Filed by Drittner on 19:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
The bot says there is copyrighted info on my article. It is my information which is taken from MY publications. However the bot nor the editor will tell me WHICH part is the problem. Also says it is poorly formatted or documented. I think 28 references if certainly well documented. The editor is threatening and arrogant. He says the piece is promotional which it is not. It is the bio of a living scientist and is a record of his accomplishments along with his life history. There are hundreds of examples on Wiki with the same type of content.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried rewritiing and postiing
How do you think we can help?
Have a civil editor read it and offer suggestions as to where the problem is and help me correct it.
Summary of dispute by Jac16888
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have explained to this user repeatedly that A) Their word is not enough for proof that they own the copyright, B) Even with the copyright the page is overly promotional and C)Barely referenced with the exception of the subjects own work. I have pointed Drittner to a multitude of different pages that can help them, all to no avail, I have run out of ways to try and explain things to this editor and have little interest in continuing to do so--Jac16888Talk 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Drittner/Roger J._Cheng discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
TALK: Rupert Sheldrake
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Tumbleman on 17:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
I am in the process of editing a page on wikipedia that I believed to show bias. I engaged on the TALK section of the page and began to address a few issues, doing the best I can to maintain a NPOV and avoid WP NPA.
One of the editors there, user Vzaak - apparently guards the page. User was very confrontational. I maintained etiquette and addressed their questions. When I addressed their questions within reason and apparently user had no further comment, user then began to accuse me of personal attacks, of which there were none. User then came to my talk page, discovered my identity and exposed my real name on wikipedia, a violation of WP. I tried to engage with them on their talk page and then I was given a warning on my page that I would be blocked.
Keep in mind, I have hardly even begun to edit the page in question yet. This is, I believe, an attempt to bully me away from editing this page and I seek resolution.
I am not sure what else to do.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried engaging with the user in our TALK pages and requested in the subject page that we all try to maintain an NPOV and edit without bias as much as possible.
How do you think we can help?
I need a third opinion here mainly because now I am being threatened from being blocked on the page in question, my identity has been outed, and I am not sure what else I can do but seek a reasonable third party.
Summary of dispute by Vzaak
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My responses have been measured and appropriate. Tumbleman continued making accusations against me and other editors despite many repeated requests for him to focus on content, not people. When these requests were rebuffed, I issued warnings on his talk page.
The conversation at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake speaks for itself. Absurd, over-the-top silliness, matching his boasting descriptions of his Internet antics. If there is any doubt remaining after looking at that those discussions, please inform me. Otherwise I consider the matter closed. Vzaak (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Response to Summary of dispute re - Vzaak: Tumbleman
Vzaak - an online project I did over 7 8 years ago is entirely irrelevant to my activities, anywhere, now, including wikipedia. Actually using these activities is a WP NPA. Adding my actual identity a clear violation and that is the clear line to draw in the sand for me. Plus this has nothing to do with the issue on the TALK page. The issue on the TALK page is not even an issue, I made my comments as to various reasons for edits you and others were suggesting. I even requested we work this out in our TALK pages. What you are doing here is akin to bullying.
To resolve this - i request you immediately edit out my identity on our talk pages. In terms of everything else, we both just have to work on maintaining a NPOV.
I think anyone can read the TALK page and determine if what I wrote was a personal attack or rather a response to your questions and my honest concerns of bias.The Tumbleman (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Second response by Vzaak
Again, I believe this is an experiment by Tumbleman, "a character who spontaneously ‘shows’ up in a internet community and puts on certain antics" [1]. Among other things, he has claimed that the TED blog is a news organization and a reliable secondary source, and that quoting an author's own words is "horribly biased". It matches the behavior Tumbleman has boasted about on other websites.
No personal details have been posted. Tumbleman has called himself Tumbleman, and has identified himself on WP here. He has further identified himself, in a manifestly obvious way, through his creation of a WP article on his own project.
I'm not sure how much time I should devote to this DR, since the case is so clear cut. Vzaak (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal details have been posted by you and you actually post my real name - and clearly there is public record in my talk page. This is a strawman argument to bully me off the page from editing. Everything else you mention is your own personal idea and is simply not factually based just because you find an outdated link from 2004. To assume this is an 'experiment' because 8 years ago I was doing an online experiment and personal writing project that had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia is a personal attack. Who I am or why I am here is irrelevant, what is relevant is maintaining a WP NPOV which I believe the record on the talk page shows my true intention and I believe what your doing shows yours. This is completely unacceptable behavior for wiki editors. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
TALK: Rupert Sheldrake discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi;
I'm not going to take this discussion on full-time yet. According to what I've just read, it sounds like there is more a dispute over user conduct rather than article content. This theory is supported by the fact that User:Tumbleman doesn't know the policy on Wikipedia:SIGLINK (he splits the comments of another user by his own comments). Is this a good surmise, or do parties wish to present evidence to the contrary? --The Historian (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Correct, this DR is 100% about conduct. The SIGLINK thing is just a part of the silliness throughout. Vzaak (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance here The Historian. SIGLINK issues were entirely accidental and I apologized for them on the thread. This is not what this dispute is about. The issue is a dispute over conduct. Vzaak has posted my real identity in my page and is harassing me and threatening me that I will be blocked from editing. I have no other recourse but to address in mediation. Is this the wrong forum for conduct disputes? The Tumbleman (talk) 19:19, 4 September 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.
Talk:Intelligent design
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by MisterDub on 22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User:North8000 wishes to add some information about previous uses of the phrase intelligent design before its adoption by creation scientists. I (and others) feel this information belongs elsewhere, in the Teleological argument.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This is a recurring discussion on the Talk pages. It gets much attention, the consensus ends up keeping the current page, and discussion dies down until the issue is reopened. No other steps have been taken.
How do you think we can help?
I think this dispute revolves around the common names for these subjects, and it would be nice to have some input on that front. North8000 often characterizes it as a problem of scope (i.e. that the article currently disregards all intelligent design (ID) that is not associated with the Discovery Institute), and we could probably use some expertise in distinguishing ID from the teleological argument (aka argument from design).
Summary of dispute by North8000
This is more complex than described:
There are three larger interrelated issues ("chicken-and-the-egg" type interrelations) and the described question is merely a proposed edit relating to them it is not the issue.
There is a larger longer term difference of opinion. The described edit is just a tiny bit of addressing concerns expressed by a large number of editors. Also, as many of those have been "chased away" an RFC with external eyes may be needed. (though the vast majority of the editors there keep it on a high plane and do not do such things which makes this very promising)
Nevertheless I would be happy to participate here. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by dave souza
Since before April 2012, North8000 has been arguing that the scope of the ID article and the term is broader than the modern adaptation of the design argument as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. As an outcome of discussion on his June 2012 proposal for a scope-defining statement which would have widened the scope of the article, trimming of the Origins of the term section was discussed. Following broad agreement that original research and examples unrelated to the current usage should be trimmed, I made edits starting to implement this on 3 July 2012, then following talk page discussion, moved examples to a footnote.[2] Thus examples which are peripheral to modern use of the term are covered in summary style.
North8000 has persisted with discussions trying to widen the scope of the ID article beyond the modern usage of intelligent design, and has repeatedly requested that more prominence should be given in the article to these offtopic examples of what he calls Historic intelligent design material. Despite repeated requests, no new secondary sources have been shown to support these proposed changes. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Guettarda
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cla68
This is a content dispute that probably should be addressed in an RfC as recommended by North8000. North8000 mentions that editors have been "chased away" which is a reference to what I believe is a larger problem with that article. The talk page for the Intelligent Design article is one of the most hostile discussion forums I have ever come across in Wikipedia. I myself have been subjected to personal insults on that article talk page several times in the last few months after posting an opinion. Opinions left by new or IP editors are sometimes removed by other editors, and other editors on that page feel it is ok to revert war on contributions to the article without prior discussion. I believe effective administrator intervention may be necessary. Notice I said "effective". Unfortunately, I don't believe WP's current administration is up to the task. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Andrew Lancaster
Maybe more opinions can help but I note there are already a fairly large number of experienced good faith editors on the article talk page, and the discussion is fairly rational. The basic policies which are relevant are clear, and not really in dispute, and this is as far as I can see a case where careful balancing/judgment is inevitably going to require some discussion. I'd suggest anyone interested should look at the talk page first and consider whether it is better to post directly there (keeping all discussion in one place).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnuniq
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Noformation
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Yopienso
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BabyJonas
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Intelligent design discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'd have to concur with Cla68 here. An RFC I think would be the best way to go - get as many uninvolved people discussing this as possible, and come to a consensus that way. I'd be happy to help set up the RFC. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like this one has gone quiet - I'll close it out in 24 hours if there's nothing else discussed here but an RFC seems the way to go with this one. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Before closing this, perhaps people would like to take account of what is happening on the Teleological argument page. I see that it is involved in this dispute. In an edit blitz, the term "intelligent design" has been introduced by one editor (appearing above) pretty well everywhere. This seems to be a spill-over from the dispute going on here. I, and another editor, tried to show that the introduction of 'intelligence', in the phrase "argument from design" was a recent thing, while the editor, just referred to, removed my cited quotations, saying they were OR. It sounds very similar to what is going on here. I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Steven an RFC must definitely be in the minds of several of us, but I guess a major concern must come from the question of how to define the core of the complex question, and in such a way that it does not become a beauty contest. The concerns leading to proposals for change are still apparently poorly understood by some editors, partly because of the subject matter and partly because it involves areas of WP policy where people often have misunderstandings. And so the concerns tend to become simplified into absolute proposals whereas there must be dozens of ways of alleviating those concerns if editing and discussion were more healthy on that article. => Maybe it is a silly idea, but I was just thinking that a recent event might help: I have broken a recent major revert into 9 separable edits which I think could be considered independently: [3]. At least a few of them are kind of practical digestible versions of some of the core concerns separating the most active discussants. Just wondering if this makes any helpful sense. BTW although Myrvin probably thinks I'm annoying I agree with him fully that there are several articles which are clearly and openly linked back to the controversy on intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a reasonable concern, Andrew. In the past some mediations have functioned to just help define scope. I might head over to the talk page, do some reading and ponder how we can proceed from here but I'm open to the idea of guiding the discussion if that would be of assistance. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Simon Wells
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by EuroCarGT on 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Not much of a dispute to resolve here, relatively clear cut misinformation being inserted by the IP. I'll get that addressed, but no further action needs to be taken here. Closing. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 02:08, 1 September 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.
Marcos Avellan
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Divest1987 on 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
A few editors have popped into the page saying that this person isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page and that he needs more notability. After providing a large amount of third-party sources as the editor requested, they began making erroneous claims saying that a lot of the content was written by Marcos Avellan himself, which is definitely not true. I've asked many questions pertaining to the requirements of notability and I've not received any clear answers, just accusations that a lot of the sources are self-authored and opinion blogs (which if anyone would have taken the time to read the sources - they're most definitely not).
For example, one of the videos I've linked to is a news broadcast of Marcos Avellan training Kimbo Slice for MMA. This video is a recording of a news broadcast that's hosted on Avellan's school YouTube channel. Where else are we going to get a copy of the recording from TV? It's hosted on the school YouTube channel but it's still a news broadcast that aired on the local Miami news!
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've attempted to provide more third-party sources, only to have a great deal of them go largely ignored.
How do you think we can help?
I would like an unbiased editor to review the sources and determine if Marcos Avellan is notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia page, especially in the light of many other American grapplers that have a page who are FAR LESS notable (they have one third-party source confirming their participation in local grappling tournaments, whereas Marcos has won world-level elite grappling tournaments).
Summary of dispute by Poison Whiskey
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mdtemp
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Marcos Avellan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Government Finance Officers Association
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 50.201.239.163 on 14:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
Hi: I was updating my company's Wikipedia page ("Government Finance Officers Association") on Friday, September 6, and all of the information I posted had been blocked and reverted to the previous page. I am the Communications Manager for the company and was asked by my employer to update the page as the currect information posted is wrong. I am new to Wikipedia and will make any necessary changes to fit within Wikipedia's best practices and guidelines. I was currently editing the information when it was blocked. Will you please make my current changes "live?" I will remove any information that drives to our website or is deemed "promotional." Thank you, and I look forward to resolving this issue to get the correct information posted. I appreciate your patience as I am new to this process.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I e-mailed the user to ask if I could please make any necessary changes to the new information I posted. I have not heard back.
How do you think we can help?
Will you please make the page "live" and allow me to update the information? If changes are requested, I will make them as soon as possible. I appreciate your help and feedback as I am new to this process. Thank you.
Summary of dispute by EuroCarGT
Not sure what's happening here, there's no dispute. I only did one revert in that page and that was a legitimate revert per WP:EL as the edit has spam, and a promotional link that was in the edit. The edit said in one part, "Go to www. gfoa .org to join today!" Edit I reverted: [4] and Page History to show I did no dispute: [5]. Also the editor had a close connection to that page per WP:COI and the user stated he works with the company meaning he is doing paid editing. So I think this discussion should be closed.
