Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 113

Summary of dispute by Lady Lotus

There is no need for this. The consensus was clear and Lapadite thinks that ONLY a guidline change is relevent to remove the awards giving consensus no thought. I'd also like to add that Lapadite keeps saying that the awards from the IMBd page are left off and IMDb is not a reliable source - they get awards wrong all the time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lugnuts

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles discussion

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles Here is a more direct link to the discussion than the one provided above. It should be noted that the discussion there is less than two days old so the conversation is hardly "lengthy and redundant" - BTW a RFC should have been the next step. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and there's clear consensus to show that Lapadite77 is clearly in the wrong. I'm not going to waste my time with this pitiful attempt to get around an obvious WP:3RR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Listing of porn award nominations

There's also this discussion about listing nominations for notable and non-notable awards. Furthermore, the policy on Notability states rather clearly that it does NOT apply to content, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article. As long as there is sufficient sourcing for an award, it can be included in the article. This is seemingly acceptable for mainstream actors and their articles with overwhelming emphasis on Bollywood actors. Many of which have SEPARATE articles just to list their awards and nominations. This double standard is biased, prejudicial, and harmful to the Project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sufficient sourcing as in secondary, reliable sources and not just the said awards website or organizations website, yes? If that's the case, then the award should have it's own article when it meets GNG. Outside of that, I don't think awards should be present. The whole reason why the Chlotrudis Award articles were deleted because it lacked secondary, reliable sourcing. I get that notability doesn't apply to article content but at the same time why have a vast list of awards that carry no significance to the person's career? If I made an award Lady Lotus' Film Awards and created a website for it, are you saying it could go on a person's awards page? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are talking about figments of your imagination like the Lady Lotus' Film Awards, then yes, I agree that they are not worthy of inclusion in the article. But this dispute is over industry awards that are not AVN or XBIZ. As far as their importance, I think the quote in Tanya Tate's article sums it up nicely, "If you are more popular with the fans, companies are more likely to book you for their production," "Being nominated for awards help build your recognition with your fan base. People that win male and female performer of the year are generally solid consistent talent that are open to many 'levels,' and some of these performers already have higher basic rates than others."^[1]

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was using it as an example of every Tom, Dick and Harry award out there. That anyone can create an award and call it notable or relevant to someones career. And Huffington Post isn't a reliable source. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:21, 13 April 2015 (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.

Summary of dispute by Detellett

Talk:Andrew Rosindell discussion

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

Summary of dispute by PeterTheFourth

Hi! I think crewed is slightly better wording than manned- it's more current, understandable language in my opinion. 'Man' strikes me as a very odd verb. NASA seems to be using the term crewed interchangeably with manned. I reverted twice to preserve crewed partly because there has been offsite co-ordination to change the wording, which does not seem in line with Wikipedia policy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: It is very disingenuous to call preservation of the initial wording a change. From the 20th of February, 2015, to the 9th of April, 2015, the wording was 'crewed' and 'uncrewed' with no objection. It is my understanding that the wording angered members of some sort of offsite forum and there began a campaign to change it, to prove some sort of point- hence my resistance to this effort. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rhoark

Raising concerns about brigading or canvassing in the dispute resolution is a red herring. This is something that has previously been discussed at WikiProject Spaceflight. There was no consensus for the formation of a specific guideline, but there was consensus that it was undesirable to have mass purging of "manned" from historical articles as was attempted. Talk page consensus is against the change. Disregarding anyone apparently canvassed or counter-canvassed, there is unanimity against the change. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: What is disingenuous is calling an edit without consensus the status quo because it escaped notice for a while. Manned/unmanned terminology has been used on the page since its creation in 2005. Rhoark (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by aflyingkitten

DISCLAIMER:First time doing any of this so sorry if I mess it up.

As far as I can see, the term "Manned" and "Unmanned" in almost all cases in the article was changed to "Crewed" and "Uncrewed" with little to no discussion as some editors believe "Manned" and "Unmanned" are somehow gender biased (Apologies if I misunderstood). Personally I don't believe dispute resolution is required as I haven't seen any real incivility in the discussion besides some debatable assertions (Brigading, SPA). I haven't made any changes to the article myself but personally would support the use of the word "manned", since it is overwhelmingly the word used in the sources and historically in spaceflight. Furthermore, besides one example in the American Heritage dictionary , I can't find another dictionary that supports "Uncrewed" being a word.

