedia. Regardless of other problems with this image, there is no possible revision that can be included. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not the same opinion that the french survey have to mentioned at the articles because it's so unimportant and not expressive. It's possible to mention it, in a well balanced overview. --WSC ® 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Stepping back and looking at the big pictureI am another DRN volunteer. It says the following at the top of this page: "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction." If we allow essentially the same conflict to come to DRN three times in rapid succession, under what circumstances do we determine that it is something we can't help with, and point the disputants in the right direction? Let's do what we said we will do at the top of this page, face the reality that if two DRN cases fail to resolve a conflict a third is unlikely to succeed, and start discussing where to refer this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Refer to wp:ArbCom. There are strong behavioral elements to this dispute. They can help with that. I doubt that a RfC/U would make any difference given the post just above. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Self-determination
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
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 pAs 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:
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 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I 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) 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)
Reset break
I have collapsed the majority of the discussion as having gone off the rails. This is an oppurtunity for some resolution on this case. If the disputing editors do not wish to continue then the filing will be closed as "failed" and suggested that the next logical course be formal mediation. It truly disapoints me that editors have refused to collaborate and have taken to such lengthy walls of text on several venues across Wikipedia that this case may well have just scared everyone away. ![]() So here is what we can do. Above you will see a suggestion from User:John Carter. It is the opinion of this editor that this makes excellent sense and at the VERY least is our starting point to continue from reset. I suggest taking this opportunity to resolve this dispute quickly and show the community your ability to put aside differences and work together or this may go into the record books as pretty lame.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Self determination reset discussionI have pinged the involved parties. If no reply is made in a reasonable amount of time, the case status may change.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
|
GNU
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The template tag primary source is discussed. No specific issue or disputed text was raised, just a request of less primary sources and more secondary sources. After requesting more specificness, no answer were given. When secondary sources was adding (including a world published book and university publications), those was disregarded as not following WP:RS. The total count is as standing 20 non-primary sources of an total of 30 source. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking for specificness. If I know what claim/text/source was specifically the issue, I could work with it. Now there is not much there beyond trying, and then get the attempt thrown back by a blank "NOT RS" answer. How do you think we can help? Multiple things. A Third-party opinion. A alteration to the discussion. More sources *might* help, but I suspect it wont until the issue is identified. Opening comments by LentowerPlease limit to 2000 characters – longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by czarkoffAs I'm said to be an involved editor, I would like to leave a couple of notes:
IMO both of these suggest that the tag about references should remain in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ReisioThe original template was added by a single editor acting alone, whose corresponding explanation on the talk page was opposed. Its presence in the article was therefore not the product of consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SudoGhostA specific issue was given, I was never aware that this was unclear. The article is based on primary sources, hence the tag. Adding three sources to an entire article does not resolve this, so I'm unsure as to why this DRN was even brought up. = SudoGhost 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC) GNU discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments – continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. Before we begin it should be noted that the use of tags represents content on or in a Wikipedia article and therefore does indeed require a consensus of editors. This is the appropriate venue for this dispute. I do have a question for the filing editor. Why have all parties in the dispute not been listed? We await the answer to the volunteers question and the opening comments of participants before we begin. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer overviewOn September 19TH, 2012 the {{Primary sources|date=July 2010}} tag was boldly deleted by User:Reisio This is easier: History begins at 23:49, 19 September 2012 and ends on 17:13, 22 September 2012.[45]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
GNU dispute discussion continuedI have pinged the involved parties. If no reply is made in a reasonable amount of time, the case status may change.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Tanka prose
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Tanka prose (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Elvenscout742 (talk · contribs)
- Tristan noir (talk · contribs)
- Kujakupoet (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.
The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.
He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.
When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.
He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.
I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.
At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. His arguments, on the substance, seemed to back me up more than Tristan noir, since he basically said that tanka prose is a modern English form and should not be critiqued in terms of classical Japanese literature. Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response. This happened less than two days after the page move, and he immediately went to the talk page where there was already a heated debate occurring. It seems highly unlikely that this was a coincidence, especially considering that his comment basically ignored what I actually said. He more recently made a similarly irrelevant, ad hominem remark]. This seems very likely, under the circumstances, to be a tag team, since both users have made barely 100 edits in four years, on very closely-related topics.
At this point, I suggested a compromise, which Tristan noir immediately agreed to, that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.
However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources and making the same claims, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.
But when he finally produced his rewrite, I was disappointed with the results.
His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.
I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implied that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is intrinsically related to modern English "tanka prose". It used weasel words and cleverly worded sentences so as not to actually state that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but to distinctly imply it.
He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen [46][47][48][49][50], and one in English would cost $500 dollars [51][52][53]) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).
He continually refuses to provide quotations or specific paraphrases from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" or their relevance to an article on said subject.
I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not all waka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.
As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.
I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response on the page in question will be (he hasn't replied on the talk page, nor made any edits to the article page since), but when I posted this same notice on the Administrators' Noticeboard in which he basically attacked me for having an aggressive tone, but given the circumstances I have actually been far too subdued until now. The sources he has cited are, frankly, full of nonsense. Their claims about Japanese literary history are completely and utterly bizarre. I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The users in question clearly do not understand Wikipedia policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with their personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Wikipedia community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified.
For those who check all the lengthy background of this dispute, you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems due to his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Wikipedia if anyone requires further details. (However, several of my principle complaints are already on the relevant talk pages.)
I apologize for the extremely long overview. I wanted to get this history out on the table first in case anyone gets the wrong idea. My hope is that, in posting this very long an detailed summary I will save myself having to engage in an even more drawn-out dispute on a trivial topic than I already have.
Opening comments by Tristan noir
- The misrepresentations of fact, with respect to the compromise on content that was made and, indeed, as regards various other matters raised by Elvenscout in his remarks above, are so numerous that it would be tiresome to list them all here and offer a counter-argument for each. Suffice it to say that I did agree, as did he, to a compromise, but I did not agree, in the terms of that compromise, to avoid any mention of Japanese literature; I specifically stated that I would refrain, where possible, from discussing the subject. There is indeed a serious dispute about content as regards the article in question. I welcome the interest of any neutral third party, administrator or otherwise, in reviewing the discussions that Elvenscout alludes to here at the original Talk Page and here at the Talk Page where the revised article is posted; I would welcome a review as well of his comments in his Edit Summaries here and again here. I mention the later because the tone of his remarks in the Edit Summaries consistently echoes the tone displayed in his Talk Page comments. That tone is dismissive and disparaging, and is offered with a relentless parade of pejorative adjectives and adverbs. His comments, from the first, have not been offered in a spirit of cooperation or of joint work with a fellow editor but often revert to the personal level. There is also the associated problem that User: Elvenscout742 appears to have claimed ownership of all matters pertaining to the vast field of Japanese literature; no comment on the subject can be offered without a laundry list of objections from him and no sentence that touches even marginally upon the topic can appear without his say-so. In his latest action, he has removed half of the posted article in question, a major edit by anyone’s definition, and he has done so unilaterally. He did not attempt to challenge the citations or to refute them nor, in fact, to consult them. Instead, he imputes, in his usual personal manner, bad faith on the part of another editor (see the Talk Page again), and offers that as his justification for the unilateral move. Again, I welcome the interest of any neutral third party in this matter.
- User: Elvenscout742, subsequent to his initial statement above, has offered another compromise here as regards the content of the subject article Tanka prose. I’m currently assessing his/her offer.Tristan noir (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Kujakupoet
Talk:Tanka prose
- ^ [54]
- ^ [55]
- ^ Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-determination&diff=next&oldid=512661642