The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 85 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marqaz (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Very minor but annoying dispute over a edit I made, adding a qualification (that is was the lowest number with this property where all squares were all non-trivial i.e. >1) to an observation (85 is the sum of two squares in two different ways). This was then undone by the other party initially without discussion. I reinstated as I considered it valid. We have since reverted back and forth, with some discussion on the talk page, with no progress. Various policies have been cited by both parties but with no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none - have consider a topic forum or a third opinion listing, but for me (as a relatively new user) the issue is as much about the reasonableness of my actions, the appropriate policies to apply and the best way to resolve this sort of issue.

How do you think we can help?

A third party view on the merit of the disputed edit would be useful, but as indicated above views on the appropriate policies and conduct and in particular clear guidance on the appropriateness of deleting signed good faith edits without strong justification are probably more important to me.

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

I was trying to apply the guidelines from WP:NUMBER, but I can't find the consensus I remember that mathematical properties of integers should only be included if they would be sufficient to make the number notable, per WP:NUMBER. I suggested that the other person contact WT:MATH or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers to look for comment from people familar with the number articles.

Speaking as a mathematician, I particularly object to the term "non-trivial" for "greater than 1", and writing "greater than 1" makes it clear that the concept is not notable. Perhaps the fact (if accurate) that it's the 2nd number which is a member of a Pythagorean triplet in 4 ways could be included, but that still seems uninteresting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

85 (number) discussion

I have examined the facts in this case and made the following recommendation:

Hello, I am Solarra and I am here as part of the dispute resolution process. I have overlooked all of the edits and done considerable research on the subject including perusing results here and here and having looked at the facts, I have to side with Marqaz in this case. 85 is in fact the result of 9^2 + 2^2 = 7^2 + 6^2 and several universities have it displayed prominently in the "Special properties of numbers" sections of various math themed sites including the fact that this is the lowest integer to have this property. This page is dedicated to valid mathematical facts that are not commonly known, if you look here the number 4 lists it is the smallest squared prime for example. The fact should be included in the page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been much discussion as of here lately - has this dispute been resolved? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to say something else here within the next 24 hours, this dispute will be closed as "resolved." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox Image (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cavann (talk · contribs)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created a RFC for the infobox image [1], but the RFC was removed. [2] There was a RFC 5 months ago, but I did not participate in it. It's hard to reach a consensus when the debate is shut down.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:Istanbul#New_Collage_and_Cityscape_picture

How do you think we can help?

Clarify if a 5 month RFC, which I did not participate, stops all further discussion like User:Tariqabjotu suggests.

Opening comments by Tariqabjotu

Ugh. I don't have time for this rigmarole. There was an RfC opened in mid-November, closed in late-December. There was an earlier discussion about this point in August and September. It's been discussed. And recently. On the other hand, the complainant started a new thread on this issue just this past week (Talk:Istanbul#New_Collage_and_Cityscape_picture), and without allowing for it to run its course went directly to an RfC. And in the meantime had opened another RfC about an issue in which he refused to concede he was in the wrong.

That's not how the RfC process is supposed to work. RfCs are supposed be launched after lengthy discussion fails to lead to a conclusion. Despite the first issue being clearly resolved, editors on the page allowed his first RfC to proceed. But this new RfC is a continuation of his abuse of the process. The complainant should be advised to allow the current thread to run its course before considering further action.

For the record, these are not opening comments by me. These are my only comments on this issue, and I will not be commenting further on this matter. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox_Image discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Byzantine Empire (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sowlos (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several editors (including myself) worked on improving the lead of Byzantine Empire. Some editors had some lingering concerns over potential inadequacies and omissions in the revision. This is — of course — perfectly alright. However, one editor became increasingly combative when I voiced disagreement to his suggestions.

Within 5 hours of making his suggestion he declared I was the only objector and modified the content that had received consensus support, prior. His changes have since been reverted, but he has chosen accusations and name calling over attempting to resolve the dispute.

I have worded my side in many different ways, but he continues to accuse me of saying nothing substantial and demand that I lay out my objections to his position.

This has become extremely frustrating and it's becoming increasingly hard to keep civil. I feel the discussion desperately needs neutral parties to join the discussion. Unfortunately, this and related articles can stir so much passion in some editors that most simply run for the hills rather than deal with this sort of headache. I'm worried he is simply making a fuss on the talk page until he beats his opposition into submission by ignoring what they say and inflaming the situation until he gets what he wants.

I really hope someone here can help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging in discussion on the talk page, but it quickly devolved into circular nonsense smothering any meaningful discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I think neutral outsiders need to intervene in this interaction. I don't know what that would entail, but I am open to suggestions.

I strongly believe in achieving consensus and following it (even if it settles in a direction I disagree with), but there needs to be more than two people yelling at each other for that to happen.

Opening comments by Athenean

It's unfortunate that Sowlos' opening comment contains little more than personal attacks and bad faith assumptions ("I'm worried..."), but that is indicative of the type of individual I am dealing with. Regarding the dispute, Sowlos has lately been agitating to re-write the lead of Byzantine Empire in it's entirety, even though the article is already an FA. His re-write can be seen here [3]. In my opinion, it goes too far in condensing the material. Specifically, I object to the describing the Macedonian renaissance as "something of a renaissance", it's lumping together with the Battle of Manzikert in one sentence (end of 3rd paragraph), the removal of the Komnenian restoration and it's replacement by a euphemism, and the removal of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 from the end of the lead. My suggestions can also be seen in detail here [4] and here [5]. I should mention that there never was any discussion or consensus for Sowlos' changes to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, thus my suggestions are in fact nothing more than the previous consensus version, with which the article had reached FA status. I have tried to engage Sowlos on the talkpage, repeatedly asking him what he objects to specifically [6], and all I get are patronizing lectures about what the lead is supposed to contain and copy-pasting of parts of WP:LEAD, obfuscation, and evasion [7] (his "itemized objections" are nowhere to be found: He has never addressed my proposal to include the Komnenian restoration and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, he just keeps pretending not to notice it). So as far as trying to "making a fuss on the talk page until he beats his opposition into submission..." and all that, I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Athenean (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Byzantine Empire discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Killing of Travis Alexander (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Geebee2 (talk · contribs)
• Darkness_Shines (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over neutrality of sources, and the wikipedia policy "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit request on a fully protected article.

How do you think we can help?

Help reach a consensus on how the article should be improved.

The other party's last remark is "I am not arguing this with you as it is pointless".

I am new to wikipedia, and acknowledge I have certainly made technical mistakes, but I claim I have been arguing honestly.

This article has similarities with the trial of Amanda Knox, where a very pro-guilt group gained control of the article, necessitating the intervention of Jimmy Wales.

Opening comments by Darkness_Shines

It really gets on my tits when a person misrepresents what I have said. "I am not arguing this with you as it is pointless" was in response to the SPA Geebee2 (who should not even be editing this article per [8][9][10] her self declared belief that the woman in this case is innocent) who said "There isn't any RS." This user is actually saying that ABC & CBS are not RS. Hence my statement. I was not going to argue it on the talk page, and I am not going to argue it here. Please close this as I have no intention of participating in a discussion which belongs on the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of_Travis_Alexander discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Skinshift (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Brendanconway (talk · contribs)
• Johnsaavn (talk · contribs)
• Jahoe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Johnsaavn, a brand new editor, started an article on a skincare product to which he appears to be linked personally, I flagged it for AFD, User:Jahoe and he have engaged in extensive discussion both on the talk page and on the AFD page without resolution, for some reason no other member of the Wikipedia community has commented on the page. I am not 100% confident that deletion is correct.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Look at the article and give an experienced and fresh pair of eyes

Opening comments by Johnsaavn

Opening comments by Jahoe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift,Talk:Skinshift discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Law of value (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs)
• Jurriaan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Jurriaan is the main author of Law of value, and he believes that primary sources should suffice. I made a series of edits, tagging many statements with original research and requesting citations. I further moved many of the quotes from primary sources outside of the main reflist, into a new section, called Notes, which also held many helpful notes moved out of References. An edit war has erupted, and Jurriaan seems to believe that my edits are pedantic, bureaucratic, and without proper authority. I believe that his version of the page violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:Primary, among other policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have each argued extensively throughout the talk page for the past week, culminating in an edit war. I have attempted to contact an uninvolved admin, but that admin has been unresponsive, possibly due to overwork.

How do you think we can help?

My interpretation of several policies leads me to believe that my edits have brought the article (Law of value) into better compliance with several Wikipedia policies, and I seek to convince Jurriaan that these policies trump his desire to keep the article clear of what he believes are unnecessary tags (such as "citation needed").

Opening comments by Jurriaan

The Law of value article does need to conform better to wiki standards, and I know I do not "own" this article. Improvements are welcome, but I insist that they should be improvements. Ninja turtle's problem is (1) he has no scholarly knowledge of the subjectmatter, and (2) he makes false accusations against me, just ignoring my case. He describes himself as someone who wants to "loot, pillage, kill, and edit Wikipedia articles", and he prefers to edit articles to which he is "apathetic". On a whim, he decided to launch into the law of value article, but his edits are not merely simple copy-edits, they go well beyond copyediting (among other things he is unilaterally altering the whole referencing system). This well-liked article exists for 8 years, and had near-zilch criticism while I worked on it. The main criticism was about its length. There is a case for a smaller size, either by making it more concise, or by cutting it up into several articles. Here again, the problem with ninja turtle's edits is, that they do not resolve anything or contribute anything positively, other than pointing out possible problems. His entire forest of tags through the article only makes it harder to read, while nobody is likely to insert the 100 or so more references he requires, and if they perchance did so, then they would make the problems worse: the article would be even longer than it already is. As wiki rules acknowledge, editing does not automatically result in an improvement; if there is no improvement, then the stewards of the article can protect it. My feeling is that ninja turtle should edit articles which he is competent to edit, and leave this article alone, because his edits are just unhelpful, and only confuse the reader more about this complex subject, rather than helping him along. Yes, there needs to discussion about how to improve this article on the talk page. But let's do things in the right order. And let's do it with people who really know about the topic, and not just anybody who just decides on a whim to make his mark on the article, because he discovers ways in which it fails to conform to wiki policy. Let's do things with the right motive, and not with an ego-fantasy to "loot, pillage, kill, and edit". User:Jurriaan 16 april 2013 21:44 (UTC)