In summary, I think that any dispute is simply a disagreement over whether the word "manned" only applies to men, or is gender biased, instead of simply meaning "carrying or operated by one or more persons" in a similar way that "Manpower" and "Management" are not gender exclusive terms.

(Also, unrelated but is anyone else getting the title of the section weirdly? mine says .22Men.22)

As I've said on the talk, I hope this doesn't get heated, as frankly, it's not really that big of a deal, and there's no need for anyone to attack one another over it. Aflyingkitten (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stormwatch

Summary of dispute by JustinTime55

Summary of dispute by Onel5969

Hi. Like another editor, this is my first time in a dispute resolution, so apologies if I don't do it correctly. At some point in the recent history, an editor took it upon themselves to change the terminology in the article. Reverting and re-reverting began to take place, and uncivil terms were used by editors on both sides of the argument ("brigade", "ridiculous"). Not sure a dispute resolution is needed, as I believe that per wiki guidelines if a consensus cannot be reached the status quo should be preserved. However, in looking over the talk page, I believe that a consensus had been reached (to maintain that status quo - but then I'm not an admin). The research done by several editors showed that the historic term, and that used in the vast majority of material was unmanned. Another search raises concern over the actual term uncrewed as a real word. Anyway, that's my .02. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MeanMotherJr

Hello. This is also my first time participating in a dispute resolution, so bear with me. I made the edits changing back "crewed" to "manned" seeing that although the initial change was made in attempt to promote gender-neutral language, "manned" itself is not only gender-neutral, but the term used historically and in the present the vast majority of the time (6:1 ratio). There isn't much of a debate to this; if one looks at the Google search results for "definition of manned", they will see that it is indeed gender-neutral according to nearly all dictionaries ("(especially of an aircraft or spacecraft) having a human crew.") https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition%20of%20manned

The change from "manned" to "crewed" seemed unnecessary and seemed to promote an agenda similar to the language manipulation seen in "womyn" and "congressperson". I don't believe Wikipedia should become a hugbox for people with a specific political point of view; it should use the terms that are either historically correct and/or used by officials (in this case, NASA).

Talk:Moon landing#.22Men.22_vs._.22People.22 discussion

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. I will comment that the editor filing this request has not notified the other identified editors, and notifying all of the editors on their talk pages is required. I will also comment on one apparent minor misconception. One editor says that dispute resolution may not be required because there has not been any apparent incivility. This Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for the resolution of content disputes, not conduct disputes, and civility is required. Incivility is not merely not a precondition to settle issues here, but incivility may result in dispute resolution threads being "failed". Please notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I had misunderstood and instead posted this on the article talk page. I'll sort that now. LadyLeitMotif (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (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.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Summary of dispute by Jay-Sebastos

Talk:Russ Martin discussion

OP is a newbie who doesn't appear to have read any WP:PAG, certainly not WP:RS. Close this and send fish products. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (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.

Summary of dispute by WWGB

Summary of dispute by Frickeg

The dispute has been resolved. Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jihad Dib discussion

Coordinator's note: Notices given, discussion is adequate. Parties: Please provide short summaries in the spaces provided above and wait for a volunteer to open the case for discussion before beginning other discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

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.

Summary of dispute by Jim 1138

I agree with PeterDaley72 I seriously doubt the "member beliefs" would be anything more than the Church's own propaganda. If members' beliefs are to be included they should be by a reputable second source, likely not involved with the Church and definitely selected for the purpose of a white-wash. Jim1138 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shii

I don't have time to participate in this discussion and I won't be editing the page in the near future, but I think this statement by GIOSCali is misleading:

"What members of the Providence group claim to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that members believe."

Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature. We have not only news media but also academic sources that explain the group's actual teachings. Sometimes primary sources can be used to support claims about what a group says about itself, but I would trust the primary sources surrounding this group about as far as I could throw them. Shii (tock) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

By request, here is the secondary source I was referring to. (Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's journals of record and has very high standards)

"Cult aimed at elite in 50 universities". Asahi Shimbun. 2006-07-31. Ex-members say recruiting on campus started on Jung's orders in the mid-1990s. "It's a fraudulent activity, as they conceal the group's identity in luring members," a lawyer said. An ex-member in his 30s said he and other cultists were deprived of sleep--forced to work late into the night and then wake up early to listen to Jung's videotaped preaching.