Government Finance Officers Association discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Template talk:G8+5#TfD result discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Technical 13 on 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
There is a dispute over the meaning of "no consensus" in a deletion discussion where I maintain that WP:NOCONSENSUS is quite clear that any discussions resulting in "no consensus" should be kept. In the deletion discussion (link) there were two votes to merge, two votes to delete (including the nom), and one vote that said merge or delete depending on the outcome of another discussion (but did not specify what they thought should happen based on that outcome). This is a clear cut "no consensus" in my eyes, and I've suggested that they re-nominate the template for deletion and have another go at it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been a great deal of discussion on the closing administrators talk page, my talk page had a fragment and I've consolidated them all to the templates talk page. There are already four editors involved so WP:3O was not a valid option and hence I am here before taking this to WP:AN despite the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of other editors involved as I am trying my hardest to WP:AGF.
How do you think we can help?
I think that the steps to resolve this would be to restore the template and apply full protection for the duration of this dispute resolution process. I would also believe that another opinion on whether or not a 2/2/1 split is actually "no consensus" would be invaluable. Finally, I believe that another opinion of what the outcome "no consensus" discussions should be in cases where there are no keep votes may be valuable to a possible discussion to change WP:NOCONSENSUS.
Summary of dispute by Lfdder
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Frietjes
I agree with eh bien mon prince that this seems premature, given that Plastikspork has not been given the chance to respond. no need for WP:DRAMA. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by eh bien mon prince
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It makes more sense to wait for User:Plastikspork's opinion for now. Maybe he will simply endorse the merger.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
After further consideration, I have decided to not take any part in this discussion, and I suggest that DRN volunteers also disregard it, for the following reasons:
it is not a content dispute, but a contested TfD closure about a template, which cannot be discussed at WP:DRV simply because it didn't result in a deletion;
it was not discussed extensively, in fact the closing admin was not even given the time to reply on his talk page, before this DRN was opened;
most importantly, it is not a good-faith attempt to solve a dispute, but only the result of not-so-subtle threats by the nominator to resort to higher authority, if he failed to get his way. That he would accuse other users of a battleground mentality is just the icing on the cake.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Plastikspork
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"Template talk:G8+5#TfD result discussion" discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. It seems to me that this is filed in the wrong venue. The proper forum for review of decisions of any kind made at a deletion venue, including TFD, is Deletion review. Unless someone can give a good reason for this to remain here rather than being filed at that more appropriate venue, it will be closed for that reason after 18:00 UTC on September 11, 2013. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
TransporterMan, as eh bien mon prince said above, "(it is)[sic] a contested TfD closure about a template, which cannot be discussed at WP:DRV simply because it didn't result in a deletion". If you are saying that despite this, Deletion review is still an appropriate venue, then the proper outcome of this WP:DRN discussion would be to restore the template to what it was when the WP:TfD closed and that Lfdder or Underlying lk should request a review at WP:DRV. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to take this to any bureaucratic board. Stop trying to drag me into shit. I made a simple enquiry on Plastikspork's talk page. He's not even got to answer yet but here we are. — Lfdder (talk) 21:06, 10 September 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.
Rambus
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gwelch rambus on 07:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
Understanding that I have a conflict of interest I have identified myself and proposed changes to the Rambus Inc. Wikipedia entry in order to "reflect a change in corporate strategy and direction that began with the appointment of a new CEO in June 2012 and other changes to the board of directors. While technology licensing continues to be a focus for our company, we are now also focused on collaborating with partners and customers to bring their, and our own, products and solutions to market. We also recently released products that are standards-compliant, reflecting a more collaborative approach with the industry."
The proposed changes were not responded to after many weeks posted at which point I edited the page. It was immediately reverted. I asked if there were specific points of disagreement which again went unanswered for the last few weeks.
I am hoping for an equitable solution to avoid needless reversions.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Proposed changes to the article, attempted to discuss any points of disagreement.
How do you think we can help?
Hoping for guidance on next steps or a third party opinion that may help solve the disagreement.
Summary of dispute by Steve348
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rambus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
2Cellos nationality
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Eleassar on 09:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage ([6]) and facebook page ([7]), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo.[8] The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion.
How do you think we can help?
The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Odiriuss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones.
--Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
2Cellos nationality discussion
Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now?
To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion that first took place was because on their official site and facebook page it did not clearly state the nationality of the duo,since then it has been changed to Croatian duo on both their official pages. Eleassar changed the article again yesterday citing some obscure secondary source from 2012 to prove his "case" without posting on the talk page,today i and Helpbottt changed it back and I reported him for vandalism since 99 % of all other secondary sources refer to them as Croatian,except the Slovenian ones. Odiriuss (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We've tried to resolve the issue at the talk page, but to no avail, which meant that involvement of a wider community is needed. In regard to Odiriruss's opinion I somehow don't see how he has found out that there are 10 times as many sources stating the band is Croatian not Croatian-Slovenian. A description of the nationality of the band is also a matter not only of their personal choice (no explicit statement about this has been presented), but also of the perception by the environment where they're active. In any case, this is something that sources evidently disagree upon. Per WP:NPOV, we should report all significant opinions and not present any one of them as a fact. If the issue is contentious, we should report in the lead that opinions differ if at all. I therefore support the proposal by Number 57 to leave out the nationality from the lead as their backgrounds are well-described in the first section. This was already implemented by an anonymous user in January 2012,[9], but reverted by User:Scrosby85 a month later,[10] which is a shame. --Eleassarmy talk 11:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Again,the issue on the talk page was because there was no information about their nationality on their OFFICIAL pages,i cannot stress that enough,now that it has been updated this shouldn't be an issue,only Eleassar is making it one. A simple google search clearly shows the state of secondary sources on this matter,there are virtually none that describe them as Eleassar would like them to be,thus there is no issue whatsoever besides in Eleassars imagination. Odiriuss (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I will quote Odiriuss and then show below that he is wrong.
"What's funny is that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about... There at least ten times more secondary sources that confirm they are Croatian, here are just a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Funny, ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "
The queries below will prove Odiriuss wrong and Eleassar right. The first query gives correct (advanced) Google search results for "Croatian duo", i.e. without the instances where "Croatian duo" is only a part of the full "Slovenian-Croatian duo" text, and combined with the search for the word "2cellos". The second query will give you correct results for "Slovenian-Croatian duo" query, combined with the search for "2cellos". The number of hits are 323 and 1100, respectively. Try for yourself. Query #1: www.google.com/search?q="Croatian+duo"+2cellos+-"Slovenian-Croatian+duo" Query #2: https://www.google.com/search?q="Croatian-Slovenian+duo"+2cellos. --DancingPhilosopher(talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious? Google 2Cellos, or 2Cellos article,not duos and then tell me how many pages it takes to find Croatian-Slovenian?Odiriuss (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Just checked your links, there are barely 3 pages for Croatian-Slovenian, and 14 pages for Croatian even with you query DancingPhilosopher. That is pretty conclusive, thank you. Odiriuss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In numbers, 246 that say Croatian compared to 22 that say Croatian-Slovenian, so i apologise, i was wrong, it's actually more then ten times. Odiriuss (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the volunteers here at DRN. Two things tip the scales here quite clearly: the group self identifies as Croatian, and a majority of reliable sources do as well. It's not our place, nor the place of media outlets or otherwise to dictate the national identification of a person or group. Given the ratio, it'd be undue weight in my opinion to write Croatian-Slovenian. That'd be like saying "Princess Diana was murdered" - just because a handful take that view does not mean we should change it from the largely held one. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 12:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and also the google test doesn't carry any weight in these types of discussion other than as a quick rule of thumb Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you guys, when you look at it objectively, it's all pretty clear. Since both of you agree, i would like to ask you to close this discussion. Odiriuss (talk) 07:52, 6 September 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.
Talk:Pokémon X and Y
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ryulong on 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
As new information was released for this video game, I had been adding the English and Japanese language terms for new video game mechanics. In the last 24 hours, Wonchop removed all of the Japanese text multiple times. I approached him on his talk page requesting he not remove it at User talk:Wonchop#Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but he moved the discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese and snarkily said he was tired of me talking to him (he was also snarky here). Blake commented on the talk page, and after WP:3O volunteers turned it down, he took it as meaning "2 vs 1 means we win" and added a messagesaying it was forbidden. WP:MOS-JA#Using Japanese in the article body supports my argument, but because I revealed I had been involved in the formation of WP:VG/JP (which I mistakenly thought had something relevant) he will not acknowledge the manual of style's statement, believing I had been involved in its formation as well and therefore cannot be used.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
A third opinion was sought by Wonchop, but because Blake had participated this negated the use. I also removed some, but not all, of the accompanying Japanese text but Wonchop does not want any of it, saying I am introducing a Japanese bias to the article, when it is an article about a Japanese subject.
How do you think we can help?
A third opinion was sought, and I have found that I cannot adequately communicate with Wonchop due to stubbornness on his side whenever I try to communicate with him. I have brought a communication problem with him here in the past and it somewhat helped.
Summary of dispute by Wonchop
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ryulong has been overly defiant in this insistance of including Japanese where it is not neccessary, given that the game has already been supplied with official terminology, under the rather boastful assumption that 'it's a Japanese game, therefore it MUST have Japanese text everywhere'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games states "For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." and despite his insistance that it is 'informational', it is mainly proven to be just noise as many of the things he demands remain translated are terms that are either just katakana or literal translations (eg. the translation of 'Mega Evolution' as 'Mega Shinka'). At the most, the article only needs Japanese translations for the game's title, the game's setting (unless it is mentioned in another linked article) and at a stretch, the Pokémon Bank and Pokémon Transporter apps, as they can be considered as seperate software. He has also been very defiant in some of the beneficial edits I have made, such as simplifying the Gameplay description to not focus heavily on specific Pokémon (since it'll become irrelevant when the game is released) and repetition. Ryulong's behaviour has been, to put it as nicely as I can, hypocritical, often accusing me of disrupting the article when he is clearly no better himself, if not worse.Wonchop (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Blake
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
While I agree with Wonchop's opinion of the content in the article, I disagree with the way that both parties are going about this. Ryulong mentions how stubborn Wonchop is being, but he is being equally as stubborn. An edit war takes two to participate, and as such, they are both responsible. He also mentions writing the guideline that he is enforcing, which makes his stance very sketchy, and while I don't mean to make any enemies, I just can't agree with the way that he is participating in this debate. Wonchop also brought some WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments which makes his points just as invalid as Ryulong's. I would have liked a third party editor to step in, but it would be best if they were knowledgeable about both video game articles and the Japanese manual of style, similar to Ryulong, but with less of an aggressive attitude. Blake(Talk·Edits) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unnecessary Japanese discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Blake, I did not write the guideline I am enforcing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the WP:VG guidelines, which you admitted that you did help write, due to the project's incorrect guidelines in that area. I don't think I have bothered to check the JPMOS ones, so I can't say for certain whether they support your argument. For the record, my opinion is just that if the subject is only being discussed in passing, then the Japanese name is not necessary, while if it is something even as significant as a whole paragraph, then it could be permitted. Blake(Talk·Edits) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, may I note that Wonchop went ahead and wrote guidelines himself, so if you use those, use it with a grain of salt, knowing that he wrote them after this argument took place. Blake(Talk·Edits) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I assure you those weren't added to spite Ryulong, but simply because there was no mention of Japanese text outside of game titles. I'm as big an anime fan as anybody, but I respect that an English Wikipedia needs to have a general focus on English, with Japanese only been used to explain things that English alone could not. Just because a game is developed in Japan doesn't mean that it should be filled with Japanese trivia when there are perfectly good English terms available. According to the article's history, the additions have been generally approved of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonchop (talk • contribs)
Now that definitely does not have any sort of consensus and is equally as disruptive. I've reverted. Things like that should be brought up for discussion on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, just so I don't have to come back here for a while(need to focus on some college work for a bit), I think the winning solution would be to list these gameplay features under Gameplay of Pokémon, like is usually done, and the Japanese names can then be shown there, where they are being primarily discussed. This would free up the clutter in the article, while also being supported by the WP:MOS-JA guideline. Blake(Talk·Edits) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this conflict involves illogical adherence to MOSJA, a community guideline, versus the wikiproject guideline of WP:VG/GL. The question of Japanese usage should be case by case where the careful wording of VG/GL should be taken over the more vague MOSJA. No wikiproject owns a page and since the two sides conflict, typically MOSJA would be preferred, but on its vagueness and the narrow case I'd defer to VG/GL specific reading of, " English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." The question that must be asked by both parties: "Why is it an improvement to use the English name and immediately follow it with a different Japanese name without addressing the name in context or referencing it again?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Ryulong thinks that just because "it can" means "it should", while Wonchop is trying to make it against guidelines to do it. Overall, it is a loose guideline, and generally allows for the fact that if it helps the article, it can be included under certain restrictions(once per term, and not if it links to an article with more information). The thing is, these names do not help the reader understand it at all unless they are able to read Japanese, which is a very very very small percentage of readers. As they don't help the average reader any, they should be used sparingly, which is what I have said. They should be used when the subject is the primary point of discussion, but not for every single term in the article. Further more, many of these terms can be thrown over to the full gameplay article, where it would be permissible to include the Japanese name. Blake(Talk·Edits) 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd side with not mentioning terms that do not have an explicit and pressing need for Japanese reference when the term already has a concrete and definitive official English definition. A second question could be asked: "What is the purpose of mentioning the Japanese name when it will not be analyzed or repeated throughout the article?"ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It provides more real world context by showing that the Japanese version existed rather than WP:VG's apparent preference to believe that once a localization occurs no one needs to know anything about the Japanese release anymore. That was evident years ago when I helped introduce WP:VG/JP. And I remember that when Pokemon Black and White were finally announced in English, people began changing the Japanese names to the English ones in the sections about the build up to the Japanese release. Japanese text isn't intrusive. It gives the readers more information. It can't be confusing. No one's going to analyze any of these things in a serious manner other than the mechanics once it gets released so your argument holds for even providing any proper nouns.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion - Like Chris, I'd side with not including the japanese where there's no explicit need for them, especially when there's an official English term. At WP:MOS-JA#Japanese terms it says Give the romanization for any Japanese name or term written in kanji or kana by following the pattern. Things like "Mega Evolution" aren't romanizations of Japanese names. They are the English name for that aspect. Sentences like this: star-shaped Kalos Region (カロス地方 Karosu-chihō?), with Lumiose City (Miare City (ミアレシティ Miare Shiti?) in Japan) as its central city. are now more confusing with nested parenthesis. (Please note: I am not stating this in a capacity of a DRN volunteer, rather I am a WP:VG contributor and am commenting from an editor point of view) Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That is an incredibly wrong misinterpretation of the Japanese manual of style. If you actually read the whole thing it is describing how the English form, Japanese form, and romanization of the Japanese form are supposed to be formatted when listed together. "Mega Evolution" is "メガシンカ" in Japanese and that is romanized as "Mega Shinka" so you format it as {{nihongo|Mega Evolution|メガシンカ|Mega Shinka}}. This part of the style guide does not govern when or when not to include Japanese text.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The point still stands that there is no need to give a Japanese translation of an official English term, particularly when it's an identical word or a literal translation. The only terms that should really be given translations are the terms that benefit from having one, such as games where Japanese terminology is brought over into the English version such as Metal Gear Rising's Zandetsu technique or Viewtiful Joe's catchphrase of "Henshin-a-go-go, baby!". And as mentioned, the Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter apps could be given their Japanese titles since they can be treated as seperate software. But other than that, it's your typical case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". Throwing in too much Japanese where it isn't neccessary purely for the sake of 'it's a Japanese-made game' just ruins the article's flow.Wonchop (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because a localization exists and terms have been translated does not mean the original form should not be acknowledged unless a foreign language word is used in the localization. The Japanese text does not ruin the flow. Hundreds of other articles include Japanese text in the prose and they do exhibit the problems you think they do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, just because a Japanese translation for something exists, doesn't mean it needs to be used. You have done nothing to show these things need to be included outside of the argument that "it's a Japanese game, therefore it needs lots of Japanese".Wonchop (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
What other argument is there? If an article is about something French I expect it to include French words. If an article is about something Russian I expect it to include Cyrillic. WP:MOS-JA says it can be added and I added it to the article in the months and months I've been editting it. No one ever had a problem or said "why do we have these". You suddenly decided that you felt they were "unneccessary" and removed all of them without discussion, and even while discussion was still underway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on the edit not the editor, the discussion is about the appropriateness of the Japanese names. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the fact that the content was not an issue up until Wonchop made it an issue is not relevant here. No one paid it any mind until Wonchop felt that they were "unneccessary".—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you're acting here as volunteer Chris, I would like to request a different volunteer, preferrably one who is not currently in another dispute with me that has been going on for most of this year.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that's not how debates work. You can't just demand people be left out of the argument just because they don't agree with your opinion. Wonchop (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri and I have been in a dispute since March. I would rather have someone else mediate this. That is not too much to ask.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not like he's compelled to take my side either. Wonchop (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I would just like someone who is uninvolved with all parties.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not say I was mediating this. If you cannot argue why your edit is an improvement than do not make the edit. Forgetting anything to do with policy for a moment, if you cannot justify the action, why defend it? Wonchop has as much right as any other editor to challenge something that they find questionable or detrimental to the article and the justification for the edit is backed with a reason. Ryulong, you are on the other side, but you do not seem to have given a reason why the names aid in comprehension of the subject or are an improvement at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Because I am fully allowed to do so per WP:MOS-JA which sets out rules for all articles on Japanese subjects. This requirement that they must aid in comprehension of the subject is not written anywhere in any policy or guideline. Do we exclude the Spanish language terms at Bullfighting (or Spanish-style bullfighting)? No. So no one should be forbidden for doing the same for Japanese language video game jargon simply because an English translation is available.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Poor articles to compare to, but I'm not going to used the flawed statement of "otherstuff" as people have argued (it does not apply btw), but MOS-JA is not absolute. There is no pressing need to even mention the Japanese name, so why do so "per MOS-JA"? If you cannot justify it than it should be removed. If you want to keep repeating the same thing be my guest, but I am going to agree with Wonchop's logical argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk)
His logical argument is "do not ever use Japanese text unless a word is Japanese in the English release". I do not think we need to be limited that much. It's verifiable. It's sourced. It's not indiscriminately chosen. There is nothing but subjective personal preference being pushed by Wonchop.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't twist people's statements (Japanese words used in English releases were just one of the examples I gave, not the solitary one, if you had even bothered to read what I had proposed for WP:VG/GL), nor should you imply people are pushing their personal preferences when you are clearly doing so yourself.Wonchop (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm editing in a method allowed (although not mandadory) by other manuals of style. It's more important to show the real world connections rather than just constantly acting as if it had never existed in any other language prior (as is often the case for Pokémon pages).—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
But apparently people aren't allowed to exclude them in favor of making the article more readable for a general audience (considering the fact you've also been reverting my attempts to simplify the Gameplay segment outside of the use/exclusion of Japanese terms by limiting mentions of specific Pokémon). You're the only one who sees this as some terrifying oppression against culture. Wonchop (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You simplified it too much to where things that previously had no description anywhere else on the project were cut down to halves of sentences when neither item had anything to do with the other outside of being in the same video game. Also I'm tired of having this fucking conversation in three different places.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Then just drop it. From what I can tell, we've more or less exhausted every possible reasoning in trying to prove our cases. Let the DRN guys sort out this dispute from here and let other users in WP:VG/GL discuss what to do with my proposed suggestions. Wonchop (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be stopped on other pages when it was brought here. I'm part of the dispute so I should be involved in its resolution, as per the whole purpose of this board.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:38, 6 September 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.
Kfar Etzion massacre
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Ykantor on 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Nishidani deleted my editing. the Diff page.
The problems are:
Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
it is discussed in the talk page. We could not find a compromise.
How do you think we can help?
Hopefully, a volunteer will convince us to find a compromise.
Summary of dispute by nishidani
This is being discussed on the page. Generally ykantor's edit (a) rewrote this, which is, as anyone can see a source-adequate statement of the totally misleading lead that preceded it. Ykantor complains I cancelled his revision of my edit. Were I to complain, I would note he cancelled my edit, and did so rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence to replace it. (b) he added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description of the event with the insinuation that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews. That didn't provide historic context, it implied this event was a behavioural problem in Arabs. This is all I will say here. One does not go to this page to complain about a dispute when the talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions mentioned.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Kfar Etzion massacre discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Nishidani's version is much better than Ykantor's one. It provides the historical background, which is important in the context of controversial and dramatic events such the massacres of the 1948 war. Nishidani's version is also more detailled. Anyway, major problem is the behaviour of Ykantor who systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events as well as the fact he systematically discusses each detail and complains when discussions don't go in the direction that he wants. He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests and also by the way he intervenes on the different talk pages of wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
After a few days, I fell that I have to say that those reactions are mostly not true:
rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence
added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description
...that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews
talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions
... systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events
...He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests
All these sentences are not true. The Talkpage discussion is fairly elaborate, and one can read it and decide for himself. I am sure what will be the consequences. Ykantor (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Good evening!
I'm sorry it took so long for a volunteer to take on this case, but we've all been busy with other cases. Whilst, in theory, I think I could give summary judgment and close this case, I want to ask some questions first - namely: Why is the date of this massacre relative to the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence considered important enough to warrant inclusion in the article? (to be answered by the party who wishes to include such information). --The Historian (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Historian, Thank you for your intervention. If no answer is given to your question today I will make a comment on this particular point. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
(2) I intervened, since the whole lead sentence falsified a complex reality in which, certainly a massacre occurred, but it did not consist of the whole population, which was not just ‘Jews’ or ‘inhabitants’ but an entrenched military force with an active role in waging war in the Arab sector. I respected the consensual indication in that sentence linking the episode to the Declaration of Independence, because the whole battle and tragedy occurred in order to secure time for that Declaration's military consequences.
It’s deceptive because he didn’t add: he wiped out both my edit and the stabilized points in the phrasing prior to my intervention. Why, I repeat, he thinks he can wipe out an item no one has challenged, and with it, wipe out my polishing of that page’s lead sentence, and say he is ‘adding’ when he just deleted information, and then charge that there is a ‘dispute’ requiring mediation, is beyond me. By the same logic, I could have hauled him here to dispute his erasure of both my edit and the embedded consensual linking of the episode to the Israeli Independence Declaration. This is a complete waste of time. The issue is under the scrutiny of several editors, and only Ykantor complains. If he is dissatisfied, he must convince several editors that his erasure improves the text. It doesn’t, and I haven't time to broker a compromise on ever edit I might make through exhaustive recourse to pages like this. We are a community of editors, and Ykantor's habit of picking out one and trying to open yet one more huge thread contesting the p's and q's of an edit challenging one of his, is ridiculous, and contrary to wikipedia's procedures, where these things are a last resort. The problem has been resolved.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I concurr with what Nishidani writes. Particularly regarding Ykantor's behaviour. Regarding the content, the fact that the massacre took place two days before the end of the Mandate is important because the Yishuv (Jewish) population and leadership really feared what was going to happen and particularly what the "powerful" (was it ?) Arab Legion would do. They were prepared but a war is always uncertain. (eg Lebanon announced not participating a few hours before 15 May). In this context, the involvment of the Arab Legion in a massacre (controvesed but not at the time) had a deep impact : voluntary or not, a message was sent and Jewish Leadership reacted accordingly. This remains a complex question and the current lead may not be the best to take into account that point but the "dispute" between Nishidani (more others) and Ykantor is not about this. As Nishidani points out, Ykantor without the support of any other contributor performs modifications on complex and controversial articles that are followed by tenths of others and, after complains everywhere against those who reject his actions. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As I already proposed to Nishidani:"Your English is better than mine, and you can re-write the sentence as you wish", he could have polish, balance, make it attentive, de-garble and stabilize the sentence by himself. So we can concentrate in the dispute itself- The problems are:
Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration). Ykantor (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You rewrote my sentence; I expanded the earlier sentence. You are complaining I should rewrite your sentence which eviscerates the earlier text, and my modification, and introduces a POV. Really, man. Think this over with precision. Peer editorial review seems to favour my version. Punto e basta. If it has some wobble in it, Pluto, Zero and yourself can thrash it out and trim it further. We are a collegial society. This is not a me against him/her one-off battle edit per edit.
(b) My edit reads:'a massacre that took place after a two (two=day) battle between Jewish settlers and soldiers and a combined force of the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, at KibbutzKfar Etzion.'
(i) sources are totally confused. (ii)POV sources number all those killed in the 2-day battle as victims of the massacre which apparently (in my view almost certainly) took place after a signal (deceptive or sincere is not the point) was given that Jewish fighters were surrendering. A 'massacre' strictly speaking occurs when unarmed people or people not capable of adequately defending themselves, are murdered in considerable numbers. It took place after the main battle. We simply don't know exactly what happened, we do not know for sure if the flag was a feint or a real surrender (I personally tend to think the latter). The only way to handle this per WP:NPOV is to write 'after the battle'.
(b)Other editors disagree with your unique preference.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There is some advance, as you accept adding {killed} "at Kfar Etzion" to the first sentence. Would you advance further and add who killed?, and who was killed? in the first sentence? Ykantor (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't be silly. This sounds like a pilpul exercise (which would be fine by me if we were arguing on the Torah and Talmud). 'at Kfar Etzion' already exists. Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text. You want me to make the first sentence somewhat ugly by adding 'Jews' just before 'Jewish settlers and soldiers'? I'd have no problem with that other than stylistic and commonsensical. It's called 'overegging the pud'. Sources blame the Arab legion (b) local villagers.It's dumb. Edits are made on the page, and discussed there, between several editors. You do not use this page to negotiate a binding agreement between, say, just one editor (me) and yourself that is ostensibly binding to that page.
To repeat, the fundamental editing principle here, which Pluto, Zero and myself all underwrite in blood, is that drafting anything where several good sources are in conflict, requires all serious editors (and I think you are developing promise in that regard, and I say that without any air of being patronizing. We have a lot of bad editors who just push crap or POVs in here, and you are a class apart) to phrase everything with an acute ear to the dissonances. One must not (a) entertain a private theory (b) privilege one source over another. That is why close attention to phrasing, modulation is crucial for these articles. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
yours:"Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text.". so why should not it written in the first sentence? Once an ignorant reader read the article, he should know the important facts before the less important one. Ykantor (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
For Yahweh/Christ/Allah/Satan/Juppiter's sake, if that's what bothered you, why didn't you just add the word. Go for it, but please, please do not make extraordinary extenuating exasperating use of boards and talks when a simple edit or point is at stake.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we agree that my initial opening sentence is correct? ( except of "after their surrender"). For our convenience, the sentence is:"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to the massacre of KibbutzKfar Etzion members and soldiers, on May 13, 1948, after their surrender to the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, who attacked their village, Kfar Etzion". As discussed, the sentence style and syntax can be improved. Ykantor (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I added myself to the dispute. We are all tired of the "pilpul" situation.
If Ykantor is good faith (I know "WP:AGF"), he will be able to and will answer precisely to the following question in compliance with the 4th pilar of wikipedia.
What is the main difference between your version and the current one ?
Why do you refuse by yourself to introduce all pov's of view on any topic and do you consider there are sides (even among contributors) and that each side (represented by contributors) would have to give his point of view and another side would have to take care of others in order to comply with WP:NPOV ?
Will you please write it in the talk page? I try to minimize my editing here to reducing the number of the friction points. BTW your 2nd point is not clear. Ykantor (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Eleassar on 09:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage ([11]) and facebook page ([12]), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo.[13] The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion.
How do you think we can help?
The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Odiriuss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones.
--Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
2Cellos nationality discussion
Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now?
To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion that first took place was because on their official site and facebook page it did not clearly state the nationality of the duo,since then it has been changed to Croatian duo on both their official pages. Eleassar changed the article again yesterday citing some obscure secondary source from 2012 to prove his "case" without posting on the talk page,today i and Helpbottt changed it back and I reported him for vandalism since 99 % of all other secondary sources refer to them as Croatian,except the Slovenian ones. Odiriuss (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We've tried to resolve the issue at the talk page, but to no avail, which meant that involvement of a wider community is needed. In regard to Odiriruss's opinion I somehow don't see how he has found out that there are 10 times as many sources stating the band is Croatian not Croatian-Slovenian. A description of the nationality of the band is also a matter not only of their personal choice (no explicit statement about this has been presented), but also of the perception by the environment where they're active. In any case, this is something that sources evidently disagree upon. Per WP:NPOV, we should report all significant opinions and not present any one of them as a fact. If the issue is contentious, we should report in the lead that opinions differ if at all. I therefore support the proposal by Number 57 to leave out the nationality from the lead as their backgrounds are well-described in the first section. This was already implemented by an anonymous user in January 2012,[14], but reverted by User:Scrosby85 a month later,[15] which is a shame. --Eleassarmy talk 11:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Again,the issue on the talk page was because there was no information about their nationality on their OFFICIAL pages,i cannot stress that enough,now that it has been updated this shouldn't be an issue,only Eleassar is making it one. A simple google search clearly shows the state of secondary sources on this matter,there are virtually none that describe them as Eleassar would like them to be,thus there is no issue whatsoever besides in Eleassars imagination. Odiriuss (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I will quote Odiriuss and then show below that he is wrong.
"What's funny is that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about... There at least ten times more secondary sources that confirm they are Croatian, here are just a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Funny, ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "
The queries below will prove Odiriuss wrong and Eleassar right. The first query gives correct (advanced) Google search results for "Croatian duo", i.e. without the instances where "Croatian duo" is only a part of the full "Slovenian-Croatian duo" text, and combined with the search for the word "2cellos". The second query will give you correct results for "Slovenian-Croatian duo" query, combined with the search for "2cellos". The number of hits are 323 and 1100, respectively. Try for yourself. Query #1: www.google.com/search?q="Croatian+duo"+2cellos+-"Slovenian-Croatian+duo" Query #2: https://www.google.com/search?q="Croatian-Slovenian+duo"+2cellos. --DancingPhilosopher(talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious? Google 2Cellos, or 2Cellos article,not duos and then tell me how many pages it takes to find Croatian-Slovenian?Odiriuss (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Just checked your links, there are barely 3 pages for Croatian-Slovenian, and 14 pages for Croatian even with you query DancingPhilosopher. That is pretty conclusive, thank you. Odiriuss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In numbers, 246 that say Croatian compared to 22 that say Croatian-Slovenian, so i apologise, i was wrong, it's actually more then ten times. Odiriuss (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the volunteers here at DRN. Two things tip the scales here quite clearly: the group self identifies as Croatian, and a majority of reliable sources do as well. It's not our place, nor the place of media outlets or otherwise to dictate the national identification of a person or group. Given the ratio, it'd be undue weight in my opinion to write Croatian-Slovenian. That'd be like saying "Princess Diana was murdered" - just because a handful take that view does not mean we should change it from the largely held one. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 12:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and also the google test doesn't carry any weight in these types of discussion other than as a quick rule of thumb Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you guys, when you look at it objectively, it's all pretty clear. Since both of you agree, i would like to ask you to close this discussion. Odiriuss (talk) 07:52, 6 September 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.
Talk:Pokémon X and Y
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ryulong on 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
As new information was released for this video game, I had been adding the English and Japanese language terms for new video game mechanics. In the last 24 hours, Wonchop removed all of the Japanese text multiple times. I approached him on his talk page requesting he not remove it at User talk:Wonchop#Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but he moved the discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese and snarkily said he was tired of me talking to him (he was also snarky here). Blake commented on the talk page, and after WP:3O volunteers turned it down, he took it as meaning "2 vs 1 means we win" and added a messagesaying it was forbidden. WP:MOS-JA#Using Japanese in the article body supports my argument, but because I revealed I had been involved in the formation of WP:VG/JP (which I mistakenly thought had something relevant) he will not acknowledge the manual of style's statement, believing I had been involved in its formation as well and therefore cannot be used.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
A third opinion was sought by Wonchop, but because Blake had participated this negated the use. I also removed some, but not all, of the accompanying Japanese text but Wonchop does not want any of it, saying I am introducing a Japanese bias to the article, when it is an article about a Japanese subject.
How do you think we can help?
A third opinion was sought, and I have found that I cannot adequately communicate with Wonchop due to stubbornness on his side whenever I try to communicate with him. I have brought a communication problem with him here in the past and it somewhat helped.
Summary of dispute by Wonchop
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ryulong has been overly defiant in this insistance of including Japanese where it is not neccessary, given that the game has already been supplied with official terminology, under the rather boastful assumption that 'it's a Japanese game, therefore it MUST have Japanese text everywhere'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games states "For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." and despite his insistance that it is 'informational', it is mainly proven to be just noise as many of the things he demands remain translated are terms that are either just katakana or literal translations (eg. the translation of 'Mega Evolution' as 'Mega Shinka'). At the most, the article only needs Japanese translations for the game's title, the game's setting (unless it is mentioned in another linked article) and at a stretch, the Pokémon Bank and Pokémon Transporter apps, as they can be considered as seperate software. He has also been very defiant in some of the beneficial edits I have made, such as simplifying the Gameplay description to not focus heavily on specific Pokémon (since it'll become irrelevant when the game is released) and repetition. Ryulong's behaviour has been, to put it as nicely as I can, hypocritical, often accusing me of disrupting the article when he is clearly no better himself, if not worse.Wonchop (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Blake
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
While I agree with Wonchop's opinion of the content in the article, I disagree with the way that both parties are going about this. Ryulong mentions how stubborn Wonchop is being, but he is being equally as stubborn. An edit war takes two to participate, and as such, they are both responsible. He also mentions writing the guideline that he is enforcing, which makes his stance very sketchy, and while I don't mean to make any enemies, I just can't agree with the way that he is participating in this debate. Wonchop also brought some WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments which makes his points just as invalid as Ryulong's. I would have liked a third party editor to step in, but it would be best if they were knowledgeable about both video game articles and the Japanese manual of style, similar to Ryulong, but with less of an aggressive attitude. Blake(Talk·Edits) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unnecessary Japanese discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Blake, I did not write the guideline I am enforcing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the WP:VG guidelines, which you admitted that you did help write, due to the project's incorrect guidelines in that area. I don't think I have bothered to check the JPMOS ones, so I can't say for certain whether they support your argument. For the record, my opinion is just that if the subject is only being discussed in passing, then the Japanese name is not necessary, while if it is something even as significant as a whole paragraph, then it could be permitted. Blake(Talk·Edits) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, may I note that Wonchop went ahead and wrote guidelines himself, so if you use those, use it with a grain of salt, knowing that he wrote them after this argument took place. Blake(Talk·Edits) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I assure you those weren't added to spite Ryulong, but simply because there was no mention of Japanese text outside of game titles. I'm as big an anime fan as anybody, but I respect that an English Wikipedia needs to have a general focus on English, with Japanese only been used to explain things that English alone could not. Just because a game is developed in Japan doesn't mean that it should be filled with Japanese trivia when there are perfectly good English terms available. According to the article's history, the additions have been generally approved of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonchop (talk • contribs)
Now that definitely does not have any sort of consensus and is equally as disruptive. I've reverted. Things like that should be brought up for discussion on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, just so I don't have to come back here for a while(need to focus on some college work for a bit), I think the winning solution would be to list these gameplay features under Gameplay of Pokémon, like is usually done, and the Japanese names can then be shown there, where they are being primarily discussed. This would free up the clutter in the article, while also being supported by the WP:MOS-JA guideline. Blake(Talk·Edits) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this conflict involves illogical adherence to MOSJA, a community guideline, versus the wikiproject guideline of WP:VG/GL. The question of Japanese usage should be case by case where the careful wording of VG/GL should be taken over the more vague MOSJA. No wikiproject owns a page and since the two sides conflict, typically MOSJA would be preferred, but on its vagueness and the narrow case I'd defer to VG/GL specific reading of, " English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." The question that must be asked by both parties: "Why is it an improvement to use the English name and immediately follow it with a different Japanese name without addressing the name in context or referencing it again?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Ryulong thinks that just because "it can" means "it should", while Wonchop is trying to make it against guidelines to do it. Overall, it is a loose guideline, and generally allows for the fact that if it helps the article, it can be included under certain restrictions(once per term, and not if it links to an article with more information). The thing is, these names do not help the reader understand it at all unless they are able to read Japanese, which is a very very very small percentage of readers. As they don't help the average reader any, they should be used sparingly, which is what I have said. They should be used when the subject is the primary point of discussion, but not for every single term in the article. Further more, many of these terms can be thrown over to the full gameplay article, where it would be permissible to include the Japanese name. Blake(Talk·Edits) 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd side with not mentioning terms that do not have an explicit and pressing need for Japanese reference when the term already has a concrete and definitive official English definition. A second question could be asked: "What is the purpose of mentioning the Japanese name when it will not be analyzed or repeated throughout the article?"ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It provides more real world context by showing that the Japanese version existed rather than WP:VG's apparent preference to believe that once a localization occurs no one needs to know anything about the Japanese release anymore. That was evident years ago when I helped introduce WP:VG/JP. And I remember that when Pokemon Black and White were finally announced in English, people began changing the Japanese names to the English ones in the sections about the build up to the Japanese release. Japanese text isn't intrusive. It gives the readers more information. It can't be confusing. No one's going to analyze any of these things in a serious manner other than the mechanics once it gets released so your argument holds for even providing any proper nouns.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion - Like Chris, I'd side with not including the japanese where there's no explicit need for them, especially when there's an official English term. At WP:MOS-JA#Japanese terms it says Give the romanization for any Japanese name or term written in kanji or kana by following the pattern. Things like "Mega Evolution" aren't romanizations of Japanese names. They are the English name for that aspect. Sentences like this: star-shaped Kalos Region (カロス地方 Karosu-chihō?), with Lumiose City (Miare City (ミアレシティ Miare Shiti?) in Japan) as its central city. are now more confusing with nested parenthesis. (Please note: I am not stating this in a capacity of a DRN volunteer, rather I am a WP:VG contributor and am commenting from an editor point of view) Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That is an incredibly wrong misinterpretation of the Japanese manual of style. If you actually read the whole thing it is describing how the English form, Japanese form, and romanization of the Japanese form are supposed to be formatted when listed together. "Mega Evolution" is "メガシンカ" in Japanese and that is romanized as "Mega Shinka" so you format it as {{nihongo|Mega Evolution|メガシンカ|Mega Shinka}}. This part of the style guide does not govern when or when not to include Japanese text.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The point still stands that there is no need to give a Japanese translation of an official English term, particularly when it's an identical word or a literal translation. The only terms that should really be given translations are the terms that benefit from having one, such as games where Japanese terminology is brought over into the English version such as Metal Gear Rising's Zandetsu technique or Viewtiful Joe's catchphrase of "Henshin-a-go-go, baby!". And as mentioned, the Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter apps could be given their Japanese titles since they can be treated as seperate software. But other than that, it's your typical case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". Throwing in too much Japanese where it isn't neccessary purely for the sake of 'it's a Japanese-made game' just ruins the article's flow.Wonchop (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because a localization exists and terms have been translated does not mean the original form should not be acknowledged unless a foreign language word is used in the localization. The Japanese text does not ruin the flow. Hundreds of other articles include Japanese text in the prose and they do exhibit the problems you think they do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, just because a Japanese translation for something exists, doesn't mean it needs to be used. You have done nothing to show these things need to be included outside of the argument that "it's a Japanese game, therefore it needs lots of Japanese".Wonchop (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
What other argument is there? If an article is about something French I expect it to include French words. If an article is about something Russian I expect it to include Cyrillic. WP:MOS-JA says it can be added and I added it to the article in the months and months I've been editting it. No one ever had a problem or said "why do we have these". You suddenly decided that you felt they were "unneccessary" and removed all of them without discussion, and even while discussion was still underway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on the edit not the editor, the discussion is about the appropriateness of the Japanese names. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the fact that the content was not an issue up until Wonchop made it an issue is not relevant here. No one paid it any mind until Wonchop felt that they were "unneccessary".—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you're acting here as volunteer Chris, I would like to request a different volunteer, preferrably one who is not currently in another dispute with me that has been going on for most of this year.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that's not how debates work. You can't just demand people be left out of the argument just because they don't agree with your opinion. Wonchop (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri and I have been in a dispute since March. I would rather have someone else mediate this. That is not too much to ask.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not like he's compelled to take my side either. Wonchop (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I would just like someone who is uninvolved with all parties.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not say I was mediating this. If you cannot argue why your edit is an improvement than do not make the edit. Forgetting anything to do with policy for a moment, if you cannot justify the action, why defend it? Wonchop has as much right as any other editor to challenge something that they find questionable or detrimental to the article and the justification for the edit is backed with a reason. Ryulong, you are on the other side, but you do not seem to have given a reason why the names aid in comprehension of the subject or are an improvement at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Because I am fully allowed to do so per WP:MOS-JA which sets out rules for all articles on Japanese subjects. This requirement that they must aid in comprehension of the subject is not written anywhere in any policy or guideline. Do we exclude the Spanish language terms at Bullfighting (or Spanish-style bullfighting)? No. So no one should be forbidden for doing the same for Japanese language video game jargon simply because an English translation is available.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Poor articles to compare to, but I'm not going to used the flawed statement of "otherstuff" as people have argued (it does not apply btw), but MOS-JA is not absolute. There is no pressing need to even mention the Japanese name, so why do so "per MOS-JA"? If you cannot justify it than it should be removed. If you want to keep repeating the same thing be my guest, but I am going to agree with Wonchop's logical argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk)
His logical argument is "do not ever use Japanese text unless a word is Japanese in the English release". I do not think we need to be limited that much. It's verifiable. It's sourced. It's not indiscriminately chosen. There is nothing but subjective personal preference being pushed by Wonchop.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't twist people's statements (Japanese words used in English releases were just one of the examples I gave, not the solitary one, if you had even bothered to read what I had proposed for WP:VG/GL), nor should you imply people are pushing their personal preferences when you are clearly doing so yourself.Wonchop (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm editing in a method allowed (although not mandadory) by other manuals of style. It's more important to show the real world connections rather than just constantly acting as if it had never existed in any other language prior (as is often the case for Pokémon pages).—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
But apparently people aren't allowed to exclude them in favor of making the article more readable for a general audience (considering the fact you've also been reverting my attempts to simplify the Gameplay segment outside of the use/exclusion of Japanese terms by limiting mentions of specific Pokémon). You're the only one who sees this as some terrifying oppression against culture. Wonchop (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You simplified it too much to where things that previously had no description anywhere else on the project were cut down to halves of sentences when neither item had anything to do with the other outside of being in the same video game. Also I'm tired of having this fucking conversation in three different places.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Then just drop it. From what I can tell, we've more or less exhausted every possible reasoning in trying to prove our cases. Let the DRN guys sort out this dispute from here and let other users in WP:VG/GL discuss what to do with my proposed suggestions. Wonchop (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be stopped on other pages when it was brought here. I'm part of the dispute so I should be involved in its resolution, as per the whole purpose of this board.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:38, 6 September 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.
Talk:Wolf attacks on humans
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 76.250.61.95 on 00:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
ForWolf attacks on humans: Article has several highly reliable, solid sources on non trivial number of wolf attacks.
Many citations constitute unreliable sources for long list of wolf attacks beginning within fairly dim reaches of history.
Though in some sense useful I contend that these citations are improperly employed. The article concerns the science of animal behavior.
Article can define criteria for use of sourcing, distinguishing science, folklore and other documents. I further contend that much of existing content is merely a political screed, rather than objective science. Several existing, disuputed citations may support this view
76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
third party request and notice boards... Few responses were non analytic; some were mildly hostile.
How do you think we can help?
evaluation of historical documents as source for science of animal behavoir; evaluation of sources that are "political."
Summary of dispute by several
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Wolf attacks on humans discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Meaning of word INDIAN
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 216.231.206.5 on 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
The wikipage to describe the meaning of INDIAN is incomplete and it should work the same way it works for Americans, I have tried to correct the page but one editor is not debating in the Talk page but reverting my changes, I want this page has to be corrected to reflect the most accurate information possible. He has even added this page to some automated script so any changes to that page is being reverted.
The other editor has blocked the page with some automatic scripts that is preventing anybody making the changes for that page, I need your suggestions, Thanks
-Ranjith M
Summary of dispute by Bkonrad
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hmmm, I'm not sure how to respond. To start with, let's get the location of the supposed dispute correct. See Talk:Indian#May 2013 discussion and the corresponding disambiguation page Indian. I'm not sure why the IP thinks I am not participating in discussion at the talk page. I have responded there several times.
I invite any interested readers to consider the various changes made by the IP (as well as tenor of comments provided in the edit summaries).
This was soon modified (nearly reverted) in two quick edits 10:13, 16 May 2013, the first with edit summary Dont change unless you do know what is Indian - some guys are retarded here. (emphasis added)
After seeing the offensive edit summary by the IP, I reverted to the version before the IP started editing 11:32, 16 May 2013 and inadvertently reverted an unrelated copyedit the John of Reading had also made.
The IP then returned 13:40, 16 May 2013 with edit summary Have provided the Proofs - I hope you agree.]
I reverted this edit 13:52, 16 May 2013 for a few reasons, 1) the suggested heading was inaccurate and not neutral; 2) the supposed "proof" offered by the IP was nothing more than a few isolated examples of usage in various parts of the world; and 3) references and external links are not allowed on disambiguation pages.
The IP then took a different tact 14:35, 16 May 2013 by completely removing mention of American Indians from the disambiguation page. I reverted this edit 14:46, 16 May 2013.
Shortly after, 14:56, 16 May 2013, the IP left a message on my talk page that is worth reading in light of this dispute.
User:Cnilep, perhaps unaware of the previous edits, performed a cleanup of the disambiguation page 07:24, 17 May 2013 that again altered the headings for the subsections.
For several days there were no edits other than simple vandalism and reversions.
A different IP 72.28.201.183, then made a series of several edits on 26 May 2013, notably with this shouting edit summary disambiguating American Indians from South Asian Hindians. HINDIANS ARE PEOPLE FROM THE COUNTRY OF INDIA THAT ARE A DISTINCT RACE AND CIVILIZATION SEPARATE FROM THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.
I reverted these edits 16:50, 26 May 2013 as they introduced a variety of disambiguation Don'ts.
There followed several weeks of mostly vandalism and counter-vandalism edits, with a few other unrelated additions edits.
IP 216.231.206.5 returned 10:41, 27 August 2013 with the edit summary Correcting it - Sources have been provided in the Talk page already. Need to put them here in the Article. It should be noted that at this time, the supposed sources provided on the talk page had all been disputed as not proving what the IP seems to think they proved.
The IP followed with 05:59, 2 September 2013, which Cluebot reverted 05:59, 2 September 2013 I can only guess that this is the automatic script the IP refers to above. It should be noted that I have nothing to do with Cluebot and it does not in fact prevent all changes to the page, only those that look like vandalism according to whatever algorithm Cluebot uses.
To sum up, I feel the IP edits are not neutral and do not accurately reflect the ambiguity inherent in the term Indian. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Meaning of word INDIAN discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Marc Y. Chenevert
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mmb777e on 11:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
This started as a discussion over photographs that I had submitted to an article on aviation artist Marc Y Chenevert. LGA tagged the photos for deletion even though the copyright authority had been verified. A submission email of authority was made to Wikipedia Permissions and the photos have been appropriately authorized. As a result of this skirmish user LGA then proceeded to find any and all that he could to discredit the article that is sourced with appropriate sources including a notable published book by Marc Y Chenevert. For the last several days now there has been an array of new tags and add ons to the article in an attempt to get it removed from Wikipedia. The article is very well cited. LGA has attempted to make it appear that there is some connection between myself and Marc Y Chenevert. I am aware of who he is and very familiar with his work which prompted me to write the article. His service in the military in the 1970s as a gay airman that was discharged because of his sexual orientation certainly adds to his notability along with his amazing artistic contributions. I did remove the link to his website in response to LGA's complaints that the article might be a Conflict of Interest. The intent of adding the link to the Chenevert site was only for the purpose of viewing his work and not for the purpose of trying to sell his work. This article was done to honor Mr. Chenevert for his contributions to the history of Braniff Airways, and for his service to his country, and of course to allow those interested in aviation art to have an additional outlet to view an artist of this type. There is no attempt here to advertise or promote or otherwise sell Mr. Chenevert's artwork. I write Braniff Airways history articles and subjects associated with that subject. I believe this has just become and avenue for an upset LGA to retaliate for my standing up for the validity of my article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
discussions have taken place on my talk place as well as the Mark Y. Chenevert Talk place. I have addressed these issues with LGA. There is also another editor that has joined in Sbirch I believe and LGA has now attempted to link him and I together which does not make sense. I just want this article to stand on its own. It certainly has good citations and much better than many articles on Wikipedia.
How do you think we can help?
I would like for LGA to leave me alone and to stop picking on my article. I have addressed everything that he has brought up and then he finds something else. You can clearly see that in his edits on the article. What has prompted me to file this dispute is that he has now nominated the article for deletion. This would be a huge disservice to those that are enjoying reading this article. I think you will see that these actions are vindictive in nature and border on harassment.
Summary of dispute by LGA
Interesting choice of venue, but hay what the hell.
My summary of the dispute is that while new file patrolling I came across a number of images uploaded by Mmb777e all of which he claimed he owned, but had a copyright statement from the artist Marc Y. Chenevert on them. I tagged them {{di-no permission}} Mmb777e and Sbirch continued to remove the notice.
A WP:ORTS ticket has been received confirming the artist has licensed the images.
Now turning to the article, it has a number of issues.
Notability : Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Chenevert ? I have done a fair bit of looking and I am not finding anything, some local press coverage of a press release not much else.
BLP Sources : The vast majority of this article is either sourced to the subject's own self-published book or to his website.
Promotion : This article has the feel of a self written promotional content.
COI : I believe that both Mmb777e and Sbirc have close connections to the subject.
It was my intention to convert the article into a stub but as I had no reliable independent sources on which to do so and it being a BLP I posted to the talk page and here we are. I have not in fact nominated the article at WP:AFD deispite having ample grounds to do so ("Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent reliable sources"). I also suspect that this will have to be closed in short order as editors don't WP:OWN articles they contribute to. LGAtalkedits 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Marc Y. Chenevert discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The purpose of Wiki is to encourage editors knowledgeable about the subject matter to contribute to the online community of learning. Mmb777e has contributed to multiple articles in a positive way about Braniff. Our issues began with images where LGA overstepped where there was no accusation of copyright misuse. Despite that, we resolved that issue by tagging images with {{OTRS pending}} until receipt of ticket could be acknowledged. After that, LGA has been disruptive on all elements of the article. The basic issue here is that LGA is making improper assumptions and representing himself as the ultimate authority. Accusations of COI by either myself or Mmb777e is baseless. I have post graduate degrees in Aviation and History and my interest area is specifically Braniff history and have no connection to the author or subject. LGA himself only defends an accusation of WP:Promotion by saying "it feels". The subject wrote a book, and the book is a valid source of information for a Wiki article WP:BLP. For the article to be harassed by a possible sock puppet and disruptive editor is unwarranted. In addition LGA consistently represents himself as a person of higher authority by referring to himself as "we" and consistently violating Wiki guidelines. Sbirch (talk) 14:01, 16 September 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.
Anti-Serb sentiment
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
A group of users think that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment (based on source which I believe is outdated politically motivated primary source). This view is also based on WP:CONSISTENCY - because no other article (link to navigation template with 45 of them) on hatred toward an ethnic group does not have criticism section.
I proposed not to deny or justify hatred in Controversy section but to present explanations in one or couple of sentences within the main body of the article (with no outdated politically motivated primary sources) or to point to articles which provide more context in the See also section.
Peacemaker67 and Joy do not agree.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion
How do you think we can help?
To organize discussion based on human common sense, arguments and wikipedia policies without unnecessary personalization, uncivility and fallacy, which would hopefully lead to consensus about this dispute.
Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not be able to enter into this discussion properly until I have access to a real computer (at least five days away). I'm on iPhone, and it just isn't practical. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I will just briefly add that the "group of users" Antidiskriminator alludes to is a group of one. The other two editors that have engaged in this discussion are a registered account that has made a total of two edits (both to the talk page thread in question), and an IP that has made one edit (also to this talk page thread). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I'll put aside the other problems with the article (such as WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, on which I agree with Joy and bobrayner). The central issue here is the means by which we include in the article an examination of how entirely legitimate examples of "Anti-Serb/Serbia sentiment" during WWI (the reaction to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and WWII (Hitler's attitude to the Serbs and the genocidal policies and actions of the Ustashe) were woven into a propaganda narrative in the 1980's and 1990's by Slobodan Milošević and his fellow travellers. This propaganda narrative of perpetual Serb victimhood was then used to justify and encourage "all sorts of nastiness" (as Joy puts it) during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Antidiskriminator relies on WP:CONSISTENCY, which has been an inactive proposal since 2006 and on which there was no apparent consensus. A quick look at Wikipedia talk:Consistency will confirm what the perceived problems with the proposal were, and several editors made cogent observations against the proposal with which I have sympathy. In my view, key amongst them are, "The fact that two different groups of people say two different things is not logically contradictory" and "encyclopedia articles are more like separate stories. Individual stories have consistency--truth relative to them. Taken together, however, they are a jumble of purported facts that don't really have much to do with each other." Whether this article is stylistically consistent with other articles on ethnic hatred is WP:OTHERSTUFF in my view. The actions of Serbs in the past that have contributed to "Anti-Serb sentiment" (such as colonisation of Albanian-speaking areas during the Balkan Wars), and the use of past misdeeds against Serbs to justify Serb misdeeds in the 80's/90's are both central to the story of "Anti-Serb sentiment", and to remove them or reduce discussion of them to a couple of sentences (as Antidiskriminator proposes) would mean that the article would not tell the whole story (and would lack context). The idea that discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's could imply that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed is inherently contradictory. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Joy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please see Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment#Criticism?? etc. The entirety of the article has a variety of problems; pruning the criticism altogether, which is what was suggested originally, would easily be seen as whitewashing, and adding just another problem to the pile. Antidiskriminator seems to have a tendency of making various edits consistent with Serbian nationalist talking points, recently he 'earned' an WP:ARBMAC topic ban over one Serbian World War II issue (a Chetnik commander) and led to a move ban over another (the article about the Nazi occupation of Serbia), and this appears to be no exception - let's shun the criticism from the get-go just because it doesn't fit our preferred narrative. Assorted Croatian and other nationalists who tried to delete the entire article on their own deluded premises notwithstanding -- the criticism of the use of this term in the more recent history is entirely legitimate, and is already sourced to several English-language publications that appear to be reliable sources. The term has been tainted in the 1980s with the SANU Memorandum's perfidious invocation of "Serbophobia", and in turn Slobodan Milošević's fake outrage about it - they used it as a blatant technique to make the Serbs look like the perpetual victims, while at the same time they orchestrated all sorts of nastiness in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon and the phrase would be incomplete without the clear description of this issue. Also, as I said earlier, having the criticism section does not in any way invalidate the description of the legitimate applications of the phrase, such as those related to WWII. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by bobrayner
I agree with Joy's stance that the article has broader problems; it's a collection of Serb-nationalist talking points; any fragment that fits the Serb-victimhood trope is put on the page without context. The issue over the criticism section raised by Antidiskriminator seems to be highly selective; there are wider issues that need to be fixed. Same problem we had at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Timbouctou
I agree with Peacemaker67, Joy and bobrayner. Although the article has been cleaned up in the meantime, it still suffers from issues which I am not sure can be dealt with at all. Anti-something articles need to rely on sources which deal with the topic directly, and unlike antisemitism and a host of other examples of ethnic hatred, not a single book (Serbian or otherwise) exists which does that in this particular case. The only work written on the subject directly is by MacDonald, and he actually talks about it as a narrative that was used by Serb nationalist to justify Serbia's role in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Nobody is saying that Serbs hadn't been persecuted in WW2, but we already have a dedicated and much more detailed article about that issue. Once you remove that part, all you have left is a WP:SYNTH of quotes cherry picked from Google Books, from various historical periods, and provided with little or no context. Also, I object to Antidiskriminator's usage of those quotes. Many works written by credible historians talk about "anti-Serbian" sentiment or policies (as in "against foreign policies led by Serbia"), which in Antidiskriminator's interpretation are interchangeable with "anti-Serb" (as in "against the ethnic group"), which then he uses as synonymous with "Serbophobic" (as in "irrationally obsessed with persecuting Serbs"). These are not the same thing and treating these terms as if they are without taking into account the context of the sourced text and the events talked about is way below encyclopedic standards. Although anti-Serb sentiment does exist and has manifested itself overtly on several occasions over the course of history - especially when talking about periods of WW1 and WW2 and the Yugoslav wars - this article presents it as a coherent historical narrative which depicts Serbs as perennial victims of their neighbours. And that idea a) is not represented in any source and b) was outright debunked by at least some sources. So removing criticism of the term would hardly be helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Anti-Serb sentiment discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi;
I've asked another regular to help me mediate in this matter, and until he agrees, this will be quite slow to kick off.
OK, I've got a second mediator who's willing to assist on this matter, and he's going to take the lead. To start off, I'd like parties to provide summaries of no more than one paragraph of their cases. Antidiskriminator, I want you to have a look at your link that is entitled "45 of them", since it just shows a template - I'm not 100% sure as to what it's meant to show, and I'd like it if you'd correct that please. The Historian (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Fromm looking at the Wikipedia:Consistency, the rule described therein only applies to factual consistency. Stylistic consistency, which is what I think you're arguing over, is dealt with in the manual of style. From what I've read on the manual of style, it appears that Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles. This is my opinion, and I'd like the leading mediator to take a look to see whether I'm on the right track, so don't take my reasoning here as gospel until the lead mediator has given it the OK. --The Historian (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are right. Stylistic consistency is dealt with in the manual of style. WP:CONSISTENCY only say that "the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" which confirm your oppinion that "Wikipedia does favour consistency across all articles"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on this fact, could parties make submissions of not more than one paragraph, written in this "discussion" session, on what effect the fact that WP:Consistensy does not apply might have on this dispute, and how we should proceed. I ask this merely because one of the parties (I've lost track of whom) alleges that WP:CONSISTENSY does apply. Since we have worked out that it doesn't, the original claimant's submission that it does has fallen away.
--The Historian (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe I've essentially addressed this above, but once WP:CONSISTENCY is put to one side, the remaining issue is that User:Antidiskriminator thinks "that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment". Antidiskriminator's apparent belief that detailed discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's implies that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed, or somehow denies or justifies hatred of Serbs, is inherently contradictory. My view is that either the section should stand as is, or the existing content of the section in question should instead be placed in chronologically appropriate places in the lead and body. The use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" in the 1980s/90s by Milošević and his fellow travellers is an integral part of the chronological narrative of "Anti-Serb sentiment". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Although WP:CONSISTENCY does not directly apply here (because it deals only with factual consistency) it is helpful for this dispute because it confirms that "stylistic — the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" and explains that Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists to deal with stylistic consistency. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Consistency is a red herring. Whether or not the article should have exactly the same headings as other articles about anti-whatever-sentiment, that sidesteps the article's bigger issues. Focussing on the name of a heading rather on serious content problems is worrying. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about not coming back earlier - real life and a long and messy arbitration case in which I'm an involved party got in the way. I've reviewed the article in its entirety. There is very little in each section describing the history of anti-serb discrimination look a bit "empty". I would suggest that parts of the "criticism and controversy" section should be integrated into the main historical section of the article. The "Serbophobia" section...I'm not 100% sure where that goes. The "breakup of Yugoslavia" section is quite lacking in substance, so think about putting "serbophobia" in there. Otherwise, there's very little else I can do.
There are two other editors that could help resolving this dispute. One actually added this disputed section to the article (PRODUCER) and another (User:Timbouctou) substantially edited it. I notified both of them about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume (after a week's wait) they are not interested in engaging here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe second mediator can help to resolve this dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I added my opinion above. Timbouctou (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
Respected Dignities, I am the father of the subject of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati". The subject and me were degraded, insulted or personally attacked in a impolite manner many times by the Wikipedian editors not only at the talk page Sections of the article but also at the talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article. The name of the few of the respected editors are NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso. Instead of replying to suggestions/concerns/sections/questions in a polite manner they attacked me, subject, others personally by degrading us. Instead of replying to us politely they dictated their terms and tried to prove us foolish, incompetent, emotional, lack of knowledge, notoriously eager etc. I as the father of the subject tried my level best to provide latest/recent development about subject but it was discouraged again and again. Even Yanshui, Ihardlythinkso made fun, insulted the subject at their respective pages. Please Check there user pages to know the same. In fact they all are doing the same in a team. The motive is the user Sudeep Gangal who might have hurted their individuality. Even i have appealed to block him. Further the subject also appealed in section of talk page that he believes in Wikipedia and Sudeep Gangal etc should not try to become his well wishers. But why subject or his father should be punished for same. Respected Wikipedia dignities these editors has not tried their level best to listen to suggestions on new sections of the talk page. They even ignored valid suggestions, concerns, issues on new sections on talk page of the article that too replying in an insulting manner. I am afraid to mention Yanshui sir even mentioned on his talk page about subject whose abstract was I am lazy so accepting subject and might delete later on and even insulted subject that too in a team with Ihardlythinkso. Even subject and Father of the subject were left with no stamina hence appealed to delete article
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Respected dignities I and Subject tried our level best to resolve this dispute by following steps. We always put our point with respect. Many times we communicated/begged to them to stop insulting us for god sake. Subject left forever from Wikipedia as per suggestion by NeilN from updating Wikipedia talk page. NeilN even suggested the subject to forget Wikipedia. Subject followed it. Subject even appealed to delete the article but stop it. Even i begged to stop it or delete article. Regards.
How do you think we can help?
Step 1: Please analyse anything related to the subject in talk page of the article or talk page of people involved in the dispute to know the dispute
Step 2: Please do justice to article by taking care of all Sections of Talk page of the article.
Step 3: Punish the people involved in the dispute, if they are not following Wikipedia norms.
Step 4: If Subject is not worth then please delete it. But if it is notable then editors must understand degrading subject or insulting father is shocking.
Summary of dispute by NeilN
Unfortunately I don't think this noticeboard can accept this as this is a straight behavioral dispute, not a content dispute. The filer's contributions start here. It is obvious that he is only here to promote his son and does not or will not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If this were the proper venue, I would recommend a topic ban. --NeilNtalk to me 10:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Yunshui
I no longer have any interest in pursuing this matter. I have repeatedly tried to help Sarower Sigh Bhati and co. to understand Wikipedia's policies, but it's like banging my head against a brick wall. This was pretty much the last straw. At this point, I see no merit in discussing the matter further, since it is clear that Sarower has no intention of listening to those who are trying to help him. Were I not already involved, I would block his account as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. However, I've reached the limits of my tolerance here, and wash my hands of the affair; I'm dewatchlisting the page and will not comment here or on the article talkpage again. Yunshui雲水 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ihardlythinkso
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is loaded with false accusations of a personal nature including claims of persecution and degradation to him and the article subject (his disabled son). This editor should be blocked for disruption and ongoing fictionalized personal attacks. Three editors have conducted themselves helpfully and professionally to no avail. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Subject himself
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ultra respected Authorities of Wikipedia. Yes i agree with my father. But the dispute can not be resolved in a justified manner unless the past track of the article talk page and talk page of all involved in dispute is analyzed properly.Moreover many points, sections are already deleted/edited/modified later on. For example I still remember there were at least 2 sections on the talk pages of Yunshui Sir and Ihardlythinkso Sir, where the remarks were really discouraging/degrading/insulting for me by these people is not existing now. One of the section was " A Difference". A lot of efforts has already taken place to cover the points raised by my father in a well anticipated manner in advance. Even at dispute resolution platform they are united as team (See there statements). Respected Authorities of Wikipedia I appeal to all of you to please analyse this article talk page history verbatim to know the reality. Yes Sirs this is a difficult job but the only way out to sort this dispute is to, " I Request with both my hands folded in front of you all to please analyse each and every word of the talk page of this article. In addition please analyse each and every word of the talk pages of all the people who are involved in this dispute" Then only the dispute resolution will be able to find the people who were wrong. Yes i am sorry today and i said it earlier also for having bit faith in Sudeep gangal for some time but later on i openly stood by Wikipedia editors and asked Sudeep to keep away from it forever. For this NeilN sir appreciated me also.
Last but not the least Sirs, Why are we fighting? After All It is your article. Keep it or remove it is choice of Wikipedia editors. But if they have accepted me as a Subject Please do not insult me Please do not insult my father. After all the article is property of Wikipedia and I am its subject. Why we want lose-lose situation. This article is not my fathers property but he is only related with the subject. As far as promoting me, Ask yourself who will not do the same for a disabled son with limited breaths But my father did not promoted me but was assertive as he is sure i am deserving. But agony of a father of a son with such grim medical conditions is also to be handled in a human manner.
Finally if Wikipedia is not convinced about me as the subject of article please remove it immediately but please stop making fun of me, degrading me, insulting me. RegardsHridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've read over the talk page and I don't see any personal attacks or otherwise made by the editors here. This is a plain and simple conduct issue, and it seems that all the experienced editors involved have tried to provide guidance and advice to no avail. I'd suggest admin intervention for this one. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The filer has declared his intention to leave Wikipedia. I will be archiving that mess of a talk page unless anyone objects. Suggest closing this. --NeilNtalk to me 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Respected All: Yes it is my last message to all of you: I will never LOG IN to Wikipedia nor the subject will ever LOG IN to Wikipedia. As far as dispute is concerned I had already put my points. God Bless All of you. Best Wishes to all of you. Though as far as i know i always respected the individuality of all people by Writing Respected, Ultra respected, before every person but Still i am sorry to those, who got hurt due to me but believe me it was unintentional. Anyway my best wishes for all of you. Finally i am leaving Wikipedia forever along with the Subject of the article. RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 15:12, 19 September 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.
Filed by 216.81.94.68 on 19:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC).
Closed 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.
I tried to add the Navy Yard attack to the "See Also" section of the Remington Model 870. This was the primary weapon used. Another editor tried to enter a lot of information but I felt only adding it to the “See Also” was most appropriate as that is how it was done for the JFK weapon and other articles.
I feel this is the most neutral way to do this vs not having anything again another that wanted a entire part in the 870 header. This not only keeps it small but the same style done in other articles at Wikipedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Posted on the talk page and showed this was done at other articles.
How do you think we can help?
Offer a outside look.
Summary of dispute by ROG5728
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a frivolous DR by an IP editor who did not even make an attempt to discuss his changes on the talk page. He has already violated 3RR (4 reverts in 24 hours) and succeeded in getting the article locked. The content he's attempting to add to the article is not relevant or noteworthy to the subject. ROG5728 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Thomas.W
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There has been no discussion on the talk page of the article, only a lot of accusations about uncivility being made by the IP-editor. Including the IP-editor (who uses multiple IPs all leading to the same government agency, including but possibly not limited to 216.81.94.68(talk· contribs ·WHOIS), 216.81.81.80(talk· contribs ·WHOIS) and 216.81.81.85(talk· contribs ·WHOIS), see the ANI-link for the connection between them) filing an ANI-report against me, falsely accusing me of uncivility. So this is just part of the IP-editor's forum shopping, trying to portray himself as some kind of abuse victim.
Summary of dispute by Dainomite
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Outside opinion of Mark Miller
I think there is a possible COI issue with the filing editor. They have also opened an AN/I complaint I believe. Two venues opened almost simultaneously could be seen as forum shopping. The discussion on the talk page is almost all from the IP editor complaining about another editor and not the actual issue at hand. No extensive discussion.
Recommend declining this request.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
A new editor, Scoobydunk, disputes the view that John Casor was the first legal slave in the British colonies and that his owner Anthony Johnson was thus the first slave owner. He supports that Indentured servitude for life is slavery which makes John Punch the first slave and Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner. Scoobydunk has deleted text pointing out that Indentured servitude for life was not uncommon in the colonies and other related text that does not support his view. I added seven sources, books written by authors with history degrees, to the specific claim. Scoobydunk deleted the claim while leaving the references.[16]
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I discussed the problem on the Talk page.[17] and added at least 15 academic sources to the article supporting the original text. An uninvolved editor also explained the difference between servitude and slavery to Scoobydunk which was rejected.
How do you think we can help?
Add input from uninvolved editors in a noticeboard environment.
Summary of dispute by Scoobydunk
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Historians confirm that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave. I gave WLRoss a number of sources that prove Punch was sentenced to life in servitude thus making him the first legally recognized slave in 1641. WLRoss violated WP:OR policy and tried to claim Punch wasn't a slave but an indentured servant and provided no source that made this distinction, it was purely his own opinion. The Punch case predates the Johnson v. Parker trial of 1654 which legally recognized Casor as a slave. I've given a number of sources in the talk page to substantiate this claim. WLRoss basically said that all of my sources were "wrong" because he disagrees with what qualifies an indentured servant vs. a slave, which is not his decision to make. Regardless of what his opinion is, historians regard Punch as the first legal slave in the English colonies because his case predates Casor's by 13 years. Thus, Hugh Gwyn was the first slave owner, not Anthony Johnson.
WLRoss wants the article to read that Anthony Johnson was "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." This is wrong for a number of reasons. Spain had slaves dating back to 1560 in their colony. Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641 and even the official state website says this. Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650. John Punch was sentenced to life long slavery for trying to runaway in 1641,Virginia. So to make a claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner is wrong for a variety of reasons and ignores many legal documents and court cases. I edited the claim to say "he was the first legally recognized slave owner in the English colonies to hold a servant for life where crime was not involved." This wording accommodates all of the information that was presented in the talk page. If you remove any of the qualifiers, then it becomes a false statement. WLRoss violates WP:POV by ignoring what has been factually recognized by numerous reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Johnson (colonist) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Wayne's six sources do not meet reliable source requirements. Two of the works are books intended for juveniles (11 and up) and two are written by generalists who are not specialists in either slavery, African Americans, or American colonial history. One is a WPA work written during the Depression by unnamed authors, and the final one does not support Wayne's overly broad claims -- in fact it supports Scoobydunk. In the interest of brevity, I have listed the specifics, with appropriate links, at Talk:Anthony Johnson (colonist)#Dispute Resolution.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How do they not meet reliable source requirements? Five are written by authors with degrees in history and the two books intended for juveniles were written as high school textbooks. Two being generalists actually supports this being the mainstream view as generalists are far less likely to subscribe to alternate theories. The source you say supports Scoobydunk does not, while it does say that indentured servants were technically slaves, it specifically says that laws defining slavery began in the 1660s and that Casor was the first legal slave which is exactly what the WP article says. Scoobydunk states that Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641. The term Massachusetts uses is bond slavery and the act applied only to "lawful Captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us." Also, the children of bond slaves were born free. Bond slavery is slavery of labour not of the person. In the 1780s, the Supreme Court stated it "could find no authority for believing that slavery ever had any legal existence in that State." The 1864 Constitutional Convention looked into the historical legality of slavery and in regards to Massachusetts argued that slavery had not legally existed in Massachusetts until laws protecting slavery were passed in 1698. Scoobydunk also states that slavery existed in the Spanish mainland colonies. This is irrelevant as the Johnson article says British colonies while the infobox specifically says the Thirteen Colonies. Even if Scoobydunk were right about Casor then Punch is still not the first slave as there had been many cases before where indentured servants were sentenced to a life of servitude for escaping, the earliest I have heard of was in 1630.
The crux of this dispute is: was slavery as we know it legal before Casor? Everyone knows that slaves did exist, but they were not legally sanctioned, please provide sources written by historians for the view that it was. Wayne (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I've responded in depth at the discussion page of the article -- this page really isn't intended to rehash the entire debate before a volunteer makes an appearance.
In any event, if the two juvenile books are in fact textbooks then this makes them tertiary sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) and inappropriate for use here. As far as the two generalists, one work is "Discovering A Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America" (hardly an appropriate or logical source when so many other works are available) and the other is "Popular Controversies in World History", a work that is a compendium, free of footnotes or bibliography, that includes chapters covering the entirety of human history -- once again a tertiary source. These sources may be available online, but you still need to do much, much, better if you are going to argue your case based on sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"Obama was the first black President of The United States of America." However, this is not the same thing as "Obama is the first President of The United States of America." If you remove the word "black" then the entire statement ceases to be factually accurate. For some reason, WLRoss thinks it's okay to remove descriptive qualifiers for which the veracity of the statement hinges upon. If the statement is not properly qualified, then it becomes false.
Now, if you look at what I quoted from your last revision of the Anthony Johnson article, it said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." Spain had mainland colonies, therefore my mentioning that Spain held slaves since 1560 IS RELEVANT because Spain owned mainland colonies. Therefore, the wording in your revision was factually incorrect when talking about "mainland colonies".
The WPA article also qualifies their assertion that John Casor was the first slave by saying "where crime was not involved." They specifically qualified this statement with "where crime was not involved" because it acknowledges that slaves were held prior to Casor, like John Punch who had been legally sentenced and therefore legally sanctioned. If you take out "where crime was not involved" then the statement is no longer historically or factually accurate. That's why this source actually supports my argument and this was the compromise I used to preserve your desire to say that Casor was the "first" of anything.
Your other source, Toppin, actually speaks of both Punch and Casor and correctly uses qualifiers for both. Toppin says on page 45 "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling." So clearly the author of your source agrees with me and the facts of history that John Punch became a slave in 1641 as the result of a judicial ruling. Toppin goes on to say this about John Casor "John Casor, in 1655, is the first black we know of to be made a slave in a CIVIL CASE in Virginia." See, Toppin qualifies this statement by saying "civil case in Virginia." However, if you remove either "civli case" or "Virginia" or both, the statement is no longer factually accurate.
Herbert S. Klein in his "Slavery in the Americas A Comparative Study of Virginia and Cuba" also supports the position that slavery was recognized as an institution in Virginia starting with the John Punch case. He says "Although the legislative or statutory structure of Negro slavery was not begun until 1662, there already appeared as early as 1640 county court cases recognizing the institution as it was being created in practice by the planters. In that year John Punch, a Negro, was made to serve for life as a punishment for running away, whereas the two whites with him had but four additional years added to their time." Klein also goes on to talk about Casor and the Johnson v. Parker suit, but only references it to illustrate how hard it was for black indentured servants to escape from being labeled as life long slaves. He never says anything about Casor being the first slave or that this case established slavery. So here's another Historian that actually recognizes both Punch and Casor in his work and explains how slavery as an institution began with the Punch case and gives Johnson/Casor no historical significance in establishing or recognizing the institution.
Though your use of "mainstream" and "minority" are logical fallacies and have no bearing on the validity of the information presented, here's an encyclopedia entry that says "Yet court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640, the year that slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html . And here's what the NPS own government website says about the history of Jamestown. "1640 John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, first documented slave for life." http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm.
Though it's not important unless you can disprove all of the claims about John Punch, here's what the Mass. Body of Liberties says about slavery. "91. There shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, or captivity amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons cloth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority." This law does explain "bond slavery" and the rules and restrictions on it but then also acknowledges that these rules of bond slavery don't apply to people who are sentenced to slavery/servitude by authority. Thus, Mass. legalized slavery in 1640 by confirming that people can be sentenced to slavery by an authority.
It is a fact that Punch was sentenced to slavery in 1641 and therefore Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave in the English colonies. From what I've seen, your sources that try to claim this ignore John Punch and his trial and some of them, like Sweet, misrepresent the information from their own source like he did with "'Myne Owne Ground' Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore" where Timothy Breen says nothing about the Casor suit establishing slavery in Virginia or that Johnson was the first slave owner. Anyone with a neutral point of view can easily see that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia and Casor wasn't. You try to muddle this conversation by using argumentum ad populum and pretending that the mainstream point of view has any relevance and what's worse, you're only asserting that it's the mainstream point of view, which is original research, and provide no sources that argue that it is the mainstream point of view. The facts of history are not dependent upon your opinion on what is the mainstream point of view. I'd also like to add that fairly recently there was a CNN article and many others confirming Obama's ancestry to the first slave in what would be the mainland United States, and that slave was John Punch. So if you wanted to argue "mainstream" I'm pretty sure this would trump anything you saw on Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yours is a straw man argument, you should have used Washington was the first white President of The United States of America to illustrate the reason for the removal of white.
Spain is not relevant as the article notes it was only the British colonies. Any minor mistakes in parts are irrelevant ATM as the article is still being rewritten and the meaning is clear.
where crime was not involved is already mentioned in the article but it is only a single source so due weight applies. The wording of the main claim is per multiple sources.
Punch, in effect, became a slave. No one disputes that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery but legal slavery it was not and Toppin goes on to say exactly what the article does, that Casor was the first legal slave.
Per Klein's created in practice, this does not have the same meaning as legally created.
Neither of those sources were written by historians so have no bearing on the mainstream or minority view of historians.
The wording actually says that bond slavery applies to all who are sentenced to servitude by authority, not does not apply as you claim.
You have to be kidding. I am pretending that the mainstream point of view has relevance? That is the one of the Five Pillars of WP. You keep throwing up non-academic sources. The subject matter is such that many sources are bound to be PC or have bias so please provide sources from historians.
Why are you undermining my use of academic sources by claiming that my sources include Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website? I'm not American so have no idea who Glen Beck is and I have never heard of that website. Wayne (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not a strawman argument, it's an extreme example to demonstrate the flaw in your edits and explain to you how failing to properly qualify your statements leads to a factual inaccuracy.
The article, as you intentionally left it in multiple revisions, said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." which is wrong for a number of reasons, one of them being that Spain had slaves since 1560. So it is relevant and your attempt to dismiss it as "an obvious mistake that everyone will be able to discern" is a poor attempt to mislead others.
It still supports my argument and it makes the distinction because there were other slaves before John Casor legally sanctioned to slavery before 1654. To reword this without the proper qualifiers is to tell a factual lie.
There you go again at failing to recognize descriptive qualifiers. Toppin only says Casor was the first to be made a slave in a "CIVIL CASE" because he acknowledges that Punch was a slave long before. Punch doesn't assert that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery, he says that the court ruling, in effect, made him a slave. If TOppin thought Casor was the first slave, then he wouldn't have qualified the statement with "civil case" the same way you don't need to qualify the statement "Washington was the first President of the U.S.A" by describing him as "white". "White" holds no relevance on Washington being the first President while "civil case" is completely relevant and necessary for his statement to be factually correct.
You're ignoring the sentiment that Klein considered the Punch case as the first to recognize slavery as an institution and doesn't give any such merit to the Johnson case. You're trying to play with semantics and your interpretation of the meaning of words isn't going to change this fact. It's clear that you're violating WP:POV by not only ignoring the point Klein was making in regards to the development in slavery, but to disregard it as well.
I didn't qualify my statement with "of historians" and neither did you in most of your usage of those terms. <--This is you making a strawman argument, btw. You try to make it sound like I was talking about mainstream and minority opinions "of historians" then try to dismiss my argument by saying they weren't from historians. Strawman all the way.
No, this states that bond slavery is not allowed unless for prisoners of war that sell themselves or are sold to us. It then describes how those bond slaves should be treated. Then it says "This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority," meaning that this law does not exempt/free/apply to anyone who is sentenced to servitude/slavery by authority. Hence, they legally recognized slavery as a punishment for a crime in 1641.
Whether it's mainstream or not has no relevance to the validity of the claim. That point aside, again you fail to provide any source that argues that CAsor was the first slave and not John Punch or submit any reliable source arguing that this is the mainstream view. This is simply your opinion and again shows your violation of WP:POV and WP:OR. I've used plenty of academic sources, some of them being your own used against you and last I checked, reliable sources are not limited to solely academic sources. So this argument you keep incorrectly asserting amounts to nothing and is yet another diversion from the fact that you can't validate your own claims.