Law of value discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I'm afraid that there's not much to talk about here, as NinjaRobotPirate is clearly in the right on the content and tagging issues involved in this matter. I've reviewed the edits which he made to the article and on the whole they seem appropriate to me. I do think that the number of tags may have been a bit overenthusiastic (especially in those cases in which {{cn}} tags were placed both in the middle and at the end of paragraphs without explanation for the need for the extra tag in the middle), but other than that I find that his edits were acceptable and appropriate. As for his motives, we judge edits not editors and tagging material which is unsourced or which appears to be original research or which has other particular defects is exactly what is supposed to be done under the verifiability policy. I would advise Jurriaan that it does not matter how long the material has existed here unsourced. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, established by that policy, that readers must be able to determine the accuracy of material reported here through inline citations and that it is the burden of the editor who adds material to provide those citations. In those cases where material has been tagged as original research, you can also demonstrate that it is not by adding citations to reliable sources which clearly say what the article says. Now that the material has been tagged, if you do not add the citations, it is subject to being removed. (If large quantities of material are to be removed, however, it should be moved to the talk page and collapsed in order to preserve it.) I am going to leave this listing open for 24 hours to see if anyone wishes to discuss any of NRP's particular edits (please provide diffs), or to see if any other DRN volunteer cares to weigh in; but if not then I am going to close it as resolved in NRP's favor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Note: This was added after the case was closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)) Allright then, but how can 70-100 extra references to reliable sources be placed, without creating extra problems of length? I can see the justification for some of ninja turtle's tags, but a lot of them concern quite uncontroversial points familiar to anybody who knows the relevant literature. Take, for comparison, an article such as Gravitation. It is quite simply studded with claims unsupported by reliable sources, so I could put a forest of tags in there as well. But what would be the point? I suppose I could annoy the writers that way. User:Jurriaan 18 April 2012 20:02 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oknazevad (talk · contribs)
• Golbez (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User insisting on spelling the names of storms incorrectly. Fixed them a couple of times but user keeps reverting them

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Opened a discussion on talk page to resolve dispute

How do you think we can help?

Compromise and make sure the names are spelled the way they're supposed to be

Opening comments by Oknazevad

There is no valid dispute here. This anon editor has not in the least attempted justify their spelling of the names, which are clearly sourced to the authority that actually has responsibility for issuing the names. They insist that the spellings from some (unreferenced) names dictionary are correct. Its not a dispute, it is WP:TE of incorrect information because they just didn't bother to read the actual cited sources. Nothing to see here. oknazevad (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Golbez

My only statement is, is it poor form to block the vandal now that he's initiated a dispute resolution on me, or is it still kosher? --Golbez (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The block would be useless in my opinion since the vandal has stopped for now and is probably one of a few who keep showing up and insisting that Henri is henry or Edoward is Edward without checking the list of names or anything.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

semi-involved third party

I just reverted one of 173's edits. I don't believe there is a dispute case at all, the filer simply has not deigned to peek at the sources and is changing names based on what s/he considers correct spelling of those names. Jonathanfu (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names discussion

Hi, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. It does seem relatively straightforward. 174.236.77.163, on Wikipedia, we rely on what we call reliable sources to determine what we say in our articles. From what I can see in the article, it appears that while the spelling of some of the names for the tropical cyclones is a bit unusual, they are indeed the names that NOAA have selected. It's not our role on Wikipedia to decide if something is or is not sensible, it's just our role to report on the facts. I hope this clarifies the reasons why the other editors undid your edits. I don't feel that there is a dispute to resolve here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Note to other volunteers - feel free to close at your leisure.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• {{User|null}}
• {{User}}

Dispute overview

This article is extremely biased and a user, Sterling M. Archer, has hijacked it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages

How do you think we can help?

This article needs to be written using a NPOV

Opening comments by null

Opening comments by

neurofeedback discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jane Davidson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Crocels (talk · contribs)
• Politicool (talk · contribs)
• FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user, FreeRangeFrog is defaming our news service - Crocels News - by saying it is an unreliable source. We meet all Wikipedia's rules at WP:Source, but these do not apply in courts of law in any case. Our news service is run by The Crocels Press Limited, which is a incorporated company in the United Kingdom. Crocels News is edited by experts in the fields it is in. This user has no right to defame our brand and good name, and should cease doing so.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We served a legal notice on Wikipedia who said the editor would be told not to describe our service as unreliable. FreeRangeFrog has however removed a link by a different user to our news service. This means they are maintaining their defamatory view on our brand.

How do you think we can help?

Instruct FreeRangeFrog to cease defaming our brand. An attack on one project or member of the Crocels Community Media Group is an attack on all. FreeRangeFrog has no credentials in our industry and no greater authority on us than the user Politicool, so should cease these malicious attacks on our brand, which are completely unfounded.

Opening comments by Politicool

Opening comments by FreeRangeFrog

Jane Davidson discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Sterling.M.Archer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article is extremely biased and attempts to give it a neutral point of view are continually erased by one user, Sterling M. Archer. The description and treatment sections are attack pieces. The articles in the criticism section are shoddy and not from recognized scientific publications. Attempts to address these issues are blanked by the user listed above. The article needs to be reviewed by neutral third parties. The bias and poor quality of the article have already been discussed on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempts to correct the article, discussion on the talk page. Request for help on this board.

How do you think we can help?

Place a notice on the article that it is biased. Assistance in finding neutral third parties to rewrite the article and remove bias. Assistance to stop blanking.

Opening comments by Sterling M. Archer

neurofeedback discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lift (force) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mr swordfish (talk · contribs)
• Completeaerogeek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A new user has made extensive edits without sufficient citing. Some of the material may be original research. Some of it contradicts the reliable sources. I reverted it and asked to discuss it on the talk page. He ignored this request. I reverted it a second time, and wrote a summary of why it did not meet wikipedia standards, asking to cease the edit war, and reach consensus through discussion on the talk page.

He ignored this and posted the material a third time.

He refuses to discuss on the talk page. Not sure what to do next.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to discuss on Talk page to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

I think we have a new user who simply does not understand wikipedia. Can someone please explain how it works? Thanks.

Opening comments by Completeaerogeek

Lift (force) discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PCPP (talk · contribs)
• Keahapana (talk · contribs)
• Shrigley (talk · contribs)
• TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a continuation of a former DRN request on the same subject [11], which was closed last June due to an Arbcom request. After the Arbcom case concluded, the case was left unresolved for the following months due to personal issues, and I hope for the outstanding issues on the article to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Per prior case

How do you think we can help?

Per prior case

Opening comments by Keahapana

Thanks to PCPP for finally restarting this Dispute Resolution. Thanks also to Guy Macon for volunteering to help us. I apologize for being Easter-sloth slow in replying, and don't have any objections to the somewhat longwinded opening comments because we've been talking in circles for too long. For instance, my "recent addition" of the CSM quote (#5) was added to the Confucius Institute article on 15 December 2010, was carried over into the initial Concerns and controversies article on 10 July 2011, and first deleted by PCPP on 14 May 2012. I hope we can reach an amicable resolution on appropriate contents for the C&CoCI article, and then cooperate on updating it. How should we proceed? Keahapana (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by by PCPP

My prior concerns in regards to article

Hi, I've read the discussion, and per the terms, I will not edit the main page of the article while the discussion is going on, and will not touch or mention the paragraphs regarding FLG. Overall, I feel that this article is overlong with quotes, and some can be better served with summarized statements. I also feel a need to distinguish between criticisms of CI and criticisms of individuals working at CI. My main disputes are with several of Keahapana's recent additions, which I view as failing to satisfy NPOV and due weight. Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with: 1) [12][13] Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself. 2) [14] A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence. 3) [15][16] Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy. 4) [17] A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations. 5) [18] A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy" 6) [19] A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill. 7) [20] A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all. 8) [21] A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements. 9) [22] The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations. 10) [23] Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE. 11) [24] Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight. 12) Lastly, I feel that the article would serve better if it was renamed "Reception of Confucius Institutes" or something similar instead, since the current title emphasizes an undue weight on negatives, suffer from a repetition of similar statements, while not giving due weight to CI's side of the story. I also feel that this article is in danger of becoming a collection of random negative stories on CI pulled from Google news, and as such, does not satisfy WP:CRIT. Perhaps the article could be restyled after similar criticism articles on Microsoft and Apple, where the criticism is organized by a clear heading and opening statement, present all sides using very little direct quotes and more concise paraphrasing. --PCPP (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Shrigley

Basically, the problem with this article is that it has turned into a dumping ground and clearinghouse for any old web page that could vaguely be construed as damaging to CIs. There's no editorial control for NPOV and weight; there's no summarizing; there's no merging. For example, Keahapana says in discussion, "we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America". However, there is no in-depth discussion of any issue of "cultural superiority". There's just an obscure blogpost mocking state-run media around the world, and which made some sarcastic, uninformed, and extrapolative remarks about a Chinese newspaper op-ed. And this push to continually add irrelevant commentaries is a fair microcosm of the kind of shenanigans that I would like to see stop. Give me highly-corroborated, widely-referenced criticisms from the finest quality sources. Those criticisms will be exactly the ones that merit a response from the criticized party, or a well-documented refusal to respond. Restricting the article to those types of criticisms solves the balance issue. Shrigley (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TheSoundAndTheFury

I'm not sure that I have anything helpful to say at this point. The disputes about what is on the page arise because of the different views that the disputants hold about the topic. This happens all the time on Wikipedia (obviously). A process by which each and every sentence and paragraph of the article was examined and subject to the scrutiny of third parties - where sources, reliability, etc. were discussed, that would certainly be one way to go. Is that the plan? Is that's what's happening below? My view is that I'd just let PCPP do his thing on the margins, watering things down and deleting things - as long as the main, important points about CIs and the concerns about them are given proper account. That's my overall view, but that's not helpful for the specifics of what is going on here, perhaps. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the comment was placed in this section (right under the instructions that says not to do that -- see above) I have moved it to "Opening comments by by PCPP" above. Normally we limit opening comments to 2000 characters and the comment is over 5000 characters long, but this is an unusual case, having been through DRN and arbcom previously, and it is collapsed, so I would like to ask Keahapana, do you have any objection to this? I don't want anyone to think we are being unfair or biased toward one side or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours, and still I only see one person choosing to participate. I have also not received any feedback from my post at Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#Notice of Dispute resolution discussion. I am going to give it another 24 hours, and then if there is still no participation, we can start discussing the best way to proceed. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I advise allowing more time. Keahapana does not appear to edit daily, but has waited nine months for this dispute resolution to begin in order to accommodate the other party.Homunculus (duihua) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am opening this up for discussion. You can all take as much time as you need -- I just didn't want anyone to feel that we are ignoring the case.