Shii (tock) 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PeterDaley72

The material suggested for inclusion as "member beliefs" is an attempt to whitewash the article to some extent by presenting "beliefs" the group only claims publically. The selected quotes are in contrast to material included in the in-house book from which cherry-picked quotes have been selected that the requesting contributor is requesting insertion of, material which he/she is strangely reluctant to include which I think is a pretty clear indication of an agenda not inline with the point of this site. The suggested insertions are also in stark contrast to teachings and sermons published by the group on closed forums which show that members believe that the convicted serial rapist leader is the messiah (as mentioned in the article), that he has supernatural powers, that the Holocaust was a wonderful event, and that you will die if you don't obey the leader etc. The material presented as "member beliefs" is simply how the leadership would like their criminal organisation viewed by outsiders and potential victims. I don't really see any value in presenting propaganda as fact. I have been researching this group for 12 years now over at www.jmscult.com. I appeared in one of the sourced media links as an expert on the subject and contributed to several other media reports with more in the works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM

Regarding the accusation that I operate a site denigrating the Providence group, my site (www.jmscult.com) provides factual information about a criminal organization that operates worldwide and is led by a convicted serial rapist. One relevant section of my site documents news reports: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg2196#msg2196 To denigrate means to criticise unfairly. I'm really not sure it's possible to degenerate a Hitler-praising convicted serial rapist/cult leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDaley72 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

Summary of dispute by John Carter

I was wondering if I could add myself to the list of "parties" here, given that User:Shii, who is almost certainly one of the best "topic-area experts" we have around wikipedia in this field, has indicated he won't be participating, and having someone to at least try to partially fill the gap in his absence seems reasonable to me. It seems to me, based on what I can see, that there are basically two questions here: (1) the statements of belief by individual members of the community in question, and (2) statements of belief by independent outside sources, presumably in contact with active and/or former members. In my history of dealing with articles about religious beliefs, which is rather extensive, I have always gotten the impression that the members go out of there way to emphasize the beliefs which will help them get positive reception by the community, and downplay and/or refuse to talk about beliefs which have less public appeal. It seems to me that this matter might be one of the points of consideration here. One of the other points is exactly how to phrase the statements of belief. In most religious traditions, we already have, or should have, separate articles or subsections of articles describing most of them, and simply linking to them is generally enough, except in the cases where such sections don't yet exist or where there are unusual variations on them unique to the group. Lastly, there is a regrettable but real question about who even the best independent reliable sources get their information from. "Happy campers" do not as a rule run to the media to talk about the problems of the groups they are involved in, dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are. Anyway, just a few ideas, but I would welcome information about whether there would be any objections to my adding myself as a party. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Providence (religious_movement) discussion

This post is intended not to initiate discussion, but as a reference point for volunteers as to why the case should be taken to dispute resolution:

there exists reliable secondary sourcing that contradicts current representations of the Providence group's theology on Wikipedia; these include sources on Wikipedia's list of reliable Korean sources such as KBS and Yonhap News(i.e. http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/Press/YIBW_showPress.aspx?contents_id=RPR20091125022100353 ) as well as others not yet on Wikipedia's list such as Monthly Politic and Economic, Jemin Ilbo and Jemin Ilbo. In some cases these are mentioned on third party lists of Korean media references.

The proposal is in regard to theology, not practices of the group.

GIOSCali (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is her/his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page — {{subst:drn-notice|Providence (religious movement)}} — ~~~~ — can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note pointing here. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some fixes to this page. See page history. I posted notifications on PeterDaley72 and Shii's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, apologies in forgetting to notify, thanks Jim1138 for helping. As a courtesy I will also drop notifications.GIOSCali (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per his request, I've added John Carter as a party and moved his request and opening statement into the more usual location for such matters, above. If he wishes to modify and specify that statement now that he's been added, he should feel free to do so. At this point we're waiting for a volunteer to "take" the case and open it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

Would someone please take this on? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening by moderator

