Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
5:2 diet
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This issue concerns wording on the 5:2 diet page. Another Editor has a very particular point of view which (in my opinion) is being forced onto the article without neutrality. The Editor refuses to compromise. The issues center on two (related) parts of the article: 1) The first (defining) sentence currently reads: "The 5:2 diet, also written as 5/2 diet, is a fad diet[1] which involves ...". I disagreed with the word 'fad' here and removed it for two reasons: 1) This is an opinion that many would disagree with so should not define the concept (it can instead be debated in the text) and 2) By definition, we cannot know that a recent phenomenon is a fad until it has come and gone (e.g., the automobile could have incorrectly been called a 'fad' when it was invented). By definition, a fad is ""A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time". Similarly, a "fad diet" is "a reducing diet that enjoys temporary popularity". We do not (yet) know if it is temporary, therefore cannot yet say whether or not it is a fad. Therefore, I removed the word 'fad' but ZarlanTheGreen kept re-introducing it, refusing to acknowledge that this is not a universal perspective. I maintain that including 'fad diet' is equivalent to something like 'proven diet' in the sense that the adjective enforces a disputed claim. Put simply, 'diet' alone is fine and neutral. In the spirit of compromise, I added "The 5:2 diet, also written as 5/2 diet, is a controversial diet. Some claim the diet is effective, while others argue that it is a fad." but ZarlanTheGreen refused this too. 2) The Evidence section is very incomplete. I added an entire balanced paragraph citing various scientific studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5:2_diet&diff=589052247&oldid=589051767), which Zarlan kept deleting.
We have talked this through on the talk page and I tried various alternatives but ZarlanTheGreen will not compromise. How do you think we can help? Please help talk through how the article can be worded appropriately. Summary of dispute by ZarlanTheGreenThe discussion in the talk page has barely begun, and already a DRN is asked for... I see no problem in it, that could possibly warrant a DRN, at such an early stage. The 5:2 diet being called a fad diet is verified by reliable sources. No valid reason has been presented, as to why it isn't one. I have tried to do my best to point out the issues, and what Freeranging intellect needs to clarify in his/her arguments and what evidence he/she needs to present, yet I have just been labelled as biased and unwilling to compromise.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 5:2 diet discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Initial comments(edit conflict)Looking through the discussion, there seems to be two main sources by the NHS quoted, both giving slightly differing views. The main one around this dispute seems to be this one. Reading through it, it seems to indicate the diet may have benefits. Can either party find any more sources? I have also spotted this saying it is a fad, and this which is a balanced article saying both sides. The other thing I am interested knowing is if either party has a WP:COI, either with the book, or the diet. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As we consider whether there is any scientific evidence (which could be included in the evidence section of the article), the very NHS article that Zarlan loves mentions some: "But since this article was originally written in January 2013 we have been alerted to research, led by Dr Michelle Harvie, which did look at the 5:2 model. In one study carried out in 2010 the researchers did find that women placed on a 5:2 diet achieved similar levels of weight loss as women placed on a calorie-controlled diet. They also experienced reductions in a number of biological indicators (biomarkers) that suggest a reduction in the risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. A further study in 2012 suggested that the 5:2 model may help lower the risk of certain obesity-related cancers, such as breast cancer. The increasing popularity of the 5:2 diet should lead to further research of this kind." My question is: Why does Zarlan not want this perspective on the page? Freeranging intellect (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Solution #1From the sources brought up so far. I feel the sources are not really relevant overall, but I would like to suggest a compromise :
<quote>One study has found that females on the 5:2 diet achieved short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet [9], However, there is no evidence how the 5:2 diet affects long-term weight loss. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"[10]</quote> --Mdann52talk to me! 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, to draw on both of your views.... <quote>There is some evidence that 5:2 diet can achieve short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet, in females [14]. However, there is no data on how safe or healthy, even a short term use of the diet is, nor how good it is for weight loss in the long term[15]. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"[16]</quote>. This draws on both the view that it helps in the short term, with a reference that it may not be as good in the long term. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"You have already included a 'fad diet' reference so those first few words are redundant and unnecessary."
DRN Coordinator's Note: I have not read this whole thread so it may well be that the current discussion is progressing, in which case you are free to continue if all parties, including the moderator, wish to do so. However, if this discussion is not working, for some reason, then interested parties may want to consider an WP:RFC or formal WP:MEDIATION. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I feel that Zarlan's is the most appropriate, down to sourcing etc. I suggest the following is inserted:
It seems that it presents a balanced viewpoint, referring to how it compares to similar diets and is neutrally worded. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
References
|
Ghassanids
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I believe the introductory paragraph of the page misrepresented a source, which in itself is neither reliable, authoritative nor specialised on the subject matter. Upon correcting the section to better represent the source, my edit was reverted. The user also provided a highly unreliable source (a book on Arabic terms) as proof of the ethnic origin and history of the Ghassanid Arabs. I have provided further source, though I don'tknow how to cite them in the text. The user also makes unsourced claims. The dispute relates to whether the Ghassanids were Hellenised or not, whether they were "South Arabians", "Arabs" or "Bedouins". The evolution of the word "Arab" since the late bronze age (late antiquity in this discussion) also presents a challange. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion of sources in talk page. I feel this has reached a stalemate on many issues, with failure of the other user to acknowledge/recognise/understand my arguements. How do you think we can help? Facilitate more productive discission. Summary of dispute by LazyfoxxPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Two reliable sources show that Ghassanids were a South Arabian Christian people who migrated to the Levant where they were Hellenized and some inter-married with the local Roman Greek-Speaking communities of the Levant. The user who reverted did so under their belief that the sources are unreliable or misinterpreted, while both sources fit the criteria for WP:RS. The user also confuses the term Bedouin with Arab. In no sources presented are the Ghassanids referred to as Bedouins, yet the disputed edit made [here] asserts this claim. The user also added that the Ghassanids followed "Arabian Polytheism, later converting to Monophysitism Christianity, and then most converted to Islam" But there is no source provided that supports this claim that "most converted to Islam". On the contrary, here are a few sources showing that some Arab Christians of the Levant today actually descend from the Ghassanids who intermarried with the local population. [1][2][3][4] Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) References
Coordinators noteHi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Ghassanids talk page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Falkland Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Tabled_status_of_international_views
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview In a discussion on a Talk page, Kahastok declared I had engaged in "personal attacks" against him and that I was unable to be "civil." I was not aware of any such attacks but, out of an abundance of caution, immediately apologized for any perceived slights and then self-reported myself to ANI so the thread would not be derailed and, if necessary, I could be immediately sanctioned. (see: here). Drmies reviewed the discussion and informed me I had not made personal attacks. After this decision, I then returned to the talk discussion. Immediately upon my return, Kahastok again declared I had been engaging in personal attacks against him. At this point, having never engaged with Kahastok previously, I looked at his Talk page and edit history. I note that Jonathunder and others have previously cautioned him about attacking the motives of other editors and, while I want to AGF, it appears his repeated accusations of me making personal attacks - after being assured by third party admins that I am not - is a Talk derailment strategy he employs to shut-down discussions on edits he opposes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have (a) previously self-reported to ANI, and, (b) attempted to disengage from Kahastok by posting gentle "concluding" messages in the Talk page such as "I'm sure we'll both be interested in what others have to contribute now." These efforts only seem to further enrage Kahastok. How do you think we can help? Kahastok has previously declared he will not go to "the drama boards," but I hope, nonetheless, he might reconsider his Talk strategy and reframe it into a more collaborative approach if so advised by additional editors. Summary of dispute by KahastokPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Opening statement is not related to content. This is the second form of DR that BlueSalix that taken this to - plus ANI - and it's been open less than 36 hours (the other was an RFC, first opened less than three hours after the first post was made). None of them were necessary or beneficial. I have asked why and was told that I was going to turn the thing into "a dick-measuring contest" and that I was "part of a public diplomacy effort by one side or the other to suppress the appearance of [various things]". IOW, the only reason we are told we need DR is a personal attack. I reject the need for any DR at this stage in the proceedings, including the RFC, ANI and DRN. If we could just have a discussion, we might be able to reach consensus on our own. Insisting that we must instead do this in the pressure cooker of RFC or other dispute resolution, particularly when the only reason for it is founded on a personal attack, without even trying to get a consensus on our own, makes the whole thing much harder. Kahastok talk 07:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Falkland Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Tabled_status_of_international_views discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dharmachakra
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Devanampriya on 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview 1. I have provided a reliable source that states that the Dharmachakra is of hindu origin and incorporated it into a small part of the article body. 2. A second editor has been edit-warring, deleting this sourced content on the basis of his original research (focused on tangential issue), rather than directly-related WP:RS.
3. A third user originally supported hindu origin(thanked me for edit) and expanded content, but after several days of uncompromising opposition by second user, now just wants to end the discussion based on second user's refusal to reach consensus or make any compromise. I provided supplementary sources asserting hinduism's greater antiquity than buddhism. See hereand here. One American source directly states that Buddhism was an "outgrowth" of Hinduism. Despite this, second editor still relies on original research to contest Yan source assertion of hindu origin. Request recommendation on how to proceed in treating hindu origin content on dharmachakra article based on sources.
There are many other additional sources, which can be provided on arbitrator request, but the main point of blunting this original research assertion of "no hinduism then so no hindu origin" as some foregone conclusion or "mainstream majority scholarship view" has been served. The floating of a relatively new theory about Hinduism's age--despite the long-standing consensus among western and other scholars about how it's older than Buddhism--does not make Yan's dharmachakra view unreliable, since mainstream majority scholarship backs her up on the chronology. Refusal to see preponderant mainstream scholarship viewing hinduism as the oldest religion thereby opposing his offered sources is not a basis for stalling the process, or in laymen's terms WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thus for the second editor (JJ) to present his recent "theory" about buddhism being older than hinduism as controlling fact or "the truth" or the majority view is misleading to say the least. In contrast to his sources (all from the last 10 years demonstrating how this theory has yet to be validated and is still being tested--much like JJ's nordic dharmachakra fringe theory courtesy of Dr. Wolf-Dieter Storl - ethnobotanist), my sources run the gamut starting from the 1950s into the late 2000s. This demonstrates that the long-standing, preponderant, and continuous view among western and indian scholars of sanskrit, history, and religion has been that hinduism is older than buddhism, and that buddhism is in fact an offshoot of hinduism. Rather than a "limited minority", it is the preponderant majority (as shown above). It is not for the wiki-editor to use his presumed knowledge "of fact" against a scholar like Yan, but to cite a scholar discussing the dharmachakra, specifically contradicting Yan's hindu origin assertion on the dharmachakra. He has not done that--hence the validity of the charge of his Original Research WP:OR. I believe the article talk speaks for itself, and the editor's unwillingness to collaborate, only impose, and breach good faith through stealth edit warring.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extended discussion on talk over several days, Request for Comment How do you think we can help? Please assist us in determining how sourced content (1 sentence) on hindu origin should be treated in the "dharmachakra article". Summary of dispute by Joshua JonathanThe source in question states in a note that the Dharmachakra "is a Buddhist symbol of Hindu origin". At the time of the Buddha, 500 BCE, there was no Hinduism. Hinduism emerged as a "synthesis" of various traditions around the beginning of the CE; see
The sources provided by Devanampriya are unreliable c.q. do not support his claim; see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra; the "one American source" is a Time Magazine article from 1959, which is contradicted by contemporary scholarship:
The problem at stake here is WP:RS and WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by BladesmultiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't disagree with the edits by the either users. But what happens is, whenever Devanampriya adds anything similar to "dharmachakra is of Hindu origin", Joshua Jonathan would attribute it, either by adding that there wasn't such term "Hinduism" that time(which is similar to Buddhism term), or that he would add the other related/suggested origins. Which seems to be common in nature, especially when both users are concerned about promoting their knowledge. Joshua Jonathan later seeks for the credibility of the source, Devanampriya described. But if I was in the place, I would be just using other source. In fact some sources related to this page are being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But its very hard to consider that there will be a solution, since both editors like explained above are adamant for their versions. Either one has to be agreed, or the version that i propose would be.[3] or the latest.[4]Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Dharmachakra discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Criticisms of the theory of relativity
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by LCcritic on 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview (Second attempt after "badtoken" error prompt.) Quoted sources documenting relativity's philosophical basis in idealism, and criticism from realism are not allowed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Much discussion on various user talk pages besides the article talk page above and at "talk, philosophy of science (physics subsection)"; "talk, length contraction," and "talk, relativity of simultaneity." How do you think we can help? Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism. Summary of dispute by ParadoctorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sorry, my bad. Basically, LCcritic seems to understand relativity as saying that length contraction is a physical process, rather than the result of a change in reference system, and appears to have construed this as proof that relativity is an idealist theory. He tries to support the latter with a Gödel quote which states that relativity proves the Parmenidean view of change as an illusion. Summary of dispute by DVdmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sorry for being late with this. I didn't understand what would be on topic here. I hope the following complies. It looks like user LCcritic wants the article Criticism of the theory of relativity to mention that relativity is an idealist theory and he would source that with statements, made under various circumstances by Einstein, Gödel, and others. To me this looks like synthesis (wp:SYNTH), a form of original research (w:OR). In my opinion it could well be true that these authors held some idealistic views about some aspects of the world, but I see no way for such views to establish a criticism of the theory, which is the subject of the article. Such statement would therefore be essentially off-topic. On top of that, almost a century later, it seems that it is commonly agreed that relativity—on the contrary—is very much a realist theory. For example:[1]
DVdm (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ModoccLCcritic wants us to "Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism." I am certain there is material on philosophical criticism from realism, much of it older, that we could include with proper references. Perhaps the article on Criticism of the theory of relativity suffers from wp:recentism in that there existed prominent and relevant criticisms from the turn-of-the-century that have the same veracity that they did when raised, although they have not been presented well by us, nor have these been sustained because of a lack of an alternative theory and the current systematic bias which merely verifies precision of measurements, without reinterpretation, i.e. a new paradigm. That said, the other editors in this dispute excluded quotes provided by LCcritic in part because they were from primary sources interpreted by LCcritic and not by published secondary sources. --Modocc (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC) @Paradoctor, I am fairly sure LCcritic understands what coordinate changes are, for it means one is measuring within a different inertial frame of reference. For example, in two frames F and F', if rods are accelerated from being at rest from one frame to the other, then they are length contracting in one and expanding in length in the other due to deceleration, but we are rightly very skeptical of this consistent duplicity. Sometimes wp:truths are real, even if these are not adequately understood. --Modocc (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Criticisms of the theory of relativity discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
MODERATOR NEEDED please. ---- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (volunteer DRN coordinator)
Opening commentsThis dispute seems to center on sources, or a lack of them, provided by User:LCcritic. Have you found anything at all that could help? I have done a brief search, which has turned up little or nothing of the like. WP:NOR is an important policy when looking at many types of articles, and I am afraid that no solution will be found to include this unless it has been mentioned in independent sources. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I would bring the focus back to my statements above, "Further... and theorizing that their (physical objects) dimensions and the distances between them contract in length as differently observed (as above.)" This is the most basic criticism of relativity, which is, as I have said, ubiquitous but not allowed because it is not mainstream. The idealism vs realism issue lies squarely in relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length as so measured from various frames. That would, for instance, allow the famous (thought experiment) 20 foot pole to fit inside a 10 foot barn. It would also allow Earth's diameter to contract as measured variously from relativistic frames, contracting in proportion to the velocity and in the direction of travel of various frames. The only "explanation" for such obviously impossible phenomena is that there is no real world, i.e., that "it all depends on how you look at it" (to use the common vernacular.) This is in fact idealism. Here is the full text of the Einstein quote [enclosed], clearly showing that he denies a real, objective world independent of observation:"[**“The physical world is real.”** That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does “hypothesis” mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity.** The above statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless,** as if one said: “The physical world is cock-a-doodle-doo.” It appears to me that the “real” is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole), whose monstrous importance lies only in the fact that I can do certain things in it and not certain others. This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead ... I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist.]" (My ** emphasis.)LCcritic (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Ps; I don't have the full text of the Godel article on relativity's idealism. If it can be found on the net I would appreciate a link. But basic prolific criticism of SR, as above, does not depend on Godel's philosophy. LCcritic (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I can only assume that you are Paradoctor, since you didn't sign. I hope that your opinion that "dispute resolution has run its course" is not the the final decision here. In reply to your inappropriate personal attacks: I was called an "assistant professor" under the counsel of my academic adviser (the full professor) and with the approval of the Dean. If you don't approve of the title, "professor,"... well that isn't the issue here, is it? It is not about "my position." It is about the criticism of relativity from the perspective of the philosophy of realism, as defined a few times above. Relativity allows no criticism. That should not dictate Wikipedia's policy of included sources. LCcritic (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: Just so everyone knows, this discussion may be automatically closed by our archiving bot. Discussions here at DRN have a 2-week life span. After that, if a 24-hour period passes in which no edit is made to the discussion then it it is subject to being archived by the bot. The lead volunteer here, Mdann52, may avoid that by resetting the date in the "Do not archive until" invisible header at the top of the listing, but should do so only if substantial progress towards resolution is being made. If that's not the case, then the listing ought to be manually or automatically closed and referred on to some other form of content dispute resolution, or merely referred back to the article talk page for further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator)
The issue is that I am not allowed to edit in changes that contrast observer/frame dependent measurement, different for each observer as per SR, with the the unchanging measurement of proper length of objects/distances from frames at rest with whatever is measured. The intent is to clarify that physical objects and distances do not shrink when measured from various relativistic frames, i.e., that they would only appear to shrink. I made this point above, and still hope for resolution of this content-based issue. From the length contraction article lead: "In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." As I said, it does not say "an apparent decrease in length." If it did, the whole issue would be clarified, i.e, disambiguated. May I add "apparent" to that statement? If so, may I then edit the "Criticism..." article to reflect that difference?LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
SR theory insists that physical objects and distances do contract as so measured to contract. The "proper length" article stands in conflict with the length contraction article and the relativity of simultaneity article. A 20 foot pole will not in fact fit into a 10 foot barn under any circumstance, for instance. Nor would the distance between stars contract in proportion to the speed of an interstellar traveler, as SR insists. Finally realism should be allowed fair representation as a "criticism of the theory of relativity" in that article, i.e., that the intrinsic length of objects is not observer-dependent. LCcritic (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I repeat: I was not asking the two of you involved in the dispute... This is not personal, as you insist... "you just demonstrated your ignorance..."... again presenting your opinion as a fact. Study the old standard train length example as a case of "who sees what, when, from what frame" determining the length of the train... and the changing length of the pole/ladder as it shrinks to half its "proper length" so as to fit into the barn. Realism is in fact a philosophy of legitimate criticism of SR, the latter being an observer dependent theory of changing lengths of objects... and the distances between. Your lack of familiarity with the philosophy of science in which realism is a legitimate criticism of SR's observer dependency does not make your statement factual when you say "... you don't have a criticism to add to the article..." I beg for a reply to the content of my criticism from Mdann52. LCcritic (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Bongaigaon
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Just to update you that photos uploaded by User:Simanta5000 listed below is not his own work, all the photos have different owners. He violated the copywrite of our community page File:View of Chilarai flyover bongaigaon.jpg File:Mayapuri Cinema, Bongaigaon City.jpg File:Bongaigaon Metropolis, Assam, India – 783380.jpg File:NewBongaigaonRailwayJn.jpg Have you tried to resolve this previously? Requested to use original work . No editing and deletion of owner stamp from the photos How do you think we can help? These pictures are private picture, so please remove Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief – less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bongaigaon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Chikungunya
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya [22] happening in India tried using Indian Traditional Medicine by Government Hospitals and Central Council Research Institutions. I am not advising anything here. I am using the source as the document [23] prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Government of India. To make the content neutral, i have started with "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, ..." which was also taken from the source. Page 60 of [24] source provides the observations and benefits of the used traditional medicines. For many days, User Jmh649 said the above source is not reliable and removed the content continuously. Since another user WhatamIdoing also supported the content, User Jmh649 stopped removing the content. [25] But now User Jmh649 is trying to place the content with certain removal to a negligible and unrelated section called Society and culture in the article page instead of placing in the Treatment section and refusing consistently. I feel there is discrimination shown by allopathic people against Indian Traditional Medical System and intentionally trying to hide facts about them from Wikipedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to explain about the source details. But still User Jmh649 is not convinced. How do you think we can help? I have used 2 lines which are directly taken from the source. User Jmh649 stopped removing the content since another supporter user WhatamIdoing supported this. I believe people here will provide an unbiased and neutral view on this so that User Jmh649 will accept to put the content in Treatment section. Summary of dispute by Jmh649Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The source this user is trying to use is not very good. This is more or less the consensus on the talk page. While one might be able to use it to say traditional medicine is used (which is a social and culture issue). The source does not support any benefit from said traditional medicine. We would need better sources for that and in fact the better sources say there is no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Although a reference work trying to tell doctors what they ought to prescribe might omit such things, I believe that encyclopedia articles are incomplete if they do not describe all of the treatments that are commonly used, including treatments that are ineffective, silly, or harmful, regardless of their status as "conventional" or "alternative". Ineffective treatments are still "treatments", not "social issues", and should therefore be described in the ==Treatment== section. It may be worth noticing that the section heading is an all-inclusive word, Treatment, rather than a restrictive phrase like Effective treatment or Treatments supported by evidence. The relevant guideline says this section should "include any type of currently used treatment, such as diet, exercise, medication, palliative care, physical therapy, psychotherapy, self care, surgery, watchful waiting, and many other possibilities". In India, Ayurvedic care definitely comes under the heading of "any type of currently used treatment". That said, the description in this case should not claim that these Ayurvedic treatments are effective. The original opening phrase in the disputed paragraph, which says that no satisfactory treatment exists, should be retained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ian_FurstThe author is making the claim that a botanical remedy, apparently common to India, is a potential treatment for Chikungunya based on a single source document published by the government of India. The source document has several major flaws that in my opinion preclude it from being a secondary source, a hard standard on medical articles especially with respect to treatment. The fact that it's published by the government should have no bearing on the situation.
In short, the document would fall far short of any standard for publication, even as a primary source in a reputable scientific journal. But because it's published by the government, the author is making the claim it is a secondary and reliable source. As a source that most of the population uses the botanical treatment, they simply state, "About 65% of population in India is reported to use Ayurveda and medicinal plants to help meet their primary health care needs and the safety of this vibrant tradition is attributed to time tested use and textual reference." (emphasis added), but it's generalized to all botanical treatments, unreferenced and unrelated to Chikungunya specifically. The "textual reference" is in reference to ancient texts dating back thousands of years. I don't believe the document passes basic principals as a reliable source for Wikipedia and should not be included. Ian Furst (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AxlPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The source that Satishmls describes is published by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. This in itself makes me question the impartiality of the authors. The document has a list of authors/editors who are "doctors". Whether they are really medical doctors is questionable, but I am prepared to assume good faith on this matter. The document makes a number of claims about ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya, but on closer inspection, these claims are based only on case series data. This is a low quality of evidence. I have searched for other evidence on PubMed to investigate chikungunya and ayurvedic/siddha treatments. However I could not find any PubMed-indexed articles about this. Regarding Doc James' claim that the document is a primary source, I believe that this is unclear. At least some of it is primary, but it is plausible that some of its content might be secondary. However, in this case I believe that the distinction between primary and secondary is less relevant than the low quality of evidence adduced. LeadSongDog's claim of an argument from authority is not relevant here. The "argument from authority" is a philosophical stance used when considering "the truth". With medical articles, we are not trying to establish "the truth" but rather what is reported in reliable sources. In summary: I believe that the document could be used as a reliable source to indicate that ayurvedic/siddha treatment is used in India to treat chikungunya. However this must be tempered with an indication that evidence is weak—although we can't actually write that because it is WP:OR—we can say that only case series data is provided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LeadSongDogDocJames is too kind, this is a terrible source. That several officials with doctorates have their names attached does nothing to change that fact. There is no evidence that it reflects "a reputation for fact checking", nor authorial impartiallity, nor scientific rigour. It advocates the use of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic substances as drugs without any kind of accompanying discussion of their toxicity! Wikipedia should not do anything that might lend credibility to such sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Coordinators noteHi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator) Chikungunya discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
There is another PubMed article [26] which describes the usage and properties of Nilavembu Kudineer in treatment of Chikungunya fever. Sathishmls (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC) There is an article, a clinical study published in Indian Journal of Traditional Medicine on 'Siddha way to cure Chikungunya' - link [27] (Specified as Andrographis paniculata [Nilavembu]) Sathishmls (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You all people are asking sources to claim that these ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya are 100% effective which even i am not claiming. I believe that the information of these treatments which are promoted by Indian Government itself at present, is definitely valuable to be included in the treatment section of the Chikungunya article. Sathishmls (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The report [28] is specifically towards Chikungunya, is reviewed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (The Apex body in India for the Formulation, Coordination and Promotion of Biomedical Research), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (The Authority for setting of standards for drugs, pharmaceuticals and healthcare devices and technologies in India) and National Institute of Virology (Designated as WHO H5 reference Laboratory for SE Asia region). I am adding what is given in the reliable source and it does not claim to be 100% efficient either. Sathishmls (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Hi, I am coming here for advice on how to resolve a roadblock between me and another editor with whom I have previously worked with cordially and successfully on other articles. I have been unable to make progress on the article for almost two months, as the other editor insists on reverting back to an earlier version without commenting on my carefully considered individual edits. I have stopped editing the page for days or weeks at a time in order to allow adequate time for explanations of the continued bulk reversions, but sadly this does not appear to have had the desired effect. What baffles me is that the article edits themselves are not particularly sensitive - the only really sensitive area has been permanently left on the talk page ([29]) until this roadblock is resolved. All I want to do is improve the article, taking into account the thoughts of all other editors. I feel the above has in effect placed a brick wall in front of me, without any explanation. I have tried and tried to assume good faith, so I put it down to laziness on the part of Greyshark, particularly as the edits themselves are really not particularly contentious. In the box below is the timeline of the interactions / roadblocking so far from my perspective:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking on the article talk page, and on the users' talk pages How do you think we can help? Any ideas to break the roadblock would be greatly appreciated. Summary of dispute by Greyshark09Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Plot SpoilerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Devyani Khobragade incident
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User:Bluerasberry posted the complete court records in the article. Had removed these documents and provided my reasons for removal in the Talk page. But the other user is not convinced and reinserted the problem images.