There are a lot of issues here, so I want to focus on one thing, see if we can resolve it, and then move on the the next. Let's start with PCPP's point #8: "A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements."

This raises two questions:

First, why are we calling an editorial from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and a news story sourced to the Associated Press (AP) "blogs?" (See WP:BLOGS)

Second, why are we giving so much weight to the opinions of a history teacher at Cedarlane middle school in Hacienda Heights, CA? (See WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the Confucius Classroom section, I felt that it was overwhelmed with sources and needs to be summarized more, since this is not just a criticism of CI but also a local ethnic dispute between Asian and Hispanic parents, as noted by the Washington Times piece. The Tribune editorial, which I wrongly referred to as a blog, has its position already been covered by both of these higher quality sources [25] [26]. As for the history teacher source, I favored its removal, so in conclusion, I feel that the paragraph only need a short reference to the both the views Tribune editorial and school board member Jay Chen, concluding with Prof. Cull's views on people's suspicion of outside ideas.--PCPP (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to wait until I see the argument on the other side before addressing the weight issue. As for the blog issue, of course anything that is only referenced in a blog needs to be sources or removed, which is why I asked. Could you do me a favor and go through your statement and correct any other errors you see? This is not a criticism; everyone makes errors. The only reason I am asking is that I intend to go through every area of dispute in detail and I don't want to waste your time. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's taken me so much time to get up to speed again, but I haven't looked at these diffs since last May. Here are some initial replies to PCPP's 12 prior concerns.

• 1) Associations with UFWD and Huawei. Neither logical association fallacy nor legal collective guilt apply to political controversies, some of which are entirely based on associations (e.g., Bill Ayers presidential election controversy or Jeremiah Wright controversy). Calling espionage concerns a conspiracy theory seems inappropriate.

• 2) Der Spiegel article. Admittedly, I could be wrong here, but is does WP:UNDUE require reliable sources to have more than one sentence on a topic? Either way, we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America or Soft Power.

• 3) Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. To my knowledge, the early Italian Cultural Institutes are the best historical analogy for CIs, and various authors make this comparison. Zimmerman is quoted is sources like this and this.

• 4) Branner's criticism. I agree that this quote could be paraphrased but disagree that it "adds little to the article." It represents a legitimate academic concern over CI financing.

• 5) CSM quote. This argument is based on two factual errors: The Christian Science Monitor is widely regarded as one of the most neutral US newspapers – not a tabloid. The quote is from the lede not the headline. Compare the original conclusion with the misrepresentative summary.
  • "So yes, absolutely, more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."
  • "article argued that teaching of Chinese language in the United States should be done on the terms of freedom, open discussion and democracy."

• 6) Dickinson State University. PCPP, you are correct. I agree to this deletion.

• 7) Rohrabacher's "political rhetorics" and Mosher's testimony. Directly quoting Dana Rohrabacher is more accurate than this distorted "summary." Steven W. Mosher appeared as an expert witness rather than a CI alumnus. Why make an ad hominem attack?

• 8) Cedarlane controversy. The "blog" mischaracterization has already been discussed. This Hacienda Heights story is perhaps the most widely reported criticism of a Confucius Classroom rather than a Confucius Institute. I think we originally had references from the National Review and Washington Times too.

• 9) Mosher UFWD quote. Respectfully disagree. See 1) and 7) above.

• 10) London School of Economics. Wasn't this already reverted? In June 2012, Professor Hughes reported the CI's egregious Korean War propaganda video (listed under Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#New Controversies). We could combine the two refs.

• 11) State Department CI employee visa flap. This controversy was widely reported in both Western (The Chronicle of Higher Education) and Chinese (Global Times and Xinhua News) sources. I also think the paragraph needs rewriting.

• 12) General comments. We can probably all agree that the current C&CoCI name is awkward. Based on the un-critical piping of Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Apple, I think that Criticism of Confucius Institutes might be the clearest and most succinct title. As already discussed during the 2012 merger discussion, CIs specifically meet two of the WP:CRIT's exceptions for which criticism articles are allowed: subject matter and independent criticism sources. The CI and C&CoCI diffs and Talk pages fully document that an ongoing pattern of creative paraphrasing resulted in the relatively high number of direct quotes. I've already searched for and contributed many refs expressing "CI's side" for NPOV, but most come from CI employees. Perhaps other editors can find additional reliable sources.

This should be enough to get our discussion productively started. Keahapana (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, we have an agreement on #6. If so, could someone please edit the article to reflect the agreement?

Trying to knock down the easy ones first, let's look at #2 next.

PCPP wrote:

[27] quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence.

Keahapana wrote:

Der Spiegel article. Admittedly, I could be wrong here, but is does WP:UNDUE require reliable sources to have more than one sentence on a topic? Either way, we could add more references to CIs and cultural superiority such as China Is Culturally Superior to America or Soft Power.

My comments:

WP:UNDUE doesn't specify how many sentences a source has to have. It isn't about how much weight the source gives the topic, but rather whether the topic itself is a minority viewpoint and whether we are giving to much emphasis to the minority viewpoint. So, let's discuss any other reasons why we think this should be included or excluded.

(Change of subject) User:Shrigley has asked to be added to this case, and I have made a place for her/his opening comments above. I am also going to ask everyone who participated in previous cases whether they want to join the discussion.

To all the new voices; the most important things where this DRN case differs from article talk pages are: [A] I am trying to get everyone focused on one point of disagreement at a time rather than being all over the map. [B] At DRN, we focus on article content, not on user conduct, so please talk about the article, not about other editors, and if someone else talks about other editors, don' reply -- I will ask them to delete the comment. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The (apparently misinterpreted) reason that I mentioned two other examples of CIs and "cultural superiority" was to demonstrate that it should not necessarily be excluded as a minority viewpoint. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So, do we agree on #6? Is there any progress on resolving #2? Does anyone have a preference as to what point we should work on next? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and will gladly delete it. Any order of discussion is fine with me. Since there is overlap between #1, #7, and #9, perhaps we could deal with them together. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot it's already been deleted (guess <grin> I need more caffeine). Thanks again to PCPP. Keahapana (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to get the ball rolling on a couple of easy ones while I got a feel for the participants (am I dealing with reasonable folks who want what is best for the encyclopedia but disagree about what is best, or am I jumping into a raging battle full of accusations and counteraccusations?) Now that I see that I won't be needing body armor, I would like to follow your lead. Here is a new section so you don't have to scroll so far after hitting the edit button:

C and C over CI discussion 1

---

PCPP #1: [28][29] Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.

Keahapana #1: Associations with UFWD and Huawei. Neither logical association fallacy nor legal collective guilt apply to political controversies, some of which are entirely based on associations (e.g., Bill Ayers presidential election controversy or Jeremiah Wright controversy). Calling espionage concerns a conspiracy theory seems inappropriate.

---

PCPP #7: [30] A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.

Keahapana #7: Rohrabacher's "political rhetorics" and Mosher's testimony. Directly quoting Dana Rohrabacher is more accurate than this distorted "summary." Steven W. Mosher appeared as an expert witness rather than a CI alumnus. Why make an ad hominem attack?

---

PCPP #9: [31] The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.

Keahapana #9: Mosher UFWD quote. Respectfully disagree. See 1) and 7) above.

---

Relevant comments about #1, #7, and #9 by Shrigley: Basically, the problem with this article is that it has turned into a dumping ground and clearinghouse for any old web page that could vaguely be construed as damaging to CIs. There's no editorial control for NPOV and weight; there's no summarizing; there's no merging. [...] Give me highly-corroborated, widely-referenced criticisms from the finest quality sources. Those criticisms will be exactly the ones that merit a response from the criticized party, or a well-documented refusal to respond. Restricting the article to those types of criticisms solves the balance issue.

---

Are we to discuss here the two issues above - i.e. whether Rohrabacher and Mosher's remarks should be included, and if so whether they should be in a short or long quote, or short or long paraphrase? And then, whether we should mention the UFWD link to Hanban? I'm a little confused about the format of the discussion. It seems that whoever wrote the above agreed with their inclusion. I'm just not sure about the format this discussion is supposed to take. One note: for criticisms of something, does Wikipedia necessarily require something to be "highly-corroborated" (what does that mean, when we're talking about expressions of opinion?) and "widely-referenced"? The standard of a reliable source is much lower than that. The guideline on reliable sources is very clear and we can all know what they are. I'm not sure what the standard is for something to be highly-corroborated or widely-referenced. For that reason and others, it may be simpler to keep the threshold at what our content policies say, but then exercise reasonable judgement for the length to which something is quoted and the weight it is given, on factors such as how corroborated or referenced a statement is. Very often these differences are differences of taste between editors. To the extent that the matters can be extracted from personal preferences and made to submit to objective criteria, that's great. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. For TheSoundAndTheFury any anyone else just joining the conversation, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I have added your name to the list of participants and have made a place for you to write an initial statement.

We can discuss any issue that you folks agree to discuss. My only guidance on that is that we all read and understand the Guide for participants at the top of this page -- especially the part about talking only about the article content and not talking about other users -- and that we try to resolve one issue before jumping to the next. Otherwise I am just here to help you in any way that I can. So far we have been working on numbered items from PCPP's opening comments and Keahapanas reply, and right now we are looking at #1, #7, and #9. Once we either resolve that issue or decide that we can not reach agreement, we can discuss anything that we agree to discuss -- not necessarily something from that list.

