Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
Music of_Argentina#Electronic
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Binksternet continues to aggressively police my edits on the Electronic section of the Music of Argetina. While I did not, in fact initially cite sources, which, along with accusing me of adding "promotional" material to the section , was Binksternet's original reason for removing my edits, I have since added sources for the edit. Binksternet then changed my edit again even after I added a source. This user seems to think that his/her status as "Senior Editor II" allows them to remove good faith, properly sourced edits to this page simpley because they don't know about or agree with the information being added. S/he also displayed a bias and ignorance of the subject at hand - namely ZZK records - by sarcastically referring to my update with quotation marks and labeling the group a "non-notable group of people". See below for Binksternet's exact quote: "Your 'update' involved the promotion of a non-notable group of people and ZZK Records; a label that does not have a Wikipedia article." This user's actions have become abusive and I would like to report them for it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I cited a source for my edit, as Binksternet requested, and they then proceeded to remove my edits again. Twice. How do you think we can help? Please protect the page from further edits by Binksternet and issue them a warning to stop abusing their position as a Senior Editor III. Binkersnet has been removing my edits based off a demonstrated bias against the subject at hand (ZZK Records)and myself ,a new user not entirely familiar with all the editing protocols on Wikipedia. This is exactly the type of behavior that Wikipedia discourages: senior users intimidating new ones with excessive policing and reprimands for good faith edits. Opening comments by BinksternetJohn Henry Dale is a new editor here, establishing a user account just one day ago. Thus, I assume John is unfamiliar with various Wikipedia guidelines and policies. John appears to be interested in promoting himself as a DJ, music producer, IT engineer and more, with the addition of this text to his user page. As well, John appears to be promoting ZZK Records, the Zizek Club in Buenos Aires, and the people involved in the club. John added "Zizek Club" to the Music of Argentina page four times within 24 hours.
This behavior approaches the brightline rule of WP:3RR, prohibiting more than three reversions in 24 hours. I warned him two minutes after his most recent reversion. Because of user page promotion and the ZZK/Zizek promotion, I have to assume that this editor is not here to help maintain a neutral point of view in music articles. Rather, I think the user is here as a promoter. The most recent change to the Music of Argentina article is indicative of what this editor wishes to do at Wikipedia: Extremely famous people such as Gustavo Cerati and Hernán Cattáneo get a very brief mention, but ZZK Records, Zizek Club, and three little-known individuals get described in detail. The weight and balance of the paragraph is completely thrown off here, slanted away from famous people and toward lesser knowns. My advice for John is to write an article about ZZK Records or the Zizek Club within which the mention of the three club leaders would be properly weighted and balanced. Don't try to change the Music of Argentina article to promote lesser artists above very famous ones. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Music of_Argentina#Electronic 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.
|
Wetback
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User User:Seb_az86556 has been reverting my edits on Wetback. I already had a Talk page open on this, asking people not to revert these edits without explanation, because a prior (new) user had been reverting these edits without explanation; Seb was also reverting these edits without proper discussion, and without first discussing on the Talk page. I proceeded to put an edit war warning on his Talk page; he did the same for me, then put up a message telling me I was abusing warnings. Then he finally posted on the Talk page, but only posted links to Wikipedia policies, without explaining at all how they apply to the current page or why the entire section must be deleted as a result of them. Edited to add: He has also repeatedly removed my comments on his Talk page, rather than discussing, and then posted additional warnings on my Talk page. This is inappropriate, as far as I'm aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbystripes (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Edited to add: User is now threatening me. He reverted notice of dispute resolution from his Talk page, with the reason "I remove whatever I want". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbystripes (talk • contribs) 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Well, I opened a talk page. I also tried warning him. He seems to obviously think he's in the right here, and he's not discussing things on Talk like he's supposed to. How do you think we can help? Get him to stop reverting my contributions and discuss the reasons for any changes, and to stop giving me false warnings. Opening comments by Seb_az86556Please 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.
Wetback 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.
|
John D._Haynes_House
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 The Wiki user Nyttend is harassing me and posting personal information (my home street address). I and the homeowner of the John D. Haynes House and can confirm this via email at Richard@HaynesHouse.org. I had worked with Wiki in the past to identify myself as the homeowner. Nyttend keeps posting my personal information event though myself and Wiki authorities have honored my requests. When I placed the house on NRHP I made is “address restricted.” My house has been vandalized from this and I also have people knocking on my door saying they got my home address from Wiki. Posting of personal information is against Wiki’s policies. Please stop Nyttend from vandalism and harassing me. Have you tried to resolve this previously?
At this point I politely ask Nyttend be permanently banned from Wiki. I and Wiki authorities have been very patient and have given Nyttend several chances to stop breaking Wiki policy. This has been going on for years now. I have also gone to the police about this as well. Why is posting my home street address so important to this person. Have them post their own personally identifiable information - not mine. Opening comments by NyttendPlease 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.
John D._Haynes_House 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.
|
Search Stilts - go to tallest and Heaviest Stilts
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The Person you have recorded for Tallest and Heaviest Stilts is not verified by anyone but himself. Please go to the following three Record verification sites to see that under strict adjudication that I official hold the record for tallest and Heaviest Stilts: www.alternativerecords.co.uk on this site go to "Biggest & Tallest then go to "Biggest" then look up Tallest and Heaviest Stilts www.guinnessworldrecord.com/records-1/heaviest-stilts-walked-with www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk search Doug Hunt The person you have did not walk the required 25 forward steps or have any official supervise. My stilt records met required criteria and have been recorded on web sites and books by out side adjudicators! Please contact any of the above record international record keepers for verification. Have you tried to resolve this previously? null How do you think we can help? do not take my word for it - please contact the three international record keepers for official results. The person you now have listed somehow was able to get in your web site with now verifications! He claims ever record I officially have and other official record holders. It took me years to properly accomplish my records and in each case we brought funds in for charity. He accomplished what he cliams on first trys! Plus he used supports and over head support line. Opening comments by nullPlease 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 byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Search Stilts - go to tallest and Heaviest Stilts 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.
|
Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview For the past couple of weeks a user has disputed what type of systems Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro are. Despite extensive discussions on the talk pages of both, full blown edit wars has erupted between parties involved on one person versus consensus of others. The Tyne and Wear Metro is a railway system connecting Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and surrounding areas in north-east England. On this general it is disputed whether it is a light-rail metro (or rapid transit) system or a large commuter rail network. Merseyrail is a unique system in that is a largely self-contained system that serves the Merseyside and Wirral areas of England. This especially includes Liverpool and Birkenhead. Because of underground central sections with highly frequent services, the user(s) dispute that it is a rapid-transit system despite general consensus that it is a commuter system, part of the National Rail network and run also as a train operating company. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions with the editors have been done at both talk pages. Other opinions have also been asked for from WT:UKRAIL. How do you think we can help? Could you help to bring in any outsiders' point of views or any help especially those familiar with the UK railway systems? Opening comments by BigScribeFirstly, this Alarics fellow is saying I am some waterspaces fellow as is this L1v3rp00l. They is WRONG! I I came in to sort out a dispute by L1v3rp00l and other editors, and put some sanity into it. The problem is in the Merseyrail article. It is apparent that L1v3rp00l has an attitude problem here and should attempt to see some common sense. He doesn't appear that bright and lacking logic, from his ramblings. It is clear this L1v3rp00l who has an obsession with the train operating company to be the first words in an article about Merseyrail the network. This is ridiculous, the article is about Merseyrail the network not the operating company. The uninitiated person who looks at the article would become confused with acronyms like TOC's, etc, and all sorts of rail buff language. The uninitiated person wants to know about Merseyrail the network, not pedantics about who runs the network. Wiki is for all people not just rail buffs. The opening was changed properly by me and more slicker and even mentions the train operating company to satisfy L1v3rp00l and further info is available from the the section. But this obsessed L1v3rp00l is not satisfied as an obsession has overtaken him and it is clearly a personal issue with him and other editors. He keeps changing the article despite being accommodated in the article in the opening para. The edit by me should be reinstated. It is clear this L1v3rp00l works for Northern Rail as he keeps degrading Merseyrail, and is he is from Liverpool, or is he? Merseyrail is a rapid-transit network FOR SURE! It has 5 minute intervals in the centre, despite L1v3rp00l's ramblings. The trains run at 75 mpg not 50mph as in T&W. L1v3rp00l is very confused rambling on about the national network when most of Merseyrail is self contained electric. Not that this matters at all. To him and his train operating company obsession it does. In the article no one is saying the network is a full metro. It is metro in parts for sure, but not overall. Opening comments by L1v3rp00lMy take is as follows: Merseyrail is not 'rapid transit' or a 'metro' because it is part of the wider National Rail network, uses standard British trains which are used elsewhere on other indisputably suburban networks. It is also not frequent enough (only 4 tph on each line, 2 tph on some) to qualify as a metro. Merseyrail is, fairly clearly, a suburban/commuter network. Tyne & Wear is frequent enough and also segregated from the rest of the UK's railway network and because the tracks are not owned and maintained by Network Rail, this qualifies it as both a metro and a rapid transit system. This seems like a good opportunity to express my concern that User:BigScribe and related I.P. addresses 94.194.21.227 and 188.223.113.142 are all sockpuppets of previously banned user User:Waterspaces. Exactly the same arrogant posting style, same desire to claim ownership of articles and same ignorance of the consensus. L1v3rp00l (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by AlaricsIn general I am inclined to agree with L1v3rp00l. The IP / BigScribe / Waterspaces is/are behaving unconstructively in my view. Part of what has been at issue here is whether Merseyrail should be one article or two (the TOC vs. the larger physical network described as such on maps). I did point out a disadvantage of having two separate articles, but I don't feel very strongly about it. As regards terminology, the distinctions between rapid transit / metro / underground / commuter rail / S-bahn etc. are not absolutely rigid, and Wikipedia is far from consistent about it across all articles. Merseyrail is arguably a hybrid system. I haven't looked at the Tyne and Wear article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Redrose64My involvement at Talk:Tyne and Wear Metro is nil; my involvement at Tyne and Wear Metro is limited to this prot, which I applied in response to an outstanding comment at WT:UKRAIL, and which I then logged here. My involvements at Merseyrail are larger (I did also protect that one at the same time as the above, for the same reason); and my involvement at Talk:Merseyrail still larger. On this last, I now find myself trying to sort out odd unsigned random comments and apply a valid signatures to these - and then the person whose sig I applied claims that it wasn't their comment. I started off trying to be neutral, but that is increasingly difficult now that unfounded accusations are being directed at me. Related threads: User talk:Mjroots#Semi-protection.; User talk:Redrose64#WP:RPP; User talk:Redrose64#Merseyrail. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I must declare that I have unilaterally applied a full prot to both articles. This is not to endorse any particular version, but it's clear to me that despite the existence of this DRN, notified parties continued to edit-war over the content of both articles (they have both been stable for about nine hours but I don't expect them to stay that way). This does not prevent any other admin lifting the prots without consulting me first. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by G-13114I would like to second most of what User:L1v3rp00l said above. I would also like to add that I added two references to the Tyne and Wear Metro article clearly defining it as a light rail/rapid transit system (See this diff). IP 94.194.21.227 (who I assume must the same as User:BigScribe) then reverted it, adding a version with a reference which he claimed supported his view that it was a commuter rail system, but in fact made no reference at all to the Tyne and Wear Metro (See this diff). I pointed out the inadequacy of this reference on the article's talk page, but did not receive a reply which addressed the point. He merely asserted his views in an abusive tone, without offering any supporting evidence. There followed several back and forth reverts and the page was then semi-protected. It then started again within the last few days. G-13114 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by 94.194.21.227Please 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 Babydoll9799Please 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 188.222.174.87Please 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 188.223.224.79Please 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 Lukeno94I'm very unused to DRN, it's somewhere I've barely visited, and I don't think I've ever posted here. Anyway, my involvement has simply been to revert two edits by the latest IP of this user to the version established by a consensus, at Tyne and Wear Metro, as well as one from the original reversion. [1] - my original reversion, to the consensus established by everyone involved apart from the IP. [2] - my first reversion of the current IP, citing the POV-pushing that this user appears to be engaging in. My reversion was then reverted as vandalism (which is bogus): [3]. I then reverted for a second time, this time citing that consensus was against them (and making a bad remark about IP hopping, which I apologize for): [4]. The remark was provoked by this comment about me deluding myself: [5]. This is a common theme of attack by this editor. I am a member of the concerned WikiProject, and oversaw the discussions, both at talk page level, and WikiProject talk page level. I hope this comment isn't too long! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
BigScribe (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro 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.
|
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I wish to have the above article deleted or at least my contribution deleted. The article has been sabotaged by foreign editors - Binksternet and Slp1 For example, the amendments refer to percentages of the vote of the Party at national elections. The Party only contests a small number of seats. However Slp1 has used the raw number of voters divided by the total number of voters. This gives a very low percentage. Most of the voters did not have the opportunity to vote for the Party. This is a mis-use of data. The article has been edited in a way that shows a lack of understanding of the political situation in Australia. Furthermore I do not appreciate being implied that I would act unethically and either set up a dummy WP account or have another user edit for me. Comment by Slp1 was as follows"- "One more piece of advice, if I may, based on past experience. Sometimes when things like this happen there is a temptation to make a new WP account or to recruit a real-life friend to edit instead. The problem with this strategy is that when it is very, very obvious to other editors what is going on, and just leads to even more trouble for everybody!!! Slp1 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)" This was the "last straw". I had never done this or even thought about it. My actions have always been above board. When the details are deleted, I will disassociate myself from Wikipedia entirely. Thank you. John Flanagan
I have made comments which have been ignored. How do you think we can help? I do not think that the dispute can be resolved. Opening comments by Binksternet and Slp1Please 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.
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) 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.
|
Earth's Own Food Company
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Fruitbatnt on 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User $ensible continues to undo edits regarding the ownership of this company by the Seventh Day Adventist church. See Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company for precedent in stating the ownership of such companies. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to start discussion on TALK page - no response. User appears to only exist to undo edits on this one article. How do you think we can help? Contact user $ensible directly, protect article. Opening comments by $ensiblePlease 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.
Earth's Own Food Company 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.
|
Tomaso Albinoni, Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview An addition of a source qualifying a contentious claim about a musical piece is being rejected (repeat consecutive reversions, six times now by one editor, include a violation of the three revert rule, four reverts in 24 hours!), and the person doing these reversions (Galassi) refuses to explain his rationale on the talk pages, despite repeated requests, including on the editor's own talk pages (Galassi). There is a general discussion at the end of this talk page (in the last section "Did the Albinoni fragments exist after all?", on Nicola Schneider's thesis), but the reverting editor won't discuss it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor Response to recent statement by Galassi: This is a VERIFIABLE source--available from the university, and theses are publications. The point is that these objections are disputed and require a full discussion.In my view Galassi has not yet entered a fair discussion with the other editors on the talk page. (No sock puppetry: I am NOT schneid9 or any named user there but am not at home so my ips vary, sorry). Allegations of bad faith are without merit--this is a real substantive dispute which would benefit from a level-headed and respectful discussion among the editors. This is not original research, but a verifiable scholar's discovery of new relevant evidence. There is no consensus on hoax, only that the piece was composed by Giazotto.
Asked for discussion on edit summaries, asked for discussion on reverting editor's talk page, and there is extensive discussion on the talk page below at end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor Note the talk page above is for the musical piece, but the edit warring is going on with the composer's page (Albinoni): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomaso_Albinoni (That is explained on the talk page for Albinoni, where discussion of this particular issue is referred to the Adagio's talk section.) How do you think we can help? Would at least prefer to have reverting editor discuss on talk page, before reverting what are legitimate edits (adding a different point of view from a published work by a classical scholar discovering new primary material). To me it seems to be a clear example of wanting to squelch legitimate dissenting evidence on a disputed subject. In my view, citing a string of Wikipedia tags does not constitute discussion; and one should try to fairly address the concern of the other editors, who have given a lot of thought to this and provided documentation for correcting an imbalance in the presentation. Opening comments by GalassiPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The editor Schneid9 and several IPs/proxies (and potential sockpuppets) are promoting an unpublished master thesis by one Nicola Schneider, probably the same person. The book fails WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, and goes against general scholarly consensus regarding the subject of the article (WP:FRINGE). --Galassi (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Tomaso Albinoni, Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor 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.
Thank you Steven Zhang--note that I am the same user as originally posted this request for mediation (I'm waiting on receiving a password for my username, MnlCls, from Wikipedia). I agree the sourcing for both sides is thin, and will post something on that once I get a username password later today. In the meantime, have you already looked at the talk section of Adagio? Link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor#Did_the_Albinoni_fragments_exist_after_all.3F Specifically check the comment by @schneid9 (--btw, for the record, I don't know and have no connection to this editor whatsoever, apparently a Michael Schneider, since it has come up in the dispute; I also have no connection whatsoever to Nicola Schneider, since that has also been alleged!). The subsection with the text "(1) Giazotto never claimed that the Adagio was all Albinonian" has some links that may be of use to you. (--I will post something in the talk section there to see if there is common ground once I can login with a username, to avoid confusion.) I don't want anything that is not a fair statement based only on reliable sources, and hope there will be consensus once it gets a full discussion on the talk page from all parties concerned. I am still reading up on Wikipedia policies, but I think we do NOT have a problem with WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, or WP:OR here for the Mangano fragment evidence in Nicola Schneider's work (which I have explained earlier and can respond to at length if needed), assuming things are presented with care and accuracy and the right weight (we are not there yet by any means, but I hope we will get there). I am more worried about violations of WP:NPOV in a case where passions seem to be running so strong. Thank you again for your assistance. 74.94.170.253 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)(Same as original poster.)
(Emphasis added.) To show significant scholarly influence, it would be necessary to show that it has been relied upon or seriously discussed in multiple scholarly sources which are themselves reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
@Schneid9: You have to remember that those of us who work in dispute resolution have to have a fairly — ahem — encyclopedic working knowledge of the various rules. Folks who are more concerned with content editing frequently have the effect of the rules well in mind on an everyday basis, but can't necessarily point to them or recite them verbatim with ease. Heck, for that matter when I saw what you were struggling over I immediately knew what the rule was but it took several minutes of uncertain searching to actually find it so I could cite it to you, and I'm a policy geek. @Everyone: I think that the current dispute is resolved. If no one objects within the next 24 hours or so, we'll close this listing. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC) @TransporterMan, Thank you for your help and no objections from me (the original poster) to closing it. (Though I agree with you as a general matter, I would add that this specific case was not only about finding the relevant rule; it would have been resolved in a much friendlier way except for some issues involving the reverting editor already noted. But hopefully things will go more smoothly now.)MnlCls (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview An IP user is constantly adding arbitrary content that violates Wikipedia's core policies of notability, verifiability and no original research. The content was challenged and removed, only to be added back by the user, without any clear reasoning. Subsequently, an edit war began, with the user showing no clear motive to reach a resolution. Also, the user wrongly infers that my actions are biased, which I have expressed are not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss the matter in a civil manner on the user's talk page, with no avail. I've provided adequate reasoning and logic on my behalf. However, the user has refused to actively participate in the discussion, ignoring my attempts and going so far as to removing my comments on his own talk page, which I was forced to revert. How do you think we can help? Reach a consensus that does not go against Wikipedia's policies. Opening comments by 98.197.228.122Please 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.