Have discussed on Talk page. But, other editor not convinced and reverted the edits. How do you think we can help? Advice if WP policy allow editor to post or link original court documents within WP articles Summary of dispute by BluerasberryThe article is about an arrest and indictment. I posted the indictment (a court document and primary source) and a letter (another primary source) which was part of a related press release to Commons and then posted them in the article as illustrative media. The inclusion of these two files into the article is the subject of the dispute - see the diff. Just like other media in Commons such as photos, non-text media which are primary sources can be used to supplement articles so long as they are not cited as sources of data. The article does not cite these documents. I know that WP:PRIMARY says not to do original research or derive information from court documents. No one should! However, since this article is about an arrest and an indictment, and especially since the indictment is mentioned repeatedly in many secondary sources, it is helpful to have it included in the article. The relevance of these documents is not disputed. The issue is whether court documents are allowed to be shared through Wikipedia. I assert that they can, so long as they are not used to source text to the article. Devyani Khobragade incident![]() Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
![]()
Thanks everyone for commenting. It seems at this point, these are the standing assertions:
Prodigyhk, why would you say that the indictment itself is not neutral? This document was produced by a grand jury and I have trouble imagining what could be NPOV about this document. Do you feel that this document is insulting or giving misleading information about Khobragade? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
MrScorch6200 and Keithbob, I feel that Prodigyhk and I are having a good exchange but we are having a bit of trouble understanding each other. Do either of you have any advice on how we can isolate the nature of the dispute, consider it in light of all the policies we have named and any others that might be relevant, and then find some resolution? I am not ready to say that anyone has given up and I am happy with the pace and progress of this so far. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: It is unlikely that Keithbob will be participating in this discussion further, as he is taking an extended wikibreak. MrScorch6200 is now the lead volunteer handling this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator) Preparation for RfCProdigyhk, I do not see any Wikipedia policy which I feel prohibits including this content. At the same time, I have never seen this kind of content included elsewhere, nor have I been able to find any prior discussion on this issue. I would like to start an Rfc. Below is a draft of what I would post on the Khobragade talk page. Could you please look this over and make changes as you like? After you approve, we can move it to the Khobragade article and start the request for content. Also, sometimes it is nice to be ready for an RfC, so I thought that I would ask - How is your schedule these next few days? Is it okay with your schedule to start an RfC soon? How do you feel about my starting an RfC? Does that seem reasonable to you? Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to change text in this box, or just comment below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Bluerasberry will review and get back in a day. Suggest we submit it on Friday morning. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Bluerasberry have made some changes to keep focus on the dispute which is the inclusion of court documents in an Wikipedia article. Please review. Let me know your thoughts.
|
Trabzonspor and 1461 Trabzon Articles
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I would like some of your time and take a look at these articles Revision History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1461_Trabzon In this article if you just look at the version before mine, you will see that it is written in a very offensive language and really bad english. ( I know mine is not perfect also but there must be some kind of stability ;) ) It stayed there for a really long time then I edited the article. Now, please take look at this page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trabzonspor&offset=20131124214707&action=history As you can see, the version before mine was really offensive and I changed it and wrote the reason for it but only after 5 days it was changed and even on the edit page, the user is offensive. I tried to contact the user about this issue but got no reply. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeoRetro) Today, I decided to write you because I am really frusturated about this issue and I can't surf on one of my favorite internet pages. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to contract the user via "talk page" got no reply. How do you think we can help? By getting involved and making a final decision about the articles, If I am wrong about the articles that I have stated above I would like to know the reason, not just "Ughhhh, trying to mess up the page" and if am right, I would also like to know the reason of the users aggresive writings. Thanks for your time. Summary of dispute by NeoRetroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Trabzonspor and 1461 Trabzon Articles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|