I wasn't using Glen Beck to undermine your sources, just your opinion on what constitutes as the mainstream view. However, I can easily undermine some of your sources since you insist on using books written for 11 year olds. It's like you trying to delete the "imaginary numbers" wikipedia entry because your 7th grade math book says "you can't have a square root of a negative number". Higher academia constantly constantly overturns or corrects discrepancies presented at lower learning levels. Klein's book is a collegiate level book that has much more detailed and accurate information than a general history book that skims over subjects and is intended for middle-schoolers.
You're trying to argue that John Punch was not a slave and you haven't provided a single source that makes that argument. You haven't listed one here, you didn't list one on the talk page either. It is purely based on your own original research and is against wikipedia's policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to get in an argument so I will be brief. The article says in the thirteen colonies and any mistakes like "mainland colonies" would be corrected during the rewrite. To argue that I intentionally leave such mistakes in the article is a violation of WP:NPA. So far none of your academic sources contradicts me despite your interpretation of them. One of my sources, Toppin, is considered one of the greatest authorities on African American history and he states that Casor was the first legal slave. He also states that blacks had worked as slaves in Maryland since the colony's founding in 1634 but he immediately qualifies it by saying that "the first Maryland law recognizing slavery did not come until in 1664" and this is what the article talks about...the legal standing of slavery, not what you or websites with no academic authority believe is slavery. Wayne (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Toppin, I have provided links and comments on the article discussion page. The work cited by Toppin is a textbook intended for juveniles -- once again not a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying "intended for juveniles"? It was intended for high schools so I would like to think that such a book was a reliable source or I'd be rather concerned about your school system. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You had plenty of time for a rewrite yet you didn't change this language and you willingly and consistently reverted what I wrote back to the wrong statement. It's not against WP:NPA because we have multiple examples of you intentionally reverting it back to incorrect information. Also, we've already established that Toppin considered Punch a slave before Casor and he goes on to say that Casor was only the first slave resulting from a "civil case". If you leave out "civil case" it makes the statement incorrect and again, you're intentionally misrepresenting the source when you do this. From all of the sources and information provided, it clearly demonstrates that John Punch was a slave in Virginia before Casor. You have yet to disprove this or offer a source contesting this. Therefore, logically, if Punch was a legally recognized slave before Casor, then Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave and he's not. That's why the only sources you listed that weren't meant for an 11 year old said Casor was only the first legal slave where crime was not involved or because of a civil case. I'm still waiting for your sources that substantiate your claim that Punch wasn't a slave. You've yet to provide those while I have given many sources that substantiate my claim that Casor wasn't the first legally recognized slave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
How did I have "plenty of time for a rewrite" when you refused to allow me time to do it and were reverting my edits within minutes of my making them? I've put my case as have you. Rather than flood the page with irrelevant text leave it for other editors to comment on who they believe is right. Wayne (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe you requested time on Sep. 3 and as of Sep 7 you were still posting incorrect information based on OR and in violation of WP:POV. On top of that, you've been active on the Anthony Johnson page for over a year, that's PLENTY of time to do research on the subject and submit the most comprehensive and accurate information. To claim you didn't have enough time is intellectually dishonest and me making my own revisions doesn't affect the amount of time you had to do your rewrite especially since you disengaged from the discussion on Sept. 5, giving you 2 days to make changes. You've put your case and it has been proven wrong, not just by me, but by another editor as well. You've failed to disprove our claims and have avoided nearly every argument North Shoreman and I have made. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
After I first started the Johnson rewrite in February I got involved in a very complicated RfC which finished in July followed on the 16 July by an Arbitration case which ended in September so I had little time to research much of anything. You keep calling me intellectually dishonest yet you allowed only 12 hours after I asked for a few days to rewrite the article before you started reverting[18]. Then I had two days of editing[19] which you call "OR and in violation of WP:POV" before you started reverting just about everything I was doing. I challenge you to post the diffs to show that anything I added[20] was OR or a violation of NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
No one cares about your excuses. You had plenty of time to make sure this page was filled with accurate information since you've been participating on it since March of 2012. Here's an example of your OR and POV[21]. Here you try to argue that Punch was not a slave and was an indentured servant. You supplied no source arguing that he wasn't a slave because it was simply based on your own original research and the fact that you ignored the many documents and sources I gave you that confirmed he was a slave before Casor, you still make this inaccurate claim because you clearly don't have a neutral point of view. You further establish this in the talk page by making statements like "mainstream" and dismissing my multiple sources as "minority" when you actually provide no sources that argue that your position is the mainstream view and that Punch is the minority view. This is another example of your clear bias and original research. Challenge accomplished.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the original text on the left you may notice that the only new text I added in that edit was "This legal determination remained unsupported until 1662 when Virginia passed the first laws legalizing slavery, the legislation incorporated the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem, that the offspring of a slave took the status of the mother ad infinitum (forever) which was soon widely adopted by other colonies despite the doctrine directly contradicting common law" which pushed that paragraph to the end of the section which is why it is blue. The link for it specifically states that Punch was an indentured servant anyway and is more accurate and NPOV than the text you added; "Hugh Gwyn actually became the first lifelong slave owner in Virginia when the court granted him John Punch as a slave for life" which you referenced to a PBS television show. The word slave was never mentioned in the Punch court case and it was acknowledged that he was an indentured servant. While the word slave was also not used in the Casor case, the court found that he was not an indentured servant so a slave was all he could have been. The "many documents and sources" you gave are websites, few of which appear to be written by historians and all of which consider indentured servitude to be slavery. While no sources say what is the mainstream view the ones written by historians must carry more weight and especially if they are peer reviewed which I assume they are if used for school books as several were. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Though that may not have been the diff where you added that text, you did add that text nonetheless. Here's where you first added it and thus violated WP:POV and WP:OR [22]. Your source, which was actually my source used to point out that JOhnson nor Casor played a role in the development of slavery in Virginia, only uses the Punch case to show how race started to play a factor when punishing indentured servants and doesn't make any reference to Punch's status after the case. So this doesn't contend or contradict the numerous historians I've cited throughout our discussion that have confirmed that Punch was sentenced to slavery, was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia, or acknowledged that the Punch case was one of the first that recognized slavery as an institution in the English colonies. Punch being recognized as a slave before Casor is the neutral point of view and you trying to argue that all of the historians and sources I've listed are "incorrect" is clearly based on your bias and original research, as you've yet to submit anything making this argument. It's also about time you stop pretending I've only used one source or only websites, because I've already listed collegiate books written by historians that support my position which inherently disprove yours.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Still ignoring Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and insisting that high school textbooks are the best, or even acceptable, sources for this article. The numerous reliable sources I've quoted from on the article discussion page, which you refuse to comment on, do not call him the first slaveholder and find his historical significance elsewhere. A bibliographic essay summarizing all of the significant writings on the origins of slavery in Virginia does not even indicate that the Casor case is part of the debate. You are only cherry picking isolated quotes from whatever sources you can find online that support your own position -- you have not demonstrated that the position you are advocating is a mainstream view among historians. The actual mainstream historians, rather than focusing on a county court decision, look to the legislative record and find that in Virginia laws recognizing slavery didn't start being enacted until the 1660's, well after the Casor decision. The court decision only confirmed what was already common -- blacks being held for life as slaves. Edmund S. Morgan in the source quoted on the article's discussion page identifies recorded deeds showing ownership of slaves with language such as "a Negro woman and all her increase (which for future tyme shall bee borne of her body)." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also of note from the Alden T. Vaughan journal article discussed on the article's talk page: A Virginia law of 1643 provided that 'WHEREAS divers controversies have risen between masters and servants being brought into the collony without indentures . . . Be it therefor enacted. . . that such servants as shall be imported haveing no indentures or covenants either men or women if they be above twenty year old to serve fowre year,if they shall be above twelve and under twenty to serve five years. And if under twelve to serve seaven years'(Hening, ed., Statutes,I, 257). This law almost certainly did not apply to Africans, who were sold as contraband in Virginia; by international law and British custom, they could be held in lifetime servitude.[emphasis added]Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That link is a reversion of false information ("Johnson vs Parker was the first time Virginia legally recognized that blacks could own indentured servants") to the previous version, not an addition of text. You reply still does change the fact that slavery (contraband) was not legal. "Blacks being held for life as slaves"...so what? White indentured servants were also held for life or sentenced to a life of servitude for crimes. Your argument does not change the fact that Punch was one of the first legal cases to show different treatment between blacks and whites (whites had been sentenced to life of servitude before but in Punches case three servants who committed the same crime together were sentenced differently) while the Casor case was the first instance of a legally recognized slave. Ben Kinchlow (Black Yellow Dogs): "Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation's first official legal slaveholder." Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa (African American Chronology): "This case helps to establish slavery as a legally binding institution." Ira Berlin (Many Thousands Gone): "Into the middle years of the seventeenth century and perhaps later, slaves enjoyed the same benefits extended to white servants." Adam Miller (Discovering A Lost Heritage): "As a result, Johnson thereby became America's first holder of black slaves for life." John Henrik Clarke (Slave trade and slavery): "This was the first recorded civil case... establishing a person as a slave for life." Richard Asaolu (Slavery): "In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave." Wayne (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, now the bias comes out in full force.
Literally in the same sentence you quoted from "Black Yellow Dogs" Kinchlow says "(not for a crime)" and he also admits this earlier in the essay. Your purposefully ignoring "not for a crime" to benefit your own agenda is intellectually dishonest and against WP:POV. On top of that, since Kinchlow recognizes that people were sentenced to slavery as a result of crime before the JOhnson v PArker case, then there is NO reason accept that Johnson was the first slave holder.
Next you quote a book by Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa. What you quoted says "helps to establish slavery" but it doesn't assert that it "did" establish slavery. We already know there were many factors that caused the evolution of slavery but this wasn't the first nor only instance that established it. On top of that Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa confirms my other points that Mass. legally recognized slavery in 1641 and that "Connecticut gives statutory recognition to slavery" in 1650. Again, you ignore these points to try and stick to your claim that Johnson was the first slave owner in the English colonies, which is clearly not true.
Then you quote Adam Miller who wrote a ridiculously biased and factually wrong book with the purpose of characterizing historical facts as "myths" and trying to debunk them. In the section regarding Anthony Johnson, he says that white Europeans were not the ones to introduce slavery to America. You've already admitted that Spain had slavery in their colonies in 1560 which predates the Johnson case by 90 years. So right off the bat this author is clearly not an expert on the history of slavery in America. On top of that he uses "The Free Negro in Virginia" written by Jack Henderson Russell as his source besides Virginia land deeds. In his book, Russell describes John Punch as follows "...while 'the third, being a negro,' was reduced from his former condition of servitude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life." Russell references this case explaining how slavery became an established fact between 1640-1660. Russell doesn't stop there though, he goes on to explain the importance of Johnson v. Parker case by saying it introduced 3 propositions. The first being that there were negroes in the colony that were servants by indenture under the laws of servitude. The second being that some negro servants who became free also owned indentured servants of their own. And finally, He says it showed how difficult it was for Africans to escape being reduced to slavery. He doesn't recognize it as establishing slavery or for being the first of anything, so clearly Adam Miller ignored the majority of the content in his own source to suit his personal narrative. Miller was debunked by his own source, how embarrassing.
I don't even need to touch on John Clarke since he qualifies his statement with the words "civil case". Interesting to know that Clarke referenced Toppin who asserted that John Punch was a slave due to the ruling in the Punch Case but doesn't mention anything about John Punch in his book. Bit of a bias maybe?
And lastly, we have Richard Asaolu who, like Sweet, contradicts your quoted statement in the preceding sentence. Asaolu says "However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So if the courts legally recognized that at least one black person had been sentenced to slavery by 1640, how can Casor possibly be the first legally recognized slave in 1654? Now, maybe if you want to change "first legally recognized" to "first to have been found a slave all along" then that would be a more accurate and comprehensive phrasing based on all of the sources we've both provided but that still doesn't make Johnson the first slave owner in any way shape or form, since there were legally recognized slave owners before him like Hugh Gwyn who owned John Punch.
I also want to note that the sources you've listed that say Johnson v. Parker "helps establish" or "became the basis" for slavery don't actually cite any court cases, laws, or decisions that were directly influenced by it or directly referenced it. They merely assert those claims without explaining or proving how.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And he also misrepresents Berlin. Berlin does not claim that Johnson was the first of anything. Berlin notes that "the ambiguous language of 'slavery' and 'servitude' has become entangled in an all-encompassing discussion of the origins of racism in British North America. ... Admitting that little is known about the first arrivals and that only imperfectly, I have presumed them to be slaves in that they were sold by international slave traders and purchased by men familiar with the existence of African slavery in the Atlantic. That they were treated like servants in a society in which servants composed the vast majority of bound laborers and that some gained their freedom or aced as free men and women (as did servants) does not alter this presumption, since slavery took many different forms in early Virginia [emphasis added], as it did throughout the Atlantic world."
Wayne's claim "that slavery (contraband) was not legal" before the Casor case is simply bizarre. The legality of slavery had been accepted for centuries and nothing done by the Virginia or other legislatures had done anything to make it illegal. What the Massachusetts action in 1641 had done (and what later actions in other colonies would do -- or the earlier actions by the Dutch in New Netherland) was to simply acknowledge that local laws were needed to regulate the form slavery would take as it expanded and evolved in the colonies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:25, 14 September 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.