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox 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.
|
Attack (political party), Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview An unregistered user with shifting IP adresses repeatedly deletes content from articles on Bulgarian political parties, especially regarding the description of their ideologies, that is backed by cited sources. He/she replaces it with information without citing sources and without explaining in the edit summary or on the talk page, why he/she contests the sourced statements or why he/she disagrees with their presentation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to contact the user directly, because his/her IP adress changes every time he/she edits Wikipedia. So, messages on the IP user's talkpage won't reach him/her. My attempt to start a discussion on Talk:Attack (political party) has not been answered by my "opponent". Probably, he/she is not aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and not familiar with our customs. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Opened a thread at Talk:Attack (political party) How do you think we can help? To be honest, I don't have an idea how to start communication and find a compromise with an unregistered user who cannot be contacted directly and does not use edit summaries or talk pages to reason his edits. I would have semi-blocked the pages, because the unregistered user's edits and reverts seemed rather unconstructive and disruptive to me, but the admin at WP:RPP didn't agree and instead suggested dispute resolution. Hopefully, you are more experienced and/or have better ideas than I do. Opening comments by RJFFPlease 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 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:71BA:5D17:9185:6DAPlease 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.
Attack (political party), Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria 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.
|
Eve McVeagh Publicity Photo from Snafu (1945)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I have explained to Stefan2 that this photo had no copyright, no author. This was typical for publicity photos of the 1940s in the United States. I purchased the photo on eBay. There are no copyright markings on the picture front or back. Upon research I found the publicity photo was taken for the Biltmore Theatre on Broadway (now the Samuel J Friedman Theatre). I gave him the address to contact them. He refused to contact the theatre saying there is no guarantee a person would be there to help him. He said the photo needed to be scanned on the back (I understand that Wiki procedure). However, the photo is brittle and framed and I do not wish to scan it again in case of damage. Further, I wish to present this photograph at an Eve McVeagh exhibit and keep it in good condition for myself and possibly other collectors. I also found that a copy of the scanned photo was on the http://kirkdouglaslives.com/ website under "ladies of kirk douglas films" of the 1960s (although the picture is over 20 years older than the movie "The Way West" from 1968. I asked him to contact the webmaster who might have more information regarding the copyright status. The photo is now a candidate for deletion under "possibly unfree files." Yet its use seems to imply it is free. Laws in Sweden (where he resides) and other countries differ from the United States. I think this passes the threshold as no copyright and free public domain in the United States. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Stefan's argument was that the source information did not prove there was no copyright. I explained that Theatre companies or Studios often did not credit authors of publicity photos. The original source was listed as eBay item. I researched and found that this photo was taken for the Biltmore Theatre on Broadway, NYC, NY (now the Samuel Friedman Theatre). It has no copyright markings. A scanned copy of the picture is on http://kirkdouglaslives.com/ "ladies of kirk douglas films" section How do you think we can help? Please explain to Stefan2 that this photo passes the threshold for free no copyright public domain in the United States. Please contact the Samuel J Friedman Theatre (formerly Biltmore Theatre) or kirk douglas lives to verify this status Samuel J Friedman Theatre: 261 West 47th Street. City, New York City or the webmaster at http://kirkdouglaslives.com/ Opening comments by Stefan2Please 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.
Eve McVeagh Publicity Photo from Snafu (1945) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Pope Francis#Relation to Jewish community in Argentina
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Here is the quote that is in question: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." Essentially, one user (and only one user), Herzen is making the claim that: The Jerusalem Post is not an appropriate source because Israel is an "apartheid state" Using a quote about the Holocaust that mentions Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II implies that Pope Benedict XVI (because he is NOT mentioned) is a Nazi(!) Mentioning the word "Holocaust" is automatically contentious, especially in the minds of "Muslims and Arabs" Because of the alleged "contentiousness" of this quote, it violates BLP and can be deleted regardless of the discussion on the talk page (where, by the way, no other editor who has weighed in has agreed that the Jerusalem Post should be ruled out as a source, or that there is any contentiousness in the quote either because the Holocaust is mentioned or Benedict XVI is not mentioned). I find the claims against this quote to be inappropriate in and of themselves...and unreasonable. If the quote is deleted again, I will not revert because it is already to the point of an edit war and I have never been in an edit war...so I would appreciate help from this page instead.
I have opened a discussion on the article talk page and also on Herzen's talk page. It is clear to me that this dispute cannot be resolved without help. How do you think we can help? First, an opinion as to whether the quote itself automatically violates BLP rules, and so can be deleted regardless of talk page discussion. Second, whether there really is a "hidden" attack on anyone, calling that person (Benedict XVI) a Nazi. Thirdly, whether the quote should be allowed to stay or not based on a consensus on the talk page -- or whether it is "contentious" regardless of the opinion of other editors and should be disallowed. Opening comments by HerzenPlease 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.
NearTheZoo misrepresents above what I have said. My point is that the editorial implicitly makes a snipe at Benedict by mentioning Francis and John Paul but not Benedict when it comes to relations with Jews. The implicit point is that Benedict is not as good a friend of the Jews as he should be. On the article's Talk page, DeCausa agrees that "the newspaper is making a somewhat sly point", but NearTheZoo refuses to recognize the presence of any innuendo. I believe that because the editorial insinuates something bad about Benedict, it violates WP:BLP. Abductive agrees that the editorial quote is problematic: he deleted the quote twice, after I had conceded on the Talk page that there was consensus to keep the quote. (Before Abductive's intervention, I was not aware of WP:BLP's stipulation that contentious statements about living persons must be immediately removed.) On his Talk page, Abductive wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed." So, I am not the only one to have found the quote problematic. Although DeCausa recognizes the putdown of Benedict, he does not think that the sly, implicit putdown is grounds for deleting the quote. This is what the matter turns around. Should an article about the present pope include a snide putdown of the previous (living) pope, even though the quote in question "says nothing that is not already in the article" (to quote Abductive again)? The point about Israel being considered to be an apartheid state (by Israelis themselves) concerns WP:WORLDVIEW. The point was that the quote is inflammatory, since Arabs and Muslims might find it hypocritical that the editorial writer expresses concern about Catholics being able to interact with Jews, given that the Israeli government goes out of its way to make it difficult for Israelis and Palestinians to interact with each other. But I have dropped this issue. – Herzen (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by GilabrandPlease 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 Bmclaughlin9Please 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 Upper lima 65Please 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 Abductive
Opening comments by DeCausaI only posted once on this on the article talk page and don't have strong views on it. But since TransporterMan kindly posted an invite on my talk page to participate and added an "Opening comments by DeCausa" heading, I will comment here. IMHO, it's a valid enough quote and Herzen's arguments against seem tenuous in the extreme. The Israeli/apartheid argument is, I would have thought, a dead duck. Does it mean we are to remove quotes across WP from Israeli newspapers in this area for fear of inflaming Muslims? Quite apart from WP:NOTCENSORED, I'm sure the very small minority of Muslims who are susceptible to being so "inflamed" have bigger fish to fry than this particular article. On Benedict, I thought the Jerusalem Post might have been making a sly dig at Benedict since he would have had contact with Jews in his youth in the same way as JP II had. NearTheZoo thinks not, because of specific facts about JP II being involved with a Jewish theatre group in his youth. He may be right, I don't know. In any case, even if the Jerusalem Post is having a dig at Benedict, so what? The quote is there to evidence what the Jewish world thinks of him in relation to other popes. It's a quote (not WP speaking); it's stated that it's an editorial; the Jerusalem Post is a notable English-language expression of Jewish opinion; you have to work very hard to take some real BLP inference from it. Frankly, I can't see what all the fuss is about. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Talk:Pope Francis#Relation to Jewish community in Argentina discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I am not opening or "taking" this case at the present time, but I wanted to note that I have expanded the participant list to include everyone who recently participated in the discussion at the article talk page and have notified all of the additional editors on their respective talk pages. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Roman reconstructionist pagan
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 TParis, a Christian, has removed every single external link to pagan resources relating to Roman reconstructionist paganism. People who look up this page are naturally going to be interested in finding other websites on this topic and the only link he has left in is an internal link to Nova Roma - which is not the only website on this topic. It is very important, for the people who are interested in practicing contemporary Roman polytheism, that this page include a variety of relevant links to good external websites on this topic. I think it is fine for Christians to edit pagan pages where they are able to be impartial - but when they start stripping out all external links I think the question has to be asked: is this a move to prevent access to information on paganism? Probably the best websites on the Religio Romana are: - https://sites.google.com/site/cultusdeorumromanorum/ - http://novaroma.org/nr/Cultus_deorum_Romanorum The best Religio Romana blogs, imo, are: - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/ - http://romanpagan.blogspot.com/ - http://lases.blogspot.it/ - http://romanpolytheist.wordpress.com/ -http://goldentrail.wordpress.com Excellent free online translations of ancient Roman literature are available at: - http://www.naderlibrary.com/ (scroll down to classics) - http://poetryintranslation.com/index.html#Latin: - http://sacred-texts.com/cla/index.htm (scroll down to Roman) I would like add these references under "external links" but I am concerned that TParis will just strip them - as he has clearly indicated to me that he will do. I know he will delete any changes I make to this page and probably block me as well. I can imagine the power he has in this respect gives him a little thrill. He is claiming neutrality but what he is really doing is stripping the life out of the page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have communicated with him twice - his response has been to threaten to block me as a Wikipedia editor (for supposedly being a spammer - which is rot, I basically rewrote the page concerned and all the references supplied come via me). Which is ironic because it is he who is trying to stifle the flow of information not me. How do you think we can help? 1. Tell him to stop removing links to pagan websites on pages about paganism. 2. Tell him to stop threatening me (eg, to block my editing account) so that I can insert the links mentioned above, under external links on that page so that pagans can easily locate materials relevant to their religion on Wikipedia. It is very important, for the people who are interested practicing contemporary Roman polytheism, that this page include a variety of relevant links to external websites on this topic. Opening comments by TParisInteresting personal attack to start out with. Also called, in latin of course, an ad hominem attack. The facts of the matter have nothing to do with my faith. The links above were used originally as reliable sources which falls foul of WP:IRS. Specifically, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." As external links, which this user has also spammed on Galli, Mercury (mythology), Chlorpromazine, Lares and much more (and spammed another blog that I assume is his own on Bipolar I disorder), I also pointed him to WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" This case is simple and if the user continues to spam external links, I intend to seek a block on the administrator's noticeboard.--v/r - TP 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Roman reconstructionist pagan discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