As for your specific questions, we have an essay at Wikipedia:Criticism that is well worth reading. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, but this one does a pretty good job of summarizing our policies or guidelines. One question we might want to ask after we finish with the point we are discussing now is whether this article should exist at all or whether one of the other approaches would be better. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the lack of replies, I'm still keeping an eye on this discussion, I should have a reply within the next day or so.--PCPP (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, PCPP. I look forward to reading your reply. As embarrassingly evident from reading the CI and C&CoCI talk pages, we need impartial help to resolve these long-standing content disputes before they get closed. Thanks also, Guy Macon. Is there any way to increase outside participation? Perhaps notices to suitable WikiProjects? Since our inside-baseball-ish arguments have only involved a few Sinophile contributors, more outsiders might provide consensus on which CI criticisms are appropriate. Keahapana (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. if anyone has a WikiProject they want notified, let me know and I will post the notice (best that I do it so nobody suspects bias). The other alternative is to post an WP:RFC, but RfCs are best for one well-defined question, whereas DRN is better for resolving a list of point where editors disagree.

There is no deadline, and you can take as much time as you need. The comment above by PCPP is the kind of thing that helps a lot -- it lets me know that we haven't all given up. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we haven't given up. The C&CoCI Talk page already has China and Linguistics WikiProjects. Alternatively, any other projects concerned with Chinese language teaching would be apt, perhaps Languages or Education. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

C and C over CI discussion 2

It has been over two days since anyone has commented. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pong to your ping, thanks. I've been waiting for PCPP to reply before making further comments. If we knew the reasons for the delay, then perhaps you and he/she could set a deadline. I'm ready to resolve this and want to move on. Keahapana (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues on the table, and I was hoping that we could quickly go through the list. I am going to mark this one as "Failed" in roughly 12 hours. ^{See User talk:Guy Macon#Re: Dispute resolution} The next logical step would be for whoever is in the minority as far as consensus goes to give up and edit elsewhere, or to post an RfC to see if they can swing the consensus their way. Usually the RfC just confirms the consensus among the regular editors, but it does happen that the consensus among the larger community does not match the consensus among the regular editors of a page, which is why we have an RfC process. Another alternative would be formal mediation. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've created a work in progress replyin addressing Keahapana's concerns.--PCPP (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

C and C over CI discussion 3

Hi sorry for the long delay, here's some of my replies:

• 1) I will compromise on the Huawei allegations, but I think there's a recent US senate enquiry on the issue, perhaps it can be updated. Here [32] Reuters reported that the White House found no evidence of Huawei. Here is also a defence of Huawei from China Daily, don't know if it would prove useful [33]. Still, I think the paragraph should be summarized to a minimal so it doesn't get sidetracked to Huawei instead of Confucius Institute
• 2) To be added
• 11) I have no problems with rewriting, but I think the section is overlong, particular according to the State Department the visa issue has been solved [34].
• 12) I agree that the current naming is awkward. I'm wondering if anything can be extracted from its official websites eg [35] and include cases in which CIs were established with without much controversy?

I will add the rest of my replies tomorrow, if that's ok with everyone.--PCPP (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Would be clearer to reformat this discussion below into "C and C over CI discussion 2" (or to create a third subsection)? Keahapana (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to Guy.

#1 Agreed. The article currently reads:

• Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage.{ref name=Nest}

The Reuters ref is informative; perhaps we could add it in an explanatory sentence like this:

• Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and major state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the CI at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei.{ref name=Nest} The U.S. government has accused this Chinese telecom company of industrial espionage, but an extensive security review found no clear evidence of spying.[36]

Keahapana (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, while PCPP asked for a delay until the end of this week, unless there is major progress by the end of Monday I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Let's be patient a few more days. I'm not very familiar with the DRN process. If you close, what does that mean about the changes under discussion? Do we just take it back to the Talk page? I appreciate your volunteering time and attention to this stalled case. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of latitude here at DRN, and in particular we really like to do what the folks involved in the dispute recommend rather than imposing anything on them. If we close this you can open a new DRN case tomorrow, go back and try to work it out on the talk page again, or someone can post a WP:RFC to get input from more editors. Or, if there really is a reason for this taking far longer than normal, we can keep it open. The real question is "how do we resolve this dispute?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest:

• 2) On futher examination, I have no problem with retaining Spigel, and the Mingjiang Li is good too. I'm not sure if the Atlantic Wire opinion article fits though, as it simply an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media.
• 3) Should the Zimmerman source be merged with 5)? Also the Swedish source returns a broken link.
• 4) I have no problem with paraphrasing of Brenner's quote. Perhaps it can be paraphrased to the line of "Brenner questions the Chinese government's large financial incentives to CI, and whether it fits within America's national interests.
• 5) No problem with readding Zimmerman. But do you think it should say something along the lines of 'In writing for the Christian Science Monitor, Zimmerman argued for greater American scrutiny in the teaching of Chinese languages, and the importance of open discussions. "...more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."'
• 7) How about a combination of both, like: 'Representative Dana Rohrabacher accused China of spreading its propaganda by exploiting the American media and education system, as well as criticizing US universities of valuing money over intergrity. In referencing expert witness Steven W. Mosher, Rohrabacher argued, "Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda."'
• 8) I really think that the section on Confucius Classrooms be trimmed down to quality sources from AP [37] and Washington Times [38]. As I mentioned earlier, I felt that the paragraph only need a short reference to the both the views Tribune editorial and school board member Jay Chen, concluding with Prof. Cull's views on people's suspicion of outside ideas.
• 9) Sorry, the link to the Mosher PDF is down, is there an alternate link? Furthermore, I think Mosher should be cited with caution, since he is an anti-One Child Policy and anti-abortion activist who works for the partisan Population Research Institute, which argues that overpopulation is a myth.
• 10) I really have to get back on the London School issue. As for your links on the talk page, most of them from major newspapers looked fine if you can extract materials from them, but I'm not sure the hard conservative Human Events and the Robertson source qualify under WP:RS.--PCPP (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, PCPP. It sounds like we now generally agree and should be able to resolve our differences quickly. As Douglas Adams said <grin>, "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by." Later today, I'll start roughing out draft versions for consensus. If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to work out all the details here before making our changes to the C&CoCI page. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The following are some suggestions and questions for discussion by PCPP and any other interested editors.

#1 Is the above revision with Reuters acceptable? Since the China Daily article doesn't mention CIs, it might be better for the Huawei page.

#2 Here's the deleted quote.

• A Der Spiegel article about threats from China's soft power criticized Beijing for using Confucius Institutes "in hopes of promoting what it views as China's cultural superiority".^[1]

As mentioned above, I did a quick "Confucius Institute, cultural superiority" search and found Li's book and Hudson's article to illustrate that this quote wasn't necessarily WP:UNDUE. Page 197 of Li mentions CIs in one context and cultural superiority in another, it seems like adding this ref would be synthesis. However, thanks for pointing out that the Atlantic Wire was responding to the Global Times editorial cited under #11. Since "an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media" is a rough paraphrase of NPOV, perhaps we should move it there.

#3 Yes, I still think it would be better to consolidate the Italian Instititute refs, which I already tried (21 February 2012) but you removed (14 May 2012). Is this OK now?

• Some critics have compared Confucius Institutes to Benito Mussolini’s Italian Institutes in American schools^[2]{CSM20060906zimmer}

I think there was a third ref and will look later. Should we pipe Italian Cultural Institute, London as "Italian Institute"? Sorry I don't read Swedish, but we could tag the deadlink or delete it.

#4 Here's the original version

• David Prager Branner, a Chinese professor at Columbia University, said it is a fallacy to believe that taking money from the Chinese government will have no long-term consequences. "In order to try to anticipate those consequences we need to ask: why would China be willing to spend so much money to set these organizations up? Specifically, why does China consider this to be in its national interest and why would it be in America’s national interest?"^[3]

Instead of paraphrasing

• "Brenner questions the Chinese government's large financial incentives to CI, and whether it fits within America's national interests.

It might be clearer to say something like

• David Prager Branner, a Chinese professor at Columbia University, warns that taking money from China to set up Confucius Institutes could have long-term consequences, and questions whether it would be in America’s national interest.

#5 Yes, prefacing with "In writing for the Christian Science Monitor…" sounds fine, but I still think quoting the pithy lede question is more informative than paraphrasing the rambling conclusion.

• A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question of academic freedom, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?"{CSM20060906zimmer}
• Zimmerman argued for greater American scrutiny in the teaching of Chinese languages, and the importance of open discussions. "...more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."'

Perhaps we could compromise and use both the question and summary. Any other opinions?

#6 We already have consensus for deleting Dickinson State.

#7 Yes, combining could be advantageous, but this "either type of freedom" phrase loses the "freedom of the press and academic freedom" referents. That's the advantage of WP giving direct quotes for controversial subjects. Compare

• Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, "Two of the pillars of America’s status as an open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda." Steven W. Mosher testified that Stanford University denied his PhD degree about China's controversial one-child policy after the Chinese Communist Party "threatened to retaliate against other Stanford scholars and programs." Rohrabacher responded, "It appears as though Beijing is able to expand its campaign against academic freedom from China to America when U.S. universities value Chinese favors and money more than truth and integrity."^[4]
• Representative Dana Rohrabacher accused China of spreading its propaganda by exploiting the American media and education system, as well as criticizing US universities of valuing money over integrity. In referencing expert witness Steven W. Mosher, Rohrabacher argued, "Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda.

Please clarify how Rohrabacher was "referencing" Mosher.

#8 This paragraph has changed so many times that I'm confused about what you want to trim. From the current version [footnotes 71-75], do you want to keep the SGV Tribune [72], AP [73 twice], Asian American Policy Review [74], and Washington Times [75]; but exclude the National Review [71] as not a "quality source"? This [74] link now requires ID login. There's a copy on Jay Chen's blog, but is that a RS? We should wikilink Norman N. Hsu too.

#9 Fixing this dead link is easier than disqualifying Mosher, here's an archive link. Are you saying we should dismiss Mosher's concerns about CIs because he has criticized abortion, the One Child Policy, or both? The original was:

• Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, testified that the United Front Work Department's purpose "is subversion, cooption and control," and claimed that one of the CI's chief purposes is "to subvert, coopt, and ultimately control Western academic discourse on matters pertaining to China.

I just found a China Daily story that describes Mosher as "a China specialist in the US."

#10 I was just parking all these references on the Talk page pending our postponed resolution, and we will only use whatever ones are suitable. Are you saying we should delete Human Events merely because it's conservative? I agree that the religiously-biased Epoch Times likely fails WP:RS, but added it for the deleted video link. Any link will do. Is this current version acceptable?

• The Confucius Institute at the London School of Economics came under criticism following the LSE Gaddafi links controversy over accepting a £1.5 million donation from Libya. Christopher Hughes, professor of international relations, said the school’s acceptance of about £400,000 from China showed it had failed to learn from the scandal. Hughes accused the CI of being a "divisive" and "illegitimate" propaganda organization, and said its existence would damage the school’s reputation.^[5]

#11 Yes, we agree this paragraph needs to be cut. Would you, or someone else, be willing to rewrite it? The current version already has the State Department link as footnote [65]. Should we add the above Atlantic response here after the Global Times [66]?

#12 The C&CoCI mouthful was a compromise title from discussion about spliting off the article. I still think Criticisms of Confucius Institutes is simplest and clearest, but some editors want to avoid the c-word (so to speak). It seems unnecessary to cite the official website that CIs often don't have "much controversy". In comparison, Criticism of Apple Inc. doesn't say that many Apple users are uncritical. But if you think it's important, adding this sort of qualification would be OK. Keahapana (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor L. Bennett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Coriander2 (talk · contribs)
• Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)
• Pedantic Person (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been an on-going attempt by different users to create a Wikipedia entry for this Photographer which has been opposed by the editors Tokyogirl79 and SudoGhost, who have persistently marked the article for deletion. The article's creator Pedantic Person and myself have argued that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Personal attacks have taken place during the history of the discussion on the Articles for Deletion page, in view of which I think it would be appropriate for a new and completely uninvolved editor to help with the resolution of the dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussion on the relevant Articles for Deletion page. Edits to the article itself to provide improved grounds for the subject's notability.

How do you think we can help?

By helping us to reach a judgement as to whether or not sufficient grounds have been provided for the notability of the subject.

Opening comments by Tokyogirl79

Opening comments by SudoGhost

The article's subject is not notable, and was deleted via a previous AfD. The article was recreated without anything that would change the notability issue, so it was renominated for deletion. Unless a diff can be provided that shows where any "personal attacks have taken place", I have nothing more to say; this doesn't belong at DRN because there is no dispute that cannot be resolved through AfD. - SudoGhost 13:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Pedantic Person

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Eleanor_L._Bennett discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Interac (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• [User Taurus669]
• [KeroroGunso]
• [Laevatienn]
• [DDD DDD]
• [Statisticalregression]
• [Boy.pockets]
• [Busy Stubber]
• [Tlrkky]
• [Ckatz]
• [Cybercobra]
• [Ost316]
• [Skriptorific]
• [Alex MacIntosh88]
• [Eikaiwamonkey]
• [GreenJoe]
• [Dustinasby]
• [DAJF]
• [Wanzhen]
• [Davewild]
• [Kintetsubuffalo]
• [Altenmann]
• [Nihonjoe]
• [Johnpacklambert]
• [Squids and Chips]
• [Lexo]
• [Elryn deathwing]
• [Jimp]
• [Mindmatrix]

Dispute overview

This wiki is not about the company as much as it is a list of labor dispute issues brought up by the union(s). The issue is NPOV, soapbox, sock puppet, etc leading to it not describing Interac in an encyclopedic manner. The majority of the content is union-related-labor-dispute content and does not tell a new reader about Interac the company, but rather it is a laundry list of disputes. As is, the quality level of the article as it relates to Interac as a company is poor and needs to be improved with content related to the company, rather than union-related-labor-dispute content, which should be moved to more appropriate pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Users: Taurus669, KeroroGunso, Laevatienn have brought up these issues in the last year and there has been no comment from the editors who posted the union-related-labor-dispute content. Of course they have no interest in debating in a public forum, they simply revert any edit not meeting their approval.

How do you think we can help?

1. Move union-related-labor-dispute content to the appropriate pages, such as Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan) and then provide a link to that in the Interac page.

2. Consolidate the union-related-labor-dispute content by type and by the union making the claim, and then moving that content to the respective union's page. For example: General_Union & Tozen so that they can maintain the accuracy under the correct NPOV without spamming across pages.

3. Provide oversight.

Opening comments by

Interac (Japan) discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• See below (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• {{User|null}}
• {{User}}

Dispute overview

Add Thomas Vanek to the 2006/2007 NHL top scorers list, as he scored 34 goals and should be in the list

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Add Thomas Vanek to the 2006/2007 NHL top scorers list, as he scored 34 goals and should be in the list

How do you think we can help?

Add Thomas Vanek to the 2006/2007 NHL top scorers list, as he scored 34 goals and should be in the list

Opening comments by null

Opening comments by

See below discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:CodeCat (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CodeCat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:CodeCat often reverts legitimate revisions en masse and deletes entries without bothering to message the user or start a talk page on the matter. The evidence for this can be seen in the complaints on her talk page. I wouldn't be so troubled about it if she was simply an editor, but as an administrator, I would expect more from her.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted her, but she refutes any culpability.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like for her to be asked to do a better job in communicating with others, in both initiating contact and conducting herself is a civil manner. Thank you.

Opening comments by CodeCat

User talk:CodeCat discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Copernican principle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wyattmj (talk · contribs)
• 4twenty42o (talk · contribs)
• 78.50.199.189 (talk · contribs)
• 91.183.53.247 (talk · contribs)
• Materialscientist (talk · contribs)
• Lithopsian (talk · contribs)
• 74.100.71.90 (talk · contribs)
• Kheider (talk · contribs)
• Diamondandrs (talk · contribs)
• Drbogdan (talk · contribs)
• Aunva6 (talk · contribs)
• 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs)
• 74.100.51.204 (talk · contribs)
• 78.50.195.154 (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The question is whether the "CMB Anisotropies" (Cosmic microwave background anisotropies) prove or disprove the Copernican principle, and obviously, whether this proof should appear as a conclusion or theory or argument in the article.

I will answer shortly, but the question is not of "proving or disproving", rather, whether certain structural features of the CMB (alignment of quadrupole and octupole , and correlation to the ecliptic and equinoxes, especially) challenge the Copernican Principle. This is clearly the case. I did not feel an issue answering here, as the filer stated they had no intention of being involved in the dispute. Wyattmj (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been edit warred and talk paged and see-my-link-to-a-Wikipedia-article and see-my-abstract-link-ed to death with the result on the article being that it stinks.

Let's stick to regurgitating the sources on this subject, if it has even come up in the press or in journals.

How do you think we can help?

I am personally uninvolved, so I have not included my name above. I have been watching dispute for a month in my watchlist. I doubt I would have time to resolve it without help from other uninvolved helpers. The subject of the dispute is quite difficult to grasp, so some highly technical user would be great.

Opening comments by Wyattmj (edited to shorten)

The WMAP satellite temperature map anisotropies, analyzed with spherical harmonics indicated clear signals that pointed to anisotropy at large angular scales (especially the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole; though the dipole is usually dismissed as Doppler effects). The quadupole and octupole are correlated (this is non-gaussian) and are perpendicular planes intersecting at an axis referred to BY COSMOLOGISTS as the "axis of evil". This axis actually points directly to us, and it is clear that the quadrupole/octupole is aligned to our ECLIPTIC and EQUINOXES. There are tons of science articles about this and its implications, some of which I pasted into the talk page. In addition, there are journal articles by mainstram scientists. This is a major in issue in cosmology, and EVERYONE with any knowledge understands its implications for the Copernican Principle. If the universe at large scales points back to us, this is not Copernican (because we are in a special place). Kate Land and Joao Magueijo tied this to the Copernican Principle in 2005 (The axis of evil, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0502237v2.pdf) based on WMAP 1st year results, "The homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe – also known as the Copernican principle – is a major postulate of modern cosmology. ...Yet, there have been a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe..., making use of the state of the art WMAP first year results [11]. These claims have potentially very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology."

Copi et., al., in their 2010 paper, analyze these alignments and correlations and report (see talk page for reference): "...(i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.; (ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.;... (iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.; (iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, ...this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L. ..."

Copi, et. al., then look to the Planck satellite with its improved sensor technology and scanning pattern to referee these results. The Planck release report XXIII (Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB) specifically states:

..Deviations from isotropy have been found and demonstrated to be robust against component separation algorithm, mask and frequency dependence. Many of these anomalies were previously observed in the WMAP data, and are now confirmed at similar levels of significance (around 3). .... Whilst these analyses represent a step forward in building an understanding of the anomalies, a satisfactory explanation based on physically motivated models is still lacking.

Other independent observations also support the axis of evil (i.e., galaxy rotation, Longo). Other observation such as quantization (though more controverial) also support questioning the Coperncian Principle. The sum of this data, especially with the recent (March 21st 2013) Planck release behoove us to not sweep this issue under the rug.Wyattmj (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 4twenty42o

Opening comments by 78.50.199.189

Opening comments by 91.183.53.247

Opening comments by Materialscientist

Opening comments by Lithopsian

I became involved in this article when I was asked to review the literature and references relating to some recent edits. I concluded that many of the recent changes were simply own research and opinion, and were not unbiased representation of the references. I reverted some edits, attempted a rewrite of two sections that were trying to make the same argument, followed the arbitration request, and am now waiting for this dispute to run its course. Over the last few days the article has slowly reverted to multiple sections pushing a fringe viewpoint that is not representative of the research or the quoted references, albeit somewhat more subtly than before. Lithopsian (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 74.100.71.90

Opening comments by Kheider

The references fail to even mention Copernicus. At this time there is nothing more than a weird coincidence combined with original research (assumptions) by Wyattmj. -- Kheider (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Diamondandrs

Opening comments by Drbogdan

As before, my involvement in the Copernican principle article was limited to the questionable quality of newly posted text and references - and urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reach WP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows => "rv edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Aunva6

my involvement was limited to reverting an edit that had previously been removed. after looking at the source, I found that it contained no mention of the Copernican Principle. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 7&6=thirteen

Opening comments by 74.100.51.204

Opening comments by 78.50.195.154

Opening comments by Thucydides411

I've not been involved in any of the disputes here, but I think I could contribute. We should orient the discussion towards the sources on the "axis of evil."

Before we do that, however, let's recall some basic facts about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is radiation which pervades the Universe, and is a remnant of a time when the Universe was much denser, hotter, and was in a plasma state. As the Universe expanded, it cooled to the point where neutral atoms became stable, and it rapidly transitioned from a plasma to a neutral gas, becoming transparent to most radiation in the process. The radiation which existed at the time has continued to stream without being scattered or absorbed (for the most part). As the Universe expands, the wavelength of the CMB has stretched, so that it is now visible at long wavelengths (hence the term "Microwave" in the name). Different cosmological models and assumptions predict different things about the CMB, but all modern models predict a few things in common:

• There is a CMB.
• The temperature of the CMB is nearly uniform across the entire sky (i.e. nearly isotropic).
• The anisotropy of the CMB temperature is caused by density perturbations in the early Universe, as well as a number of smaller effects (which are too complicated to go into here). These anisotropies are usually decomposed into spherical harmonics.

The details of a given cosmological model (the ratio of dark matter, dark energy, and baryonic matter; whether the model assumes standard General Relativity or some form of modified gravity; the infationary model used) determine what statistical properties the CMB anisotropies should have. The currently accepted model is the Lambda-CDM model, and the recent papers by the Planck team have greatly bolstered this model in most cosmologists' opinions.

With that review behind us, let's turn to the papers on the "axis of evil." One of the early papers on the subject is Oliveira-Costa, Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton (2003). This paper defines a measure of the direction of the greatest anisotropy for each spherical harmonic order l. It finds that according to this measure, the l = 2 through 3 multipole modes are within a few degrees of each other on the sky, and gives the probability of a chance alignment as 1 in 62. There are a couple of other papers which deal with this issue. Here is a short list:

• Tegmark, Oliveira-Costa & Hamilton (2003)
• Land & Magueijo (2005)
• Copi et al. (2010)

The last paper is a review paper, so it gives a good overview of what the issue with the low-order multipoles is. An important point is that none of these papers state, "the Copernican Principle is dead," or anything similar for that matter. I think you'd have an extremely difficult time finding an astrophysicist who believes that the Copernican Principle is invalid. The papers are basically framed from the point of view, "We found something that is a bit strange, but we're not sure how strange it really is, and it might be due to some systematic errors in how we're measuring the CMB, or some foreground radiation that we're not properly accounting for." It is also important to note that the recent Planck papers have not made mention of the "axis of evil."

There are a lot of interesting and important finds in the Planck data, but given the very small amount of attention being given by astrophysicists to the "axis of evil" question, I don't think it merits mention in the Wikipedia page on the Planck spacecraft. It may be worth a sentence or two in the Cosmic Microwave Background article, but that might be undue weight. I don't think it bears mentioning in the Copernican Principle article until astrophysicists actually decide that it is a major problem. I don't think it rises to the level of significance for inclusion there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernican principle discussion

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'd be happy to help with this issue. The next step is to wait for the parties to post opening comments above. After all (or nearly all) opening statements are posted, we can begin discussing in this Discussion section. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm peripherally involved in this, but probably not enough to be a party; I'd just like to point out that this issue is spilling onto the Planck (spacecraft) article, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit-war over it, but he's reinserted this content into the Planck article over my reversion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd note that his content additions, at least to the Planck page, definitely look like synthesis to me, as the sources he's citing don't talk about the axis of evil or any challenges to the Copernican principle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs ... but can I suggest that we wait a couple of days (until all parties have posted opening comments) before we engage in discussion? That should help things flow more smoothly. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I wasn't making these posts as a bona fide DRN volunteer; just as a pseudo-opening-statement from a party involved enough to have an opinion but not involved enough to have an "opening comments" section of my own. If it's easier to put this stuff in my own opening comments section or something, just let me know. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article edits: I have noticed that Diamondandrs and Kheider and 78.50.234.140 and 85.179.84.51 are variously adding and removing some content and references in the disputed article. I am recommending that these minor improvements and edits stop while the dispute process is underway. The edits to the article actually increased since I opened up this request for Dispute Resolution. Thanks for everyone who chose to participate! I like to saw logs! (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Substantial changes were being made to the second half of the article. I did my best to preserve the original article. Apparently, nobody but I was aware of the substantial changes being made at the time even though I complained about it in the Talk page under the section "Dispute". I gave the editors what they wanted, but they wouldn't stop. They just kept on making more and more substantial changes. Had I not intervened, the article would have become substantially different than what it was before.Diamondandrs (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

22 April discussion start - It is starting to look like some parties may not post opening comments. Some editors only edit WP sporadically, so we don't want to rush things; on the other hand, we cannot wait forever. I suggest that we wait 2 more days, then start the discussion around 21 or 22 April, even if some parties have not posted opening comments. In the meantime, it is clear that this dispute revolves around sourcing issues, so parties that want the ariticle(s) to include the material should prepare quotes from sources that substantiate the material per WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Noleander (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it is time to start the discussion, if editors are still interested. I think the first step would be for editors that want the material to be included to provide sources here. If the sources do not explicitly mention the "Copernican principle" then a really good justification will be needed, based on the WP:SYNTH policy. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Beta Upsilon Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pandaboyx (talk · contribs)
• {{User}}

Dispute overview

My article was deleted because there was no "explanation of significance", when clearly the article was written describing the significance of the fraternity.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

"Contest speedy deletion"

How do you think we can help?

take a closer look at my article and tell me what "significance" I am leaving off.

Opening comments by

Beta Upsilon Delta discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Cavann (talk · contribs)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
• Alessandro57 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute revolves around the representation of a period of Istanbul's history in the article. Tariqabjotu is deleting pretty much any changes to article,[39] given his long-term involvement in the article. The dispute is as follows: 1) Lead: There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored despite the notability. 2) Toponymy section: Other names as part of history of the city is completely ignored. Alternative explanation for the name of Byzantium completely ignored [40] 3) History section: History of Istanbul has 1402 words. Yet expanding section to add few sentences are reverted [41] [42] 18:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:Istanbul#Pre-Byzantine_history_in_the_lead Talk:Istanbul#RFC

How do you think we can help?

Please clarify issues with respect to WP:NPOV (alternative explanation for the name of Byzantium) and how a period of city's history should be represented in the article.

Opening comments by Tariqabjotu

Opening comments by Athenean

Opening comments by Dr.K.

Opening comments by Proudbolsahye

Opening comments by Alessandro57

Istanbul discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ryulong (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over keeping a complete list of episodes on the page. A souces has the complete list but someone keeps removing them

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Keep the complete list of episodes up. A complete list exist from a releiable source.

How do you think we can help?

Compromise.

Opening comments by Ryulong

The complainant IP address is adding content that cannot be verified by reliable sources and constantly linking to a fan Wikia. Therefore, I have removed it. There is no dispute. This individual has been informed that the sources are not valid and is edit warring to keep them in.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This request should also be speedy closed as it has been opened by a sock IP of a banned editor and there was no talk page that this content was discussed on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Juggalos (gang) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AnnerTown (talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I can usually work with editors I don't get along with, but Andy here has resorted to malicious personal attacks and ad hominem arguments in trying to make his point, and one particularly tasteless comment struck a raw nerve. I can no longer assume good faith. Furthermore, he has accused me of being a troll and has made a couple of very bizarre claims about me. I don't have a problem with him editing the article if he'll actually contribute, but it has become 100% clear to me, through his malicious editing and blatant personal attacks, that his intentions are less than golden. He is attacking the article's sources with any argument he can muster up so that he can delete the article. Not once has he added anything new, and not once has he made an edit that wasn't related to deleting the article and/or attacking its sources.

Basically, it boils down to this:

I hold that the National Gang Intelligence Center is a reliable source on street gangs, as they are already cited in several articles. The document in question is secondary and is cited by the FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, thus confirming its legitimacy.

Andy holds that the source must be removed for several reasons, all of them (in my opinion) a bit of a stretch.

You can read the details of our arguments on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juggalos_(gang)

Source in question: http://info.publicintelligence.net/NGIC-Juggalos.pdf

Alternatively, would it make a difference at all if I cited the NGIC document as a book instead of linking to the PDF file? Apparently, Andy's main problem is not with the document itself, but rather where it is hosted. I just thought that this would be counterproductive, since the only practical difference is that you can't read the document by clicking on a link. This seems pointless and petty to me, and in my mind, only cements Andy's ill intentions, but if such a simple fix could end this headache, I'd be open to it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully, Andy and I can work things out with the help of other editors. We're not doing so hot on our own.

Opening comments by AndyTheGrump

Top of page. "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please".