OK everyone, I'll take this on. I will note for the record that I am uninvolved in this case, I am a new DRN moderator, My goal here is to see if I can help you all to reach a mutually satisfying resolution of the disagreement above. I will remind everyone to focus on content, not contributors and to remain civil at all times. To cut to the chase, as this issue has languished and there has already been some discussion, I would like everyone here to make a second statement below outlining 1) what you see as the single biggest issue and 2) what compromises or concessions YOU are willing to make in the name of reaching a solution. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• To that end, my initial review suggests that it would behoove everyone to consider the following:

1. Current and proposed sources; do they meet WP:RS and WP:V? Given that this is a religious topic, remember the adage, "verifiability is not 'truth'." I want to see debates linked to WP guidelines and policies - narrowly defined (subsection links or direct quotes please, not the whole page!)
2. Structure of article: Do new sections/subsections need to be created or existing ones removed? Can you show me examples from religious articles that are FA-class that use the structure you propose? Why will that work to settle this dispute?
3. Tone: Can NPOV phrasing be improved upon?

Hope that helps structure the debate. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Statement by GIOSCali

Thank you Montanabw for taking on the case, and to the other editors for also taking part this discussion. I would happily welcome John Carter to the discussion.

Primary Concern

My primary concern with the article is the incomplete representation of the subject matter itself. Some important RS secondary sources are missing altogether and need to be included. Others are misrepresented to a certain degree WP:NPOV WP:ALIVE. I think the root of the problem could be that most sources on the subject are in Korean and potentially difficult to access for the English speaking community.

In conjunction with the debate regarding the differing opinions on the group's theology, I am including an example of a source with brief summaries to illustrate just how the deep divide is between the current representations of the subject matter and additional information available. Rather than make this post exceedingly long, you can view additional samples on my sandbox at User:GIOSCali/sandbox

1. "JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)
   It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article)
   
   

As for misused RS sources, please also see my sandbox page.

Potential Compromise

While not ideal for the majority of cases, per the exception for religious articles under WP:CRITICISM, I believe the best compromise in this situation is to add a criticism section for this article. Due to the criminal proceedings surrounding the subject, opinions have become exceedingly polarized and would be difficult to integrate. Also, this simple shift in structure would be a natural solution in addressing WP:NPOV phrasing(i.e. one religious leader claims that CGM believes...) Also, sources like those above with relevant information should be added to the article.

• Intelligent Design is an FA-class religious article that features a criticism section. I think it is a good point of reference for our purposes, as opinions surrounding ID are also extremely polarized, making integration difficult.

GIOSCali (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, a "criticism" section doesn't seem a bad idea, and, so far as I can tell, maybe a "controversy" section, dealing with the various controversies. Under the circumstances, I might also consider moving the "History" section up in the article, possibly to the second section. Particularly regarding schismatic groups like this one, the history tends to influence the theology a bit more than the other way around, and giving greater attention to the history often makes it flow a bit easier for the average reader. The possible "controversy" section, if there is to be one, might be made a subsection of the history section, maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Statement by Shii

I see no reason to compromise here. The sources translated on User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this. Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A broad statement like this is not quite what I was hoping for. I am not yet ready to go digging in assorted sandboxes until everyone has had a chance to comment on the article itself. While I have looked at the article and skimmed the discussion, it is not the place of a mediator such as myself to make actual content suggestions - at least, not at this stage of the game. (WP:3O is the place to get new opinions) So, what do you see as the primary issue with the actual article as far as things that need to be added or not added? Are you stating that you are opposed to a discussion of the negatives associated with this movement's leaders? Or do you think it is fine to discus the negatives, it's only a debate over which ones, which sources, and the tone or approach taken? Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable? If either is the case, why? Please clarify. What are you willing to do in order to work with the others? Montanabw^(talk) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article as it exists right now is NPOV and based on reliable sources. Moving all the unbiased information to a "criticism" section, and replacing it with dubious information directly from the group itself, would, naturally, bias the article. Shii (tock) 09:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, Shii, is it your position that the article is essentially OK as is and does not require changes? (with the caveat, of course, that any article could theoretically be improved) Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously any article can always be improved, but I'm talking about the allegations of bias -- what the article is based on now is not merely reports from former members, but newspaper reports and academic articles from outside observers. GIOSCali wishes to replace that central content with fishy-looking Korean-language articles that make serious WP:BLP allegations. Shii (tock) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say one thing that is clear is that everyone involved in this dispute needs a very clear understanding of the guidelines provided for reliable sources, verifiability and, for a religion article, "Verifiability not truth". And yes, WP:BLP. On articles about new religious movements, I've noticed that finding balanced, neutral, third-party sources is crucial to creating a quality article. I think Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is well-stated and worth the read as well. Foreign language sources are often problematic, particularly when, as with Korean, machine translation such as Google Translate is not a lot of help for people who don't speak the language to use as a tool for verification. (I just tried it with one Korean news article above... it creates near-gibberish) Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, I tend to agree with Shii above. Granted, some newspaper articles are better than others, but the newspaper he has cited is one of the better ones, and, even if it isn't "the best," well, the London Times, New York Times, and Washington Post have screwed up pretty bad in the bast too, but until the clear evidence of that is produced, we still use them, AGF'ing of them that they haven't in that particular case. WEIGHT is a separate factor, and one that probably could be dealt with, but the internal sources about what members of Providence say don't really say a lot that is particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by PeterDaley72