This dispute is far from settled. These are valuable resources made by people who actually know something about the Roman religion, and it should not be removed from this article because some administrator is being a Christian bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Male Privilege
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Rgambord on 22:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I noticed this article has very poor sources, and what I see as biased and unsubstantiated content. Some of the references appeared to be vandalism (article mentioned female genital mutilation as an example of male privilege, yet the reference was a site on male genital mutilation aka circumcision). A large portion of the article appears to be a poorly written essay that was copy-pasted into wikipedia with inline (author, YYYY) citations intact. The article also spends a lot of time not covering male privilege, but instead covering alleged instances of it (no sources stating that each things is male privilege, just sources stating that the things mentioned exist, such as the wage gap). I also take issue with the POV-ness of the article, because women do enjoy quite a few privileges in many societies, and Female Privilege links back to this article. Basically, the whole thing is a mess. User:UseTheCommandLine is repeatedly reverting my good-faith edits to remove unsourced, biased, or irrelevant material, and accusing me of edit warring. I've gone to the talk page to discuss why I removed the material in the article, yet my edits were still reverted. I then (without removing any content) went through and inline-tagged each part of the article that was POV, unsourced, dubious, or undue. That edit was again, reverted. My edit to add POV tag to the top of the page was reverted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss with User:UseTheCommandLine on the talk page in vain. I saw that User:UseTheCommandLine was also recently involved in an edit war with other editors on White Privilege, and the article was locked for a week due to POV pushing. Due to this recent event, I asked if we needed to take this to DRN, to which User:UseTheCommandLine replied, yes. How do you think we can help? I would like User:UseTheCommandLine to justify her reasoning for completely reverting all of my edits, and I would like an impartial third party to read the talk page and the arguments here and help build consensus as to what, exactly Male Privilege should include, and whether it should be referred to as a given, or a hypothesis, and whether the article violates WP:UNDUE in covering only one side of a two-sided issue. Opening comments by UseTheCommandLineI reverted a large deletion and explained myself on the talk page even before making the reversion; I feel this is consistent with WP:BRD. I attempted to engage the other editor directly at that time. I reverted another removal of what I interpreted as sourced content, and engaged the other editor on the talk page about it. Further, I made good faith efforts to help address some of what I was interpreting the other editor's concerns were, with subsequent changes in wording. This editor immediately started leveling accusations of bias after their first deletion. I realize this is more of a behavioral issue, but I also feel like this makes it difficult to drill down into the specific criticisms of the other editor. I agree that because of the controversial nature of the subject, word choice must be deliberate, but at other controversial pages I have edited there has been an unfortunate tendency of some editors to try and insert too much mitigating language, which does a disservice to the reader. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Male Privilege 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.
----
|
White privilege
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Filed by UseTheCommandLine on 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Back in October 2012, an edit war broke out at this page after some edits were made to the lead paragraph, inserting a bunch of mitigating language that was clearly intended to cast doubt on the idea the article is written about. at the time I filed a DRN case, calling them weasel words, but DRN did not really become involved. Several months of protracted discussion followed from multiple editors. Recently, an ip editor removed some of the mitigating language that had again crept in. This removal was promptly reverted by an editor involved with the previous dispute (Thucydides411), and re-reverted by me -- briefly, I thought the mitigating language violated WP:SPADE, WP:WEASEL, and perhaps WP:UNDUE, since substantial space is given to criticisms of the idea in the lead section. Then the editor who had instigated the edit war in October (Apostle12) became involved. I attempted to open a talk page discussion about wording, but I am frankly unwilling to try and negotiate with this editor on my own. I have encountered this user's edits in other contexts and have had enough experience with their poor sourcing, POVPUSH, and other disruptive behavior that it is quite hard for me to WP:AGF. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion (current), extensive talk page discussion (October 2012) How do you think we can help? Additional eyes are needed. I am unwilling simply to argue with Apostle12; I genuinely wish to come to consensus, but my experience has been that without intervention or interest by other users things go in circles, and I do not have time for that. While Thucydides411 seems much more amenable to genuine consensus-building, they still are clearly critical of the concept. Other editors involved with previous disputes have largely abandoned editing, AFAICT. Opening comments by Apostle12UsetheCommandLine asserts that the current content dispute dates from Oct, 2012 and involves mitigating language that recently "crept" into the article. In fact the so-called "mitigating language" (really just language acknowledging some degree of dispute) was a compromise proposed by Thucydides411 on Feb 14, 2013. UsetheCommandLine was actively involved on Feb 14, accepted Thudydides411's compromise and engaged in collaborative editing supporting the compromise. On Jan 22, 2013 an unnamed editor had inserted mitigating language into the first sentence of the lede so that it read "White privilege refers to what some individuals perceive as advantages that white people enjoy in certain societies..." On Feb 14 UsetheCommandLine eliminated the mitigating language, along with the word "controversial," which he called "weasily." In a clear attempt at compromise Thucydides411 added the words "are argued to," so that the sentence read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to enjoy in certain societies..." I made some unrelated minor edits that day, then UsetheCommandLine engaged in collaborative editing, leaving "are argued to" intact and changing the sentence to read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies..." I was relieved that UsetheCommandLine had accepted Thucydides411's compromise and that the dispute had been resolved. On March 2 an unnamed editor removed the "are argued to" compromise, and longtime editor MalikShabbaz reverted, insisting that the unnamed editor take the matter to Talk. The compromise held until March 14, when an unnamed editor attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; Dawn Bard supported the compromise and reverted. On March 25 Beloki once again attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; UsetheCommandLine supported the compromise by reverting and retaining the "are argued to" language. On April 2 an unnamed editor attacked the compromise by removing the "are argued to" language, calling it "silly." Thucydides411 reverted, supporting the compromise he had originally authored and which up to that point had been supported by all other major editors including UsetheCommandline, Thucydides411, Malik Shabbaz, and myself. Suddenly UsetheCommandLine abandoned the compromise and reverted Thucydides411. I viewed this as a clear violation of Bold/Revert/Discuss and changed the sentence back to the version incorporating the Thucydides411's original "are argued to" compromise. Both Thucydides411 and I appealed to UsetheCommandline on his Talk page, however he refused to discuss the matter and opened this extremely premature DRN. I believe we are unlikely to find a better solution than the "are argued to" compromise. It does not fully satisfy those, like UsetheCommandLine, who will only be satisfied by full endorsement of the "White Privilege" concept; he wants the article to refer to "White privilege" as an uncontested fact. Nor does it fully satisfy the many other editors who believe the "White privilege" concept is unproven and is often overstated. I believe the first sentence should read something like, "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies." Fully satisfying no one and adequately satisfying everyone is what compromise is all about. The real mystery is why UsetheCommandLine abandoned this compromise, which he himself supported. I can only conclude he is demonstrating, as he has so often before, an "all take, no give" attitude, refusing discussion and collaboration in favor of intransigence, wikilawyering and attempts to discourage editor involvement by insisting on time consuming RFC's and DRN's. Opening comments by Thucydides411The White Privilege article has many problems with neutrality. The most glaring problem, which I have been trying to address, is the lead, which was changed in November 2012 from a fairly objective overview to one which is highly partisan. Around this time, a number of other highly partisan additions were made to the article, particularly in the section on Australia, which violate the neutral and objective tone which Wikipedia is supposed to employ. I have added a section to the article succinctly describing some of the objections to the idea of white privilege. On the talk page, I also provided a number of sources which disagree with the term and its use in historical research. The relevant discussion is here. None of these efforts have been able to move the discussion, which seems to be driven largely by ideological concerns. This is bad for Wikipedia: whatever we personally believe, we must be able to write neutrally. White privilege discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I initially closed this listing today for lack of talk page discussion based on the comments of the listing editor, but in fact in looking further into the matter there has been some recent talk page discussion and, indeed, the prior DRN listing was closed to send the matter back to the talk page without prejudice to refiling. I am not opening or "taking" this dispute and will leave it to other volunteers to decide whether or not they believe there has been sufficient recent talk page discussion. @UseTheCommandLine: Your opening statement makes it unclear whether you will or will not take part in any discussion which occurs here. Will you or will you not? — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Tracklacers
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview For nearly two years I have struggled to bring some structure to this poorly written, self-promotional and superlative article. My only motivation, proven by my editing history, is to assist in bringing existing content to within Wiki guidelines, especially when it is such a blatant abuse of the open editing policy such as in this article. Unregistered users from a series of IP addresses (with no other contribution to wiki prior or post) revert my edits and change the tone of the article from what I try to present (unbiased, neutral) to something that I believe is inappropriate for this site. There are some obvious COI signs (e.g. the page was created by a user with the same username as the article subject), and they believe it is their right to direct the page as they so wish. They do not grasp fundamental basics (references, hyperlinks, grammar) but even revert my edits regarding this. My most recent tidy up was reverted in less than 4 days by an unregistered user who challenged me in the talk page. I invited them to visit several guidelines on relevant areas and justify their edits, giving justification for mine, but they almost immediately reverted my edits, removed my [citation needed] tag, posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals. Rather than get drawn into an edit war and breach the 3RR rule, I'd like to get a more experienced eye to pass judgement or offer an opinion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? In 2011, I used the COI board. It attracted the attention of an editor who performed a small tidy up but didn't continue to monitor the article, so the editor resumed activity. I've repeatedly used the talk page to point out policy+explain my reasons but to no avail. The current incarnation of the phantom editor is particularly confrontational, the first ever of their 6 edits was this afternoon and they've really tried to wrestle control of this article from neutral/unbiased editors (i.e. me) How do you think we can help? This person is convinced I have a personal vendetta against them (the editor and the subject of the article), and as I'm not conforming to their demands, are refusing to accept anything I put forward. I believe there has been repeated and substantial breach of several policies and if a senior editor was to review the happenings and make a judgement call, perhaps the article can be edited freely by Wikipedia editors in line with Wikipedia policy rather than controlled by a closely connected party Opening comments by 86.176.249.75Please 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.
Please see the talk page, I have invited Rayman60 to work with me in making the article one that everyone can enjoy, not just Rayman60 whom I would say has a personal attachment to the subject / article as in his words he has been working the page for over a year, I cant comment on that as this is my first batch of edits on the article. I have been nothing but courteous and polite and I am met with what I would describe quite frankly as rude and offensive comments like "posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals" and terminology like war and call the shots as if to display some sort of power struggle eg "Rather than get drawn into an edit war" and "…you think you can Rock up here and call the shots". Every argument put forward by Rayman60 can be mirrored for example, the edits that I have made, which I might add were in place before Rayman started this onslaught to remove my comments, has been undone by he or she ill assume 'him' from the name. Rayman60 clearly wants to 'Run the show' with this article, I have tried to accommodate his wishes and tweak my edits rather than just dismiss them example 'Grammy' over 'grammy' I have removed dead citations and added new ones as per his request. He has done nothing but ignore my requests to work together, he has used offensive language towards me and my edits and even since this dispute has gone back into the page / article and posted an other banner which holds no weight as it's clearly something we're discussing here, in asking for some sort of mediation. Rayman60 I have n problem with you, my only problem is that I have an extensive knowledge of music, the article and some of the artists mentioned and I have as much right to update the article as you do, it seems that most of your edits are based on your point of view and therein lies the problem. My edits, in my opinion fall within the Wiki guidelines but again i am open to adjust accordingly and keep it fair, I'm afraid that I can't comment on the previous editors. Thanks guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.18.223 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Tracklacers 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.
|
Article on Harold S. Koplewicz
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Over the past two days or so another user and I have had on-going disputes as to wording, whether certain citations should be used, appropriate titles and references, etc. We have tried communicating with each other on the Talk Pages, but it seems that we are talking past each other, with each stuck and feeling that the other has some sort of personal agenda toward the subject of the article. I think the other editor is biased toward the subject and is manipulating the wording to promote the subject, and that editor accuses me of having a negative agenda of disparaging the subject. Since it has devolved into an edit war, I have advocated that we request Dispute Resolution and help from the community. He has not agreed, but I am asking for it. We both advocate that the article be deleted, but neither of us wants the other person to change our edits in the interim. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Continual communication in the Talk Pages, but this does not seem to accomplish anything. We both agree that the article should probably be deleted, but for different reasons. I agree because I don't think the subject is notable. The other editor because of the belief that there are NPOV violations. How do you think we can help? Perhaps it would be helpful if a neutral third party reviewed the article, our edits and Talk entries, and proposed either alternatives or suggested a way to insure that what is written is in conformity with WP guidelines. Opening comments by Jacksonjones1972My point of entry to this article was numerous obvious and veiled anti-Semitic references to the subject within the article, almost all of which were the product of a small number of posters who had no WP history other than editing this one article. Antisemitism is a topic that interests me greatly. In the course of editing out this violation of BLP standards, I found that two of these posters seem intent on editing and reediting to hold the subject in the worst possible light in every case. One small example is the insistence on identifying the subject by a reference to his work from a 13 year old article, rather than his professional title. Another is insisting (by repeated reversion) he be referred to as the "manager" of a publication identified by a woman's name (part of the publishing company), rather than his actual title as Editor in Chief of a research journal. There are many, many others, including personal conclusions of the editors not supported by the articles. Taken in total with the antisemitic references, I believe there is an effort here being made to disparage the subject for some combination of his religion. and other biases of the editors involved. Thank you. Article on Harold S. Koplewicz discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The term "commit suicide" contains a judgement, as evidenced by sources provided. Another editor disagrees and has reversed edits accordingly. Discussion has been extensive. Writer is willing to compromise on alternative terminology, and to provide voluminous additional supporting information. A loaded term in not neutral when there are various "more neutral" terms readily available. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have notified WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force of this discussion. WikiProject Death had also been notified. How do you think we can help? After reading the discussion, offer an impartial reference opinion supported by empirical or authoritative references (rather than opinion, conjecture, assumptions, or impressions). Writer argues that unsubstantiated/un-referenced arguments have themselves been shaped by the stigma promoted by the terminology in question, and thus cannot be unbiased. Opening comments by GideonFPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral 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.
|
Shephard Smith
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 Since 2005, there have been ongoing allegations that Fox News anchor Shephard Smith is gay and may even support gay marriage. These allegations have been reported and discussed in a variety of news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times and the documentary film Outrage about alleged closeted politicians who oppose gay rights. Additionally, Shephard Smith had a public dispute with Rush Limbaugh because of a clip in which Shephard Smith appeared to cast gay marriage in positive light. He has been included in Out magazine's rankings of the most powerful gay men and women in America for the last several years. These are not tabloids, but mediums with large audiences. Because these allegations are receiving more national attention and controversy in recent years, I (and other users before our dispute) have attempted to include information about the allegations. My recent edits made clear that Shephard Smith publicly identifies as heterosexual but has experienced accusations of supporting gay marriage and being gay. I dream of horses first reverted my edits with no explanation, then I reverted them back. Then Ducknish changed them. Ducknish said this was a BLP violation, claiming no allegations should be included in a Wikipedia article of a living person. However, these are allegations that have been covered by the national media and a documentary film that received much attention in 2009. I believe this topic is relevant information regarding Shephard Smith as a cultural icon; regardless of whether the allegations are true, they have come to characterize how much of America understands him. Ducknish believes reporting on the allegations counts as misinformation and violates Wikipedia's BLP policy, even if the article were to state they are only allegations widely reported in the media and not confirmed. He also believes including information Shephard Smith's alleged support of gay marriage and referencing Rush Limbaugh's criticism is unnecessary. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed the allegations on the article's talk page, and reached out to I dream of horses and discussed the matter on his/her talk page. Ducknish messaged me a threat of being banned for reverting edits too much. There has been much back and forth on the talk page of the article, so that may be worth looking at. One individual listed a series of sources, in addition to the ones I included in my edits. How do you think we can help? I think you can objectively look at the information to determine whether the allegations are widely-reported enough to be considered part of Shephard Smith's cultural identity. Then you can reach out to the parties involved with your decision. If you agree with me, revert back to my most recent edits or edit the info as necessary. If not, keep the page as is. Adding your decision to the talk page would be helpful as well, since it seems this is an ongoing issue. Opening comments by DucknishI believe the fact that these are allegations is the most important one to consider regarding the addition of this content to the article. Shepard Smith's main notability comes from his career as a journalist, I think we can all agree on that. And with that, the focus of the Shepard Smith article should be on what makes him notable, his career. I perceive no benefit from including these allegations and speculations, when they add nothing to an understanding of Smith's role as a journalist. Unless he chooses to comment on it, we ought to accept this as a personal matter that has no place in the article, or at least, a greatly reduced place. The potential harm from repeating unproven claims such as these is much greater than any educational benefit from maintaining it within the encyclopedia. Ducknish (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by I dream of horsesI was reverting the edits because I thought they were vandalism. However, it seems that they were in good faith. My apologies to Cat spasms. However, you have to realize that Shepard Smith is a living person. Adding such a still-controversial bit of information to the article could violate BLP. Even if it doesn't, it may adversely affect his career. Therefore, in my opinion, it should remain out of the article entirely until and unless he confirms or denies the allegations. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Shephard Smith 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.
|
American History X Film Criticism
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I believe that the editors of wikipedia are giving undue praise to the film American History X which shows considerable violent content. Some viewers may be harmed by watching this film and wikipedia as a public resource should provide a critical viewpoint on this film. The criticism should say that this film contains excessive and unnecessary violence towards people of color. Instead the article sings the praises of this film which defends white supremacy by the way, and that praise will be harmful to an unsuspecting public. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried twice to add negative criticism about this film warning viewers about the violence in this movie. Both times my additions have been deleted. How do you think we can help? You can write a warning or criticism telling people that the movie called American History X contains substantial violence towards people of color. That people should consider not watching this movie because it defends the intolerant viewpoint that white supremacy is good. It is a horrible film and should never have been released to the public. Opening comments by wiki editorsPlease 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.
American History X Film Criticism discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Both the main and talk page articles of Common Core State Standards Initiative are very controversial in that they do not adequately reflect the national debate going on about this federal education program. The editor/s of the article is/are completely ignoring the critics who say that this program does not only set national standards for education, but also takes away local and state control from schools, parental involvement, and forces home, charter, Christian, and other private schools to adopt the CCSS, whether they want to or not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Put my own 2 cents worth in and will call Editor Assistance in. How do you think we can help? Provide some guidance on how to incorporate legitimate documented criticisms on the talk page into the main article. Thanks. Opening comments by ThurmantPlease 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 FreeRangeFrog --seberlePlease 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 NelsonheberPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative 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.
|
François Robichon de La Guérinière, User talk:Technical 13/2013#Please don't "fix" what isn't broken, Robert Kirkwood, 2007 Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles, List of bishops of Strängnäs
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Technical 13 on 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I'm having an issue with another editor who seems to be intentionally chasing down my edits and reverting them in what I perceive as an attempt to harass me and I'm requesting mediation. The first incident was this reversion after which the editor left a note on my talk page of which I responded to. The user has since reverted multiple other edits of mine without just cause: [7], [8], and [9]. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested the user stop on their talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like this to be mediated and request that if (s)he wishes to remove my tagging, that (s)he improves what the tags have been specified before removing the tags. If the user doesn't understand why I placed the tags there, the appropriate thing to do is ask on the talk page and/or my talk page and not just revert because they don't like the formatting cleanup I was asked to do. Opening comments by JustlettersandnumbersPlease 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.
François Robichon de La Guérinière, User talk:Technical 13/2013#Please don't "fix" what isn't broken, Robert Kirkwood, 2007 Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles, List of bishops of Strängnäs 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.
|
Constitution of_Hungary
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Constitution of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Harnad (talk · contribs)
- Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
- Koertefa (talk · contribs)
- Fakirbakir (talk · contribs)
- Norden1990 (talk · contribs)
- Ltbuni (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There are some important ongoing developments regarding the new Hungarian constitution and its amendments. The constitution and amendments have been widely criticized internationally by heads of state as undemocratic. International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele has written several analyses and critiques of the constitution and amendments -- in Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog as well as before the Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee in Washington last week. I have been posting updates of Professor Scheppele's critiques on the Constitution of Hungary page and Users Biruitorul and Koertefa have kept deleting them on constantly changing grounds: are soap-boxing, recentism, unbalanced POV, NEWSORG and UNDUE. I have tried to rebut their grounds for objection, but they keep deleting. I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized: it is important that the basis for the international objections -- which are precisely those described by Professor Scheppele -- should appear to counterbalance them. (It is precisely this sort of tactic of media control in Hungary that is the focus of the international objections; the current government's parliamentary super-majority has become accustomed to controlling the press and public opinion in Hungary, as well as in Hungarian consulates and embassies abroad. This makes it all the more important that this should not be allowed to happen in Wikipedia.)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried modifying the text, and many explanations on the talks pages of the text as well as the talk pages of the editors who were doing the deleting, including my own talk page. I have also asked David Goodman (User:DGG) to mediate.
How do you think we can help?
I think those who have been deleting my updates of the international criticism should instead be encouraged to post the other side's point of view: Those who are in favor of the constitution and amendments, and who think the international criticism is unwarranted. The more detail they can give about the contents of the constitution and modifications, and any errors in the criticism, the better. But repeated deletion, on multiple spurious grounds, is not the way.
Opening comments by Biruitorul
I wrote a balanced summary of the recent amendment to the Hungarian constitution: one paragraph of description, one of criticism. Given the size of the rest of the article, I think this is an appropriate dimension. Also, this is not that significant of an event - yes, it's important, but it isn't, as Harnad claims, an "important, ongoing historic event... gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide". With all due respect, the last time anyone really cared about internal developments in Hungary was the Ajka alumina plant accident.
I vociferously object to the inclusion of the blog post in question. For one, no matter how many times Harnad repeats the phrase "International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele", that does not automatically mean we should be quoting her. And it's slightly misleading to say the comments appeared on "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog"; there is Paul-Krugman-as-economist, and there is Paul Krugman-as-politically-opinionated-individual, and it's the latter who mainly runs the blog. The comments are partisan in tone, they are on a blog (i.e., not peer reviewed), they are editorial content - in short, they are not relevant to the topic.
And I'd like to point out that Harnad has spread around the exact same blog quote at Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán, Politics of Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Fidesz, Viktor Orbán and, most ludicrously, given that it covers 2000 years, History of Hungary. Does Kim Lane Scheppele (note the red link) really have to be mentioned in all those articles? I happen to care about the article on the Constitution the most because I wrote it (and no, I'm not claiming I own it, but it's natural I should care), but this should be addressed. Harnad's strong feelings on the topic shouldn't be making a soapbox out of a whole spectrum of articles. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Professor Scheppele's analysis is now published in the record of the US Helsinki Commision [1a], [1b]. Critiques by others have also been published in the official working documents of the European Parliament [2],[3], [4], [5], by the Venice Commission on Hungary [6], Amnesty International [7 and Human Rights Watch [8]. --Stevan Harnad 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:PSTS, we don't normally directly cite testimony delivered at hearings, official reports and the like, assuming there are secondary sources that have covered the same material and reported on the same topic. That being the case, I fail to see the relevance of this link dump. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is not at all how I read WP:PSTS. But if the objective is to describe specifically how a constitution curtails freedoms, according to the interpretations of its critics, and we are not allowed to cite hearings, official reports, newspapers, constitutional scholars or Nobel Laureates' blogs (because the Nobel Laureate is a liberal!) to that effect, what can we cite? Your summary does not make these critical points: if it did, there would be no need to attribute them to Professor Scheppele (if that is what makes you keep deleting them), just as long as they were clearly made. But the specific points of criticism are being suppressed, and they do need to be made. This really is a matter of balance. No one is proposing to delete the positive interpretations of the constitutions: just to to complement them clearly with the negative ones. --Stevan Harnad 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just a minute, please: much of what you've said distorts or misinterprets my statements. The optimal sort of references are readily identified at WP:RS - "articles, books, monographs, or research papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community" (it's probably a little too early for those) or "news reporting from well-established news outlets" (of those there have been plenty, and the article touches on them). The problem with Krugman's blog is not that he is a liberal (I would object as strongly to citing, say, the blog of conservative laureate Mario Vargas Llosa); it's that it is a blog, with all that WP:BLOGS has to say about that, and his prize doesn't wave away that issue. In theory, I don't object to reporting what Scheppele has to say, provided it's in in an appropriate venue, say this one. But as far as criticisms worth mentioning go, those have been made, in descending order of relevance, by opposition Hungarian politicians, by European-level ones, and by American law professors. I'm not saying the last are completely unworthy of mentioning, but the focus really should be on what Hungarians themselves have to say, given that that has been given most weight by available news coverage. Attila Mesterházy and Gordon Bajnai may not be legal experts, but they are where the attention of reliable sources has been focused. - Biruitorul Talk 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- One of the core problems at issue in the critiques of the Hungarian Constitution is the freedom of the Hungarian press and media. The international criticisms of the Constitution are barely covered by the Hungarian press [9], precisely because of the threat of fines (or worse) owing to the Media Law under dispute. Hungarian press coverage is extremely unbalanced, by WP standards. I also find it very puzzling that you would find a Budapest trade newspaper a more reliable source about the views expressed in the US Helsinki Commision than the official records of the Commission itself. (It would also mean a lot less coverage of important current events in WP if they had to wait for published peer-reviewed learned-journal articles to be cited before they could be described...) --Stevan Harnad 11:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That blog's political opinion is, of course, not enough to support such a bold claim that the media in Hungary is not free. That blog is a clear POV, for example, it ends with stating that "those responsible for Hungary and the region in the State Department will not be swayed by Szájer’s twisting of the truth.". That's a clear political opinion and not what I would call a neutral approach... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Supposing Hungarian press coverage is unbalanced, what about press coverage in German, in French or, for that matter, in English? Surely the tentacles of Orbánism haven't grown so powerful as to muzzle every important newspaper there is.
- I don't have any special love for The Budapest Times, but your comment displays somewhat of a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia generally works. There is no original research; flowing from that, we don't validate the significance of primary sources by quoting them directly, but only account importance to them if secondary sources have commented on them. For instance, although Scheppele did testify before Congress, no one seems to have found this worth reporting on - not, for instance, The Washington Post. Thus, since we lack secondary coverage of her testimony, for our purposes it's not worth repeating here. People testify before Congress all the time; it's only when the press decides it's relevant that their testimony becomes relevant for us too.
- And like I said, it's surely too early for journal articles on the topic, but not for in-depth press coverage; in fact we already have such coverage in the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Evidence that the press has decided it's relevant: Financial Times: [i], [ii]; Wall Street Journal: [iii]; Morgenweb [iv]; Suedwest Presse: [v]. --Stevan Harnad 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Provided WP:UNDUE is respected, I have no particular objection to these sources being cited. - Biruitorul Talk 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Does the above resolve the matter then? I will take the 5-6 specific points of criticism made repeatedly by Professor Scheppele and since taken up by the international (and Hungarian non-governmental) press, paraphrase them, attribute them to Professor Scheppele, and cite, alongside the original source (the US Helsinski Commission archive) the newspapers above that have cited it. That strikes me as a reasonable resolution, and would be even better (and more revealing of the goings on in Hungary) if this summary were also followed by a point-counterpoint (to be written Ltbuni, in the way he has been doing and proposing to do) consisting of the official rebuttals by the Fidesz government. Then WP users would have a balanced picture of point and counterpoint, and could draw their own conclusions. --Stevan Harnad 11:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Koertefa
I have described my problems with user Harnad's additions on his Talk page. I summarize them here, too: it seems to me that Harnad is using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Recently, he added lengthy criticisms about the new Hungarian Constitution, and even copied the same text to several articles [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (same text 5 times) or [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (same text 5 times) or [20][21][22][23][24] (same text 5 times). I agree that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, but WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. I was quite surprised to read what Harnad wrote: "I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized", since even before he started editing the article, it contained several criticisms and, if any, it was already a bit unbalanced towards the critical points of view: [25], for example read the 2nd paragraph of the lead (it is the version before Harnad started editing it). Of course, it is important that the constitution and its amendments received international criticisms, but a brief summary of the criticisms should be enough. The quotes should all be deleted, as they provide an excellent opportunity for POV pushing. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Fakirbakir
I have to repeat myself. The "2011 Constitution" section is unbalanced and looks like a soapbox. This part of the article does not interpret the constitution itself, the proper analysis is missing, however concerns a lot about "democratic deficiency". Hungary is not the USSR. Hungary is a democracy. Objectivity needed. Lets see US Representative Chris Smith's opinion (he is the Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission):[26] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- No one is claiming Hungary is not a democracy, but the fact is that passage of the constitution did generate much comment, both domestic and external, and it's our duty to summarize that. No, not every single criticism, but a broad overview of prominent political actors' opinions is needed. There is some analysis in the "contents" section. I don't really think we should be quoting Smith, at least not that particular article; a source that starts "In contrast to international critics of recent Hungarian constitutional progress that offends their liberal ideology" is hopelessly partisan. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:[27]. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu ([28]) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, some commentary from a conservative think tank doesn't really have a place here, just like we shouldn't be citing Krugman's left-leaning blog. As for mandiner, which seems like another blog reproducing raw testimony: let's just say that the level of coverage there is not quite up to the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set by WP:RS.
- There are quotable defenses of the recent amendment, but they're found in such reputable sources as the BBC, the Financial Times or Deutsche Welle. - Biruitorul Talk 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:[27]. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu ([28]) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Norden1990
Wikipedia is not the place of political propaganda. Wikipedia should use historical context, these very long POV quotes make the articles to unbalanced. For example absurd that this case appears in the article of History of Hungary. Furthermore the text does not contain the constitutional amendment itself but only the reactions. Mr Harnad did not try to inclufe the other side's arguments (government responses), that were wrote by only other editors. It is not yet clear the effects of this new amendment. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Ltbuni
This is the typical example of edit wars, each of the participants is convinced that he/she is right, and the other is evil, and she / he has the duty to draw the attention of the world to the incoming tyranny of Mr. Orbán / the unfair treatment of Mr. Orbán by the western media or the leftists. One opinion provokes the opposite side to intervene or to deconstruct the other's narrative (see point 5.). This is becoming pure politics. So, my proposals:
1. I think we should lock the article waiting for further events - people said many things against/for the constitution and will say as well, but NOTHING HAPPENED YET with the amendment: it is passed and now it is under investigation, but that is all. No resolution, no decision by the international organizations, what is more, as far as I know, even the official English translation is missing.
2. Since there is no official translation, we should try to compile some elements of it, not mistaking the legal text itself, for its interpretation. When I tried to "balance" the article, I added some letters, written by Minister Navracsics, Martonyi, and OV - some of them quoted parts of the text, and prof KLS's blog refers to an attached document, with the proposed amendement as well- We should copypaste some proposed rules from them.
3. Both side must be given place. That is why I added the US-concerns in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Hungary&diff=542786588&oldid=542653973 In this version, the Békemenet is missing, while the other manifest is there. How about a "government reaction" section?
4. In the linked "Wikisource", I only found the 1949 Constitution. We should fix the article, with the actual text of the Basic Law as well, asap.
5. My English is not perfect, so anyone can fix it, I won't be upset... http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/viktor-orbans-grandiose-plans-might-be-thwarted-b-strasbourg-and-brussels/
--Ltbuni (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That the amendment passed and was signed into law is significant, so we should mention that. Also, "international organizations" don't have the power to invalidate it, so it's here to stay for the time being.
- See WP:NOR - we're not going to start quoting at length from a 15-page document and adding our own interpretations.
- Has anyone reported on the US State Department's concerns? See WP:PSTS; we should have a secondary source attesting the notability of that fact.
- No, Wikisource does not have the Basic Law, but there is a link to it in Hungarian and in English, so that's not such a big deal. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is a big deal, the text is in the very heart of the whole pourparler. The link directs us to the OLD version of the Basic Law. I meant that asap there is an official translation of the whole IV.th amenedement, or at least of the revised Basic Law, we should upload it in the Wikisource, or link it in this article. I agree with You on the original research issue, but if a text contains the real legal text in English, why not quoting? The article now contains interpretation: "The amendment enshrines freedom of religion and allows constitutional complaints regarding the church law." It seems to me, that we just picked some rules arbitrarily as well. Where is the rule concerning the Court of Constitution? The whole edit-war will come to an end, if we present the WHOLE text.
But I can accept what You say. Unfortunately the article now has links to an out-of-date legal text - at least we should change its title something like this: Text of the 2011 Constitution without further amendments. It's misleading now.
--Ltbuni (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Possible text of the amendment- I have just googled it:
- in English: (It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele) http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf
- in Hungarian: www.parlament.hu/irom39/09929/09929-0055.pdf
I'd like to add them to the "External links" section. Objection?
Ltbuni (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Constitution of_Hungary discussion
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd be happy to help with this issue. Let's wait for all parties to post opening comments before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul's deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. Let's wait and see if user Norden1990 will post an opening comment before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul's deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- We are still missing an opening statement by user Norden1990, but let's get started. If they join the conversation later, that would be great. First off, I think it would be most instructive if we could see 2 or 3 examples of the material (&sources) that are proposed for this constitution/amendment material. Lets start with users Harnad and Biruitorul (and anyone else that wants to): can you post here (below) the exact material you think the article should contain (regarding the constitution/amendments), including footnotes/citations. After these specific proposals are posted below, we can review them and go from there. Does that sound okay? -- Noleander (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. --Stevan Harnad 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and KœrteFa. Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and KœrteFa feel that:
- Jobbik shouldn't be called a neo-fascist or nazi party,
- Awards given to other far-right figures at the same time shouldn't be mentioned, and
- The importance of the award is dubious.
- The users strongly feel that inclusion of the above material breaches neutrality and constitutes soapboxing. I would submit, however, that Jobbik's political affiliation, and the relationship of Szaniszló's award to other far-right recipients, and the importance of the award, are all well documented by sources. Furthermore, I don't believe the conduct of Ltbuni and KœrteFa has been fair: both have removed substantial material from an article that took quite some time to research, and almost wholly ignored the sources provided in the article or on the talk pages, with one or two sentence explanations, and consider their own point of view to be a priori the neutral one, despite the sources I advance, and without providing any of their own. I should note they've also made a few helpful changes. In any event, this has just come up, and may be relevant to this particular dispute resolution. -Darouet (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history
- Sorry am very busy, but will come back to all this shortly. You can see the Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló and page revision history for more info. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the Ferenc Szaniszló article: I suggest that this DRN case focus entirely on the Constitution of Hungary article ... that way we are more likely to reach a resolution. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history
- Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and KœrteFa. Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and KœrteFa feel that:
Reminder: still waiting for parties to post proposed material (with sources) here so we can compare and contrast. Also: I'll be on vacation until April 4 ... so I wont be able to participate in the case for several days. Parties are welcome to continue posting comments in this case during that period; another DRN volunteer may or may not come along and help out. In any case, I'll return to the case around April 4. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm back from wikibreak. Parties, if they still want to pursue resolution of this issue, should post here (below) the material they think the article should contain, including sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that there's been no activity on this thread since Noleander announced their return, I'm going to start a 48 hour clock for "Dispute has gone stale. Disputants are invited to re-file if the issue becomes inflamed again." pending a significant objection. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notified each disputant listed in the top of the filing. Hasteur (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't close yet. I plan to post a proposed passage within a few days. --Stevan Harnad 23:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lutici, Pomerania duringthe High Middle Ages
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Skäpperöd on 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne. These claims include:
I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. Michalek has published a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map. Have you tried to resolve this previously?
How do you think we can help?
Opening comments by Volunteer MarekPlease 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.
Obviously I disagree with Skapperod's characterization of this dispute. Pretty much all the relevant info has been gone over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne". The Map is based on a reliable source and backed up with two additional reliable sources. It does not claim that "Stralsund" existed at the time, merely that the Duke campaigned in the area - this is simply incorrect on Skapperod's part. Likewise, while the original phrasing of the related text may have suggested that "Stralsund" existed at the time, the text has been appropriately reworded. The Rugen/Rugia issue is different. First, the Polish-Danish expedition against Wolin is placed by sources at either 1129 or 1130. Second, the source states that the expedition to Rugia took place after the Danes sailed to Pomeranian towns (Wolin). So there's no necessary contradiction here. However, it is true that different source put the Polish-Danish expedition to Rugen at different years (1121, 1123, 1126, or this one, 1130) - this is simply due to incomplete historical record. I'm open to phrasing this better to reflect this ambiguity in the sources. However, what I do object to is the contention (unsupported by sources) that such an expedition never took place. Overall, Skapperod has failed to back up his claims with a single source, he's just been trying to create pretexts to question the info which *is* based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages 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 volunteer here at the DRN noticeboard. This doesn't mean I have any special powers or what I say is more important that anyone else. It simply means that I am impartial and will try mediate this dispute as best I can. Now, after reading through the dispute on the RS noticeboard I find myself slightly confused to what the basis of the dispute actually is. There's a lot of claims by one party against the sourcing and inclusion of sourced information. Skäpperöd, are you able to provide a source that contradicts Marek's statements? Additionally, as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity. If this is, in fact, the case then I see no reason for that to be brought to this DRN discussion and would request that Skapperod strikes it from the dispute overview. If he feels that it is not resolved then he is welcome to keep it in but we will be tackling each item seperately to avoid confusion Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, I'd say that settles that, the sources Marek is using are suitable. Do both parties accept this and, if so, can we move onto the other issue at hand? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 05:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC
Herrmann has nothing to do with the disputed claims discussed here. Please do not discuss issues unrelated to the dispute at hand. Woogie10w claimed that Jerzy Wyrozumski's overview in the New Cambridge Medieval History 4.2, p. 283 "supports VM re Boleslaw". It obviously does not. I have access to the book and neither the 1123 sentence Woogie10w quoted nor anything else in there supports any details in question here, i.e. nothing about an 1121 campaign in or north of Demmin, nothing supporting VM's map, nothing supporting an 1130 Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen. At this point I'd first like to hear a detailed response of Cabe re [54] so discussion does not derail further. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I just submitted a request at the New York Public Library for Das historische Pommern : Personen, Orte, Ereignisse / von Roderich Schmidt and Die Slawen in Deutschland : Joachim Herrmann. Both books should be available by Saturday. Lets see what German historians have said about Boleslaw's campaigns. Both of these German sources were cited in the Lutici article as support for the campaign in West-Pommern.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Apologies for the delay in responding. I was pulled offsite in work today so didn't have a chance to drop by. The way I understood the dispute was that Skapperod was primarily disputing the 'source' of the placenames and details on the map created by VM. Woogie10w then confirmed the reliability of these sources (I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization) and the details presented in VMs version of the map. Skapperod, you are looking for explicit statement in a RS that 'the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121' am I correct? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
How is This? In 1121/22, Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area west of the Oder and took duke Wartislaw I of Luticia as a vassel, Boleslaw then controled the region up to Demmin (Dymin)-SourceSchmidt Das historische Pommern , later in 1123 Boleslaw III campaigned in the area of Rugen-Source NCMH4/2. The Polish domination of the region west of the Oder was short lived and Luticia reverted to German control after 1124 Source NCMH4/2 ----Woogie10w (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
@Cabe6403: This is not a RSN issue, and RSN has already failed to solve this. Please, as a neutral 3rd party could you reflect on the following to get the discussion focussed again:
Sigh, we're just repeating everything from RSN here.
And again, Skapperod has not provided a single source to contradict the map or the text. Rather he's just been running the discussion in circles over and over again.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
On pages 105-106 of Schmidt writes about Boleslaw’s mission to bring Christianity to Pommerania. Boleslaw had the support of the Church hierarchy as well as the German Emperor. I characterize this as a Crusade. On Page 386 of Herrmann there is mention of an account by Edo in June 1128 of the destruction in Demmin. On Page 386 of Herrmann there is an important point-in 1135 Boleslaw agreed to pay tribute to the German Empire for his 12 year occupation Pommerania and Rugen. In other words Skapperod, Herrmann puts Boleslaw in Pommerania and Rugen from 1123-1135. Boleslaw led the Crusade against the Lutians with the support of the German Empire and the Church. The Pommeranian Duke Wladislaw was an alley of Boleslaw in his campaign.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This is getting extremely tiresome. (1) Yes Michalek is a tertiary source. But there's no "novel theses" here. You've made that up. (2) Boleslaw's campaign as a whole IS discussed in text of the book. Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". The Chyzans are the Kessinians, with their main fort at modern day Kessin, which is actually to the West of Stralsund. Hence, the text and the map are consistent with each other. The map just provides other details. (3) If by "very precise" you mean he says "future Stralsund" sure. In Michael's map "Strzalow" is explicitly marked. For what it's worth - and like I keep saying, this is an irrelevant red herring pretext - Michalek has maps for later time periods where he includes both the name "Strzalow" and the later name "Stralsund". This suggest he is aware that Strzalow was not Stralsund yet. At any rate (3a) we actually don't know whether Strzalow as a settlement existed and (3b) it doesn't matter because the map just marks the location. (4) I guess he *could* ask you for quotes and translation from sources you provided... oh wait. You didn't provide any sources (5) I agree with Cabe6403 that your presentation of the dispute/issue/sources is highly misleading. Your phrasing does not reflect the sources. As pointed out over and over and over again, if a source says "probably" it is NOT contradicting the claim. And it's "speculation" in the same sense as ALL history is speculation, since we can't jump in a time machine and confirm events for certain. Bottom line is that if a source says "probably in the area of future Stralsund" then that supports the map. You're the only one who somehow tries to flip the logic on its head here and that's why this discussion has been getting silly. As to what you want:
Bottom line: Sources vs. Skapperod? Sources win. Sorry.Volunteer Marek 07:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue I see here is that Marek is providing a map faithful to the source while Skapperod would prefer every detail of the map be sourced individually (name of the settlements, direction of the arrows etc).
It is clear we are unlikely to come to a compromise in this situation so I will make two statements in the hope that this dispute can be resolved. 1 - Marek, a few tweaks have been suggested to the text regarding the map clearer. Would you be willing to implement these suggestions to ensure that readers know that parts of the map are speculation on the behalf of historians (as are all reports about history many years ago - as they say, history is written by the winners) 2 - Skapperod, it is my opinion (in purely a third opinion point of view) that the case for including the map outweighs the case for removing it. I will therefore ask you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Skapperod the map can be sourced to secondary sources that have been presented in the discussion:
I rest my case on these sources--Woogie10w (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
BreakSkapperod, consensus is against you in this matter, from a third opinion POV I believe the points Marek and Woogie are putting forward are legit and you are fixating on details per WP:IDHT. I will therefore ask again that you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. If that can be done we can move on to the other dispute. If you are not willing to accept this then I am unsure what other avenue to pursue regarding Dispute Resolution since it is a voluntary process and requires one or both parties to compromise. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
on page 51/52 of Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, -Google Books Wratislaw was a vassal of Poland, he promised Pomerania to Poland, he paid tribute and was required to provide armed forces. He agreed to accept Christianity. In 1121/22 Boleslaw conquered the Settin-Oder region, his offensive toward lake Muritz was a brief episode, next Wratislaw with "total Polish approval" "wohlpolnischer Billigung" engaged in a campaign to subdue west Pomerania and conquered the fortress of Demmin.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Woogie, you mean Wratislaw. Skapperod, what's a source for Nieden? The map satisfies all wikipedia policies and more. It's fine.Volunteer Marek 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) And I should note that I'm only asking about Nieden out of interest. It's actually significantly to the East so it has no bearing on the Stralsund issue. He went through both - there's no "alternative" route here. Nieden is basically that big arrow from Szczecin to Demmin, just not marked explicitly.Volunteer Marek All three of the arrows on VMs map are backed up with reliable sources: 1-lake Muritz by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52 2-Demmin by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52 3-Rugen region and Boleslaw is mentioned by name as seizing west Pomerania by the New New Cambridge Modern History 4/2 pp 283 (NCMH is a secondary source, there is an extensive bibliography of primary sources listed in the back of the book, the articles are by recognized scholars)--Woogie10w (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"there's no "twist and turn" here that is necessary for Demmin and Stralsund." - if there was not twist and turn necessary, why has not anyone been able to quote a single secondary source saying something like "Boleslaw targeted/took Demmin in 1121" or "Boleslaw targeted/took Stralsund in 1121." We have this one Maleczynski (1939) who says that Boleslaw probably campaigned in this area and that's it. Compare to the Müritz, where there are ample secondary sources saying that Boleslaw targeted the Müritz in 1121 (and he did not target just fishermen there, the fisherman was what he left over). Or Stettin/Szczecin, where there are ample secondary sources saying Boleslaw targeted/took this place in 1121/2. But that is just not the case for Demmin and Stralsund in 1121, and there should neither be a map nor text be included here saying so. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
@Cabe6403.
Are you in? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyone opposed to quoting Maleczynski, as proposed above? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Skapperod I entered this discussion in an effort to help you. I am skeptical when dealing with Polish sources like Maleczynski. I was hoping that you would accept the NCMH as a source in order to save face. BTW my favorite cap is [90]--Woogie10w (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for being a bit wary but my concern is that you will later turn around and try to use the phrasing of the sentence to try and get rid of or tag up the map again (because the sentence doesn't say "targeted" or something).Volunteer Marek 02:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|