AnnerTown, you could do with reading WP:RS - publicintelligence.net, cryptocomb.org and the like aren't 'publishers' at all in Wikipedia terms. If you wish to cite government sources, cite them properly, giving the correct publication details - though for that, you'll have to demonstrate that they've been published, rather than being internal documents. And please don't waste our time with further nonsensical arguments regarding such sources on the grounds that 'The point is moot, though. The NGIC was recently disbanded by the Obama administration, and it couldn't be an "internal" document of an agency that does not exist.' [43] That is crazy, as I described it, and you won't find anyone to argue otherwise, though they may put it more politely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note also that this isn't a dispute about a single document - the article in question is sourced almost entirely to what appear to be unpublished documents hosted on unofficial websites (I say appear to be - there is of course no guarantee that material hosted on such sites actually is what it purports to be, which is one reason such material cannot conform to WP:RS). All I have asked for is that the article conforms to Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And while we are here, perhaps AnnerTown can explain how a document clearly marked 'FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY' on every page can be described as 'published'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

...And another one, marked 'Confidential - Sensitive Data Law Enforcement Use Only'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Juggalos (gang) discussion

Hi. I'm a volunteer here, and I'd be happy to help out. Let's start with WP:RS. Generally, WP:RS requires that sources have a good reputation for accuracy. Good sources are things like major publishing houses or serious news agencies. Many web sites, including blogs, do not meet the RS requirement because they do not have a demonstrated reputation for accuracy & reliability. AnnerTown: could you explain why you feel that the two following sources meet the WP:RS requirement:

• http://info.publicintelligence.net
• http://cryptocomb.org
• http://www.faygoluvers.net

--Noleander (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if AnnerTown is still participating or not (I'll ping them on their talk page). But if they don't reply, we could perhaps assume that AndyTheGrump has a point, and that those sources are not suitable for the article. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Damonthesis (talk · contribs)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs)
• Jeremystalked (talk · contribs)
• Phil Bridger (talk · contribs)
• Saudade7 (talk · contribs)
• James500 (talk · contribs)
• The Anome (talk · contribs)
• Batvette (talk · contribs)
• Peacefrog71 (talk · contribs)
• Sativarg (talk · contribs)
• {User | Elizabeth Blandra }}

Dispute overview

Two sourced articles appearing in section [[44]] are inaccurately represented on Wikipedia. Violating WP:RS and presenting only a minority viewpoint in two separate articles despite ample arguments to the contrary presented in the source. Multiple attempts and requests have been made to provide an unbiased presentation, all have failed.

The standing article provides an undiagnosed medical opinion on a blanket group of individuals, just after providing scientific evidence that not all "group stalking" complaints are delusional. It is biased and contradictory, and does not represent the viewpoint of the source material.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempting to discuss on Talk, and with User_Talk pages, the page was subsequently locked in place, preserving the incorrect material.

How do you think we can help?

The users involved have a history on this page of misrepresenting this specific source material. Until now, nobody has argued the fact that they do not follow WP:RS however numerous noncorrelated individuals in the community have brought this same concern, and the group of editors have repeatedly attacked attempts to provide an unbiased viewpoint on this subject.

We need directed consensus on the content of the two sources articles, from the Washington Post and the NYTimes.

Opening comments by Acroterion

Stalking discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gun control (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• gaijin42 (talk · contribs)
• PraetorianFury (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• Shadowjams (talk · contribs)
• ROG5728 (talk · contribs)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
• DGG (talk · contribs)
• ElKevbo (talk · contribs)
• Steeletrap (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• Should gun control be a separate article from gun politics
• Is coverage of historical of gun control by genocidal and authoritarian governments on topic for the gun control article, assuming such facts are well sourced
• Is gun control which is by law, or by implementation, targeted at specific races, classes, or groups in a discriminatory manner still "gun control", or is the topic restricted to only "fair" gun control
  • Is such coverage undue?
• Severability : Is discussion of such history by-definition argumentative and referring to current US gun control debates, or can the historical topic be discussed on its own.
  • Available sources are often covering both the historical facts/opinions, and using that as arguments for the modern debate. Can such sources that do engage in debate be used for just the historical portion.
• Germany
  • Is there any dispute that germany did implement gun control targeted at the Jews
  • Is there any dispute that this was done as one part of furthering their goals of the holocaust
  • There is significant controversy regarding counter-factuals of "if they had guns" how effective such resistance would have been, should either side of the counterfactual be discussed
• Halbrook
  • Are Halbrook publications self-published unreliable sources
  • Is Halbrooka notable commenter and expert on the topic (Expert does not mean right, or uncontroversial. Experts often disagree with each other)
  • Are Halbrookfactual historical assertions fringe
  • Are Halbrookinterpretations of those facts fringe
• Harcourt
  • I don't think anyone debates including Harcourt, but what quotes should be included, and how should they be framed
  • Since Harcourt is responding to Halbrook, does one make sense without the other

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ad nauseam discussions on the article talk page. Several escalating wiki-lawyering bureaucratic interventions

How do you think we can help?

Keep discussion focused, avoiding ad-hominem attacks and strawmans having nothing to do with the actual debate.

Opening comments by gaijin42

Arguments that gun control is not a notable topic independent of gun politics are asinine. Hundreds of books and articles have been written on the topic of gun control.

The basic facts are undisputed. Guns WERE confiscated from the jews by the Nazis. This was done via gun control laws.

There are numerous primary sources including telegrams, diary entries, orders, memos etc directly saying this was done with the goal of making assaults against the Jews easier. Nobody disputes the authenticity of these primary sources. These sources have been refered to in some secondary sources (admittedly primarily Halbrooks, but there are unrelated exceptions - the book "Kristallnacht" etc.

Halbrook is the only research to study this area. While his conclusions are controversial, I assert that he is a notable expert on the topic of gun control, via being cited by two SCOTUS rulings, multiple books from multiple publishers, academic articles cited hundreds of times, and multiple "expert opinion" appearances on CNN, Fox, ABC, etc. Additionally that so many pro-gun-control sources directly address and attempt to refute his arguments, grants him notability in their opposition.

Further, arguments similar to his have been voiced by the NRA, notable court cases (silveria), congressional bills, and many other pundits. While their views are controversial, they are not fringe, and they deserve a place in the article. (as do the voices of those who disagree) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by PraetorianFury

Opening comments by North8000

While I think that DR is probably a good idea for this, the current list of active persons is unbalanced due to selective advertising for the recent fatally flawed RFC. If there could be some assurance that this were to stick to true DR and have no findings or decisions influenced by headcounts, it could work and I'd be in. Otherwise not and not. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Goethean

Opening comments by TFD

The theory that gun control contributed to the holocaust has received almost no attention in mainstream sources. Typical of how it viewed is this comment from the well-respected Anti-Defamation League (January 24, 2013):

Another common theme that has emerged in recent weeks is that if only the victims of the Holocaust had better access to guns, the Nazi regime would not have been able to systematically murder so many people.

It should be noted that the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Uprising and elsewhere, but could not stop the Nazi genocide machine. Gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.

Invoking the Holocaust in discussions of controversial issues is nothing new. Conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, leader of a fringe political cult that defies categorization, and his supporters have contributed to the divisiveness surrounding the public debate on health care reform by producing and disseminating materials comparing President Barack Obama and other government officials to Hitler, Nazis and fascists.[45]

The call it an "offensive holocaust analogy". WP:WEIGHT requires us to ignore it in the article.

TFD (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Specifco

Opening comments by Shadowjams

Opening comments by ROG5728

That there is any argument about this is absurd. Of course we should outline and record the history of gun control for our readers. The Nazi regime confiscated all firearms from the Jews prior to the Holocaust, and an overwhelming number of reliable sources support this fact. Even Hitler himself is on the record stating that gun control was an important means to his political ends. Should we censor history just because it may paint contemporary gun control in a negative light? ROG5728 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by NewYorkBrad

Opening comments by DGG

Opening comments by ElKevBo

Opening comments by Steeletrap

The essential question is: Did the Nazis practice gun control? This is only true if we 1) take the term "gun control" literally, and define it as something like "All regulation or limitation on private gun ownership" (which we can't do without falling into absurdities) or 2) adopt a non-literal political definition for gun control like "all government limitation and regulation of private ownership of guns", which again falls into absurdities and is rejected by mainstream academic discourse. To avoid absurdity and stay in line with accepted academic definitions, we should adopt a definition of gun control like "broad-based, non-discriminatory (except regarding criminals) governmental attempts to regulate or limit private gun ownership." This definition decidedly excludes the examples of authoritarian governments disarming particular ethnic or (non-violent) political groups.

The absurdities of the literal definition (1) are obvious: gun control would include the act of gun-owning parents to ban or limit access to guns from his/her young children. The absurdities of definition 2 are illustrated with historical examples. According to this definition, the U.S. has radically relaxed its gun control laws since the 19th century. For back then, black people could not own guns in most Southern states. Similarly, the abolition of slavery must be taken to have "ended gun control laws in the South." (Indeed, abolition was very likely the most significant moment for gun rights in the history of America.) This is nonsense on stilts, and I doubt you can find a significant number of scholars that makes those assertions.

Most importantly for the purposes of Wikipedia is how mainstream scholars think of and define gun control. Like me, they conceive of it a broad, non-discriminatory (except regarding criminals) governmental policy of limiting and regulating private gun ownership. They also clearly do not conceive of Nazi Germany as having practiced gun control. As user TFD wrote on the gun control discussion "The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (2010) has articles by 47 scholars writing about all aspects of the holocaust, including the conditions necessary for it to occur, how it was planned and carried out, and how people have interpreted it.[46] Nowhere does it mention gun control laws" (emphasis mine). Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control discussion

There appears to be an open RFC at the talk page of this article. This request cannot be accepted while another DR venue is still being used. Once the request for comment has been closed the DR/N request can be remade. Thanks!

The RFC is stale, and closure was requested several days ago but has not been addressed. There is consensus that the RFC does not have a consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The stated policy is valid, and it is not for an involved party to state whether or what consensus may exist. The RfC will be closed in due course. Meanwhile this request can be withdrawn and better formulated by discussion on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at DR/N. I see this DR/N as being requested too soon. RFC's are not stale, they are still open. As such this request is inappropriate for the moment. Until the RFC is formally closed, any request for DR/N must be declined. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Church of Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Matipop (talk · contribs)
• Coffeepusher (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main issue is Coffeepusher's deletion of the entire 2,777 word "Other locations" section in the Church of Scientology page. Here are the details of the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=553247820&oldid=553223538. From whichever angle you look at it, this is a completely arbitrary move that is supposedly based on WP: weight. I was simply adding an update about Hotel Alexandra, an edit that Coffeepusher deleted without sufficient reason, saying, "The article doesn't mention the hotel anywhere in the article. Adding a sale to properties they own is interesting." I asked the editor what he meant by this and he resorted to not only deleting my edit, but the entire section that it adds to. The deleted section complies with WP:RS, citing reference such as SPtimes.com, NYobserver.com, LAtimes.com, LosAngeles.cbslocal.com, VCstar.com, and finally, the edit most recently added, Bizjournals.com. The section also complies with notability and verifiability. He has "blanked a section" of 2,777 characters with no sufficient discussion and reasoning, and as far as I've researched, the practice of blanking sections violates many policies. He has violated WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRESERVE, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:NOTCENSORED. This editor has edited disruptively. I am simply asking the community to clarify the Wiki policy correctness of Coffeepusher's action.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on Church of Scientology Talk Page

How do you think we can help?

Objective evaluation of the adherence or non-adherence to Wikipedia policy of Coffeepusher's blanking of the "Other locations" section on the Church of Scientology page.

Opening comments by Coffeepusher

Well THAT escalated quickly. I am not sure if making a new section on the talk page, and then not replying to my post really qualify as "trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page."Coffeepusher (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

just for perspective here is what Matipop believes is enough discussion to warrant the need for dispute resolution Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Church of Scientology page discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Huizhou University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of universities and colleges in Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AndreGallant (talk · contribs)
• 113.67.113.216 (talk · contribs)
• 113.68.104.183 (talk · contribs)
• 216.151.31.21 (talk · contribs)
• Marco polo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Contributor 113.67.113.216 (a former employee of Huizhou University) added unsourced and incorrect information on 26 April 2013, following a dispute over payment of a monetary bonus. User attempted to justify changes by stating the literal translation of a Chinese term into American English. User Marco polo initially agreed with user 113.67.113.216. Later, user AndreGallant restored the previous information, explaining the source of the difference between the English and Chinese terms used in the article. Argument began there. In the following debate, user AndreGallant demonstrated (using sourced material from the Chinese Ministry of Education) that his original content was factually correct. Since then, users 113.68.104.183 and 113.67.115.210 (the same user as 113.67.113.216) has repeatedly taken down the sourced information and posted trivial biased information in the form of links to images.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted in the TALK section my reasoning and sources, and asked user to please explain his sources. User 113.67.113.216 has not stated any sources other than personal experience, and continues to add changes to the page. User 113.67.115.210 also posted unrelated personal private information about employees of Huizhou University (see history of talk page)

How do you think we can help?

Page could ideally be reverted to a factual, unbiased state, and locked from further editing for some period of time.

Opening comments by 113.67.113.216

Opening comments by 113.68.104.183

Opening comments by 216.151.31.21

Opening comments by Marco polo

Huizhou University, List of universities and colleges in Guangdong discussion

Hi, I'm volunteering right now to help you out with your dispute. First of all, maintaining a neutral point of view is an essential part of any encyclopedic article.

Second, I checked out the school's website and it says "Huizhou University" on their logo and indeed it says it offers undergraduate degrees. Now, as for the dispute about how the school should be named, each country has different rules regarding the rights to naming schools "colleges" or "universities". The United States even has different rules per state. Putting that aside, your personal views regarding how a school should be named shouldn't be put in a Wikipedia article, nor should you include links to pictures complaining about the state of a building on Wikipedia. Should you wish for it to be on Wikipedia, get it published by a credible source. Read more on original research here. Also, please don't copy-paste text without quotes from one website to Wikipedia, as that could be considered plagiarism.

As for only 113.67.115.210 and AndreGallant, since you both claim to have been affiliated with the school in question (whether in past or the present) you are both in confict of interest. And when signing comments on talk pages, please remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), so everyone knows who is talking to whom and when.

Don't add uncited commentary with NB. directly on the article.

And finally, continually removing content and re-adding can be considered edit warring, and could eventually result in a block. So, in the future if any of you disagree with any reverts made by someone else please don't revert it back again and discuss it on the talk page. (Unless it's vandalism, then don't even bother) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have never said that I have worked at the community college in question, and indeed I have not.

That is the projection of user AndreGallont, based on who knows what. A close of friend of mine has indeed previusly worked there and I have access to some of the material and some insider info because of that, but that is irrelvant for this discussion. User AndreGallant is putting forward silly claims that I am a certain individual (who, as far as I can see is in no way associated with Huizhou College, though I may be mistaken), and then he dismisses my constructive contribution to bringing two sides to the issue, prefering to only copy promotional material from the Huzihou College own pages, which is very unencyclopaedic, even though there is material proving my points (like about unqualified individuals holding positions of "professors" at this college with merely a BA -- that link stands for now while the article is blocked, but I am sure user AndreGalalnt will try to delete it if the article is unlocked.

Wht s/he is doing that, I have no clue, as s/he says that s/he does not work at the college "any more", assuming s/he has indeed worked there before. There are indeed several web pages which indicate that there was a certain Andre Gallant working there in the past (and possibly still), but the connexion of that person with user AndreGallant is dubious, to say the least. In any case, all I want is this to be kept from personal attacks, especially attacks against me as purportedly being a person I do not even know, and then deleting my edits for nothing.

Thanks.

User 113.67.115.210 —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether you were affiliated with the school in question or not is irrelevant, the point is that you do not project a neutral point of view as you do not seem fit for the school to use university as part of their name (proven by your continued use of Huizhen College instead of university. Also, insider info does not qualify as a credible source. If you would like information as such to be included in a Wikipedia article, get it published by a credible source. As AndreGallant says, LinkedIn profiles are personal and can be edited by anyone, therefore don't qualify as credible sources.

While I agree that copy-pasting content from one website to Wikipedia should not be done (unless short quotes are used). The idea can still be used as long as written in their own words.

Since they use "university" as part of their name on their official website, that would be the name to use on this Wikipedia article. The Chinese government also recognizes it as such.

Now, Wikipedia is not a primary source used to expose school conspiracy. Get it published first, then you can post it here. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sanctions Against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is no single issue in dispute, but a seemingly unending series of issues, which will be evident by looking at the article's history and discussion page.

I have tried to edit the article so that it is factually correct, supported by reliable sources, and balanced. I have explained every edit in the description and often on the talk page. Though I have tried to meet KhabarNegar halfway and work with the valid substantive elements of his additions, he/she has repeatedly reverted my edits and insists on having every word exactly as he wants it. And he typically adds insult to injury by reverting my edits and then adding further dubious content.

I have the impression that few if any other editors look at this page or, if they do, they have given up because of the seemingly intractable dispute.

I also have the impression that KhabarNegar has limited English proficiency, as many of his/her edits and comments on the discussion page are ungrammatical and he/she often seems not to understand what I am saying.

Finally, i have the impression that he/she is motivated by a strong political bias - taking the side of Iran against the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve on the discussion page, to handle things step-by-step. For awhile it seemed like we were making progress, but the dispute has returned to a standoff.

How do you think we can help?

First, review the history and provide an independent view of the dispute. I hope you will conclude that KhabarNegar is being unreasonable, uncivil, and has violated Wikipedia standards of conduct, and I hope you will make this clear to him/her. Ultimately, if he/she refuses to budge, the only solution may be to block him from further edits.

Opening comments by KhabarNegar

Well, Above you see a 1754 character insults from first line till the last line without a single link of what is really going on.

FIRST OF ALL, the biggest lie he is telling is the last line which he is telling.

That is so unfortunate which instead of relying on the facts he makes this discussion USA Vs. Iran discussion, This points of view and injecting national patriotism in to the articles is I think the core problem that above user have,... & its obvious to anyone by using the last line he is trying to make a team to influence the article by his patriot views.

Mr. NPguy instead of insulting and trying to just put views of some current U.S administration foreign policies in to articles try to know the facts from reliable international sources.

If anyone see the history, you can see what he is doing, deleting the reliable sources for example like Al Jazeera & The Christian Science Monitor...KhabarNegar (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions Against Iran discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Space Ghost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yonskii (talk · contribs)
• Alucardbarnivous (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Alucardbarnivous keeps reinserting an unsourced section into the Space Ghost article. The article is about the character Space Ghost himself. Alucardbarnivous keeps adding a section title "Rogues Gallery", which is merely a list of every villain Space Ghost encountered in the shows Space Ghost (TV series) and Space Stars. Some of these characters were only used in one episode. I do not feel that the article is an appropriate place for this sort of information, as it is unsourced and more relevant to the actual TV shows than an article about a specific character. Unless he can find more sourced info on how SG's relationships with these characters are relevant to who Space Ghost is in any way, it should be removed. My suggested compromise would be a List of Space Ghost characters article, with proper sourcing of course.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained that this section is inappropriate here.

How do you think we can help?

I want an Admin or User with in depth knowledge of whats encyclopedic and what's not, what's appropriate where in regards to context, and a better understanding of the MOS and Wiki's rules than I to help us reach some sort of consensus.

Opening comments by Alucardbarnivous

The issue of rogues gallery sections for characters in comic books, animation, and film has been one frequently discussed for some years on Wikipedia. These discussions have to this point been that it appears so often that the general community must have a desire to see their inclusion and that even if a ruling was made and enforced to take them down, they will likely return regardless. So, the resolution thus far has been to leave them alone because it doesn't cause any great harm to the articles and would be difficult to enforce. In terms of the specific case for the Space Ghost article, when the user in question frequently deleted the section without discussion, the issue was brought to this board to resolve. Only a single user entered the discussion with a dialogue that largely enforced what was present to remain. Though, officially, the issue went unresolved. The user in question who brought this issue to the board's attention abandoned the debate last year and waited for the discussion to die down over several months and proceeded to delete the section again without discussion. When efforts were taken to put the content back up, the user deleted again without discussion. Only after I commented to discuss the issue did he refer to the Talk page and he brought the issue to this board for a second time. I'm open to the community to reopen this debate with hope that it receives more attention. Simply put, because this is only a smaller aspect of a larger issue, it likely went unnoticed when it had lasting effects. Though we are discussing the issue of Space Ghost retaining a rogues gallery section, what we are really debating is if the rogues gallery section should be rethought for the entire encyclopedia. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Space Ghost discussion

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I am not taking this request, but want to note that if no other volunteer takes it within a couple of days then it probably ought to be closed as stale and/or for insufficient new discussion (since there has only been one new response by each editor since the matter died away last time). Also, one of the editors stated that they wanted to work this issue out for the full encyclopedia, not just for this article. That cannot be done either here at DRN or at the article (or at some wikiproject) due to the WP:CONLIMITED policy. It must be done either at an existing policy or guideline page or at a new page proposed to be a policy or guideline. (On just a quick search, the most likely place to propose the standard would be at WP:MOSTV, but some better place may exist.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.