I'm with Shii on this one. I think the article represents the group well. It could be improved with more newspaper articles like these: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2006101884598 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/117_27550.html http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008011523598

And more material from last year's Australian TV report which is already included as a source should be included, especially the letters from the leader in jail to the female members which were partially read on air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM

And since Do-hyun Kim, the founder of the anti-JMS NGO Exodus was brought up. Can we consider including the violent attack on his elderly father by members of Jeong's cult? http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.0 I've met Do-Hyun and while there is a language barrier, I can get a response from him regarding his earlier mentions. Would that be helpful?

One "supportive" article is brought up in the face of scores of critical articles that document criminal convictions, abuses, and violence. I am all for including primary sources as GIOSCali suggested, but the quotes he/she wanted to include from Heaven's Words, My Words, an inhouse booklet published by the group which I also have were cherry-picked. When I suggested including, in addition to her cherry-picked quotes, quotes like "Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death," he/she resisted. I thought that a fair compromise. And his/her refusal to accept including that quote a pretty clear indication his/her motives continued the pattern of the group's attempts to whitewash this article.

Regarding John Carter's comment: "dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are." I would consider myself a "real opponent" of the group as the operator of www.jmscult.com. I'm not sure "lunge" is the right word, but I am always happy to help reporters, which I have and are doing quite regularly - I just finished a 7-page interview last night in fact, and I have appeared on Australian TV in the report referenced in the article. Regarding the reliability of myself as a source, as both GIOSCali and myself mentioned on the talk page, I have several letters from the group alleging copyright infringements. I also have numerous threatening and abusive text messages from the leadership in Korea. The source material I have is certainly legit, hence I was able to identify the stated beliefs GIOSCali wanted to include as attempts to whitewash the article and present an image of the group which is in stark contrast to its inner secret teachings. In my experience with destructive cults former members and critics intimately familiar with the cult in question are often the best sources of information. The recent Going Clear Scientology documentary is another good example. What is wrong with "lunging" at a camera in order to help raise awareness of a dangerous serial rapist? Perhaps a little off topic, there, but I wanted to comment on John's thoughts. PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley

• While I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong on this issue in my role here as a mediator, I CAN give you my understanding or interpretation of WP's guidelines and policies that may be relevant to your questions:

1. We are all constrained by the "no original research" rule. So no, you personally getting an interview with Do-hyun Kim would not be usable on WP, it's original research. A third party news interview is an acceptable source, though inclusion on ANY article depends on other factors (relevance, etc...) .
2. Similarly, blog posts and bulletin boards/chat forums also are not considered reliable sources on wikipedia, so those can't fly either.
3. The neutral point of view pillar governs the ultimate content of any article; this does NOT mean it's OK to "whitewash" an article to remove negative content; I tell people that NPOV means that the various views are examined and explained, sometimes I call this "teaching the controversy." Let me show you an example of how this might be done in an article unrelated to religion: I helped broker (and wrote some of) the relatively balanced language at Charreada#Animal_welfare_issues, where there was considerable controversy between animal rights advocates and charreada advocates.
4. Finally, per WP:COI, your own web site is definitely a no-no! That said, the sources you found for your web site where you obtained information (such as TV or newspaper stories) MIGHT be ok as sources provided they meet the general guidelines for wikipedia sourcing (third-party, verifiable, and so on). You probably need to be open in disclosing that you have a POV on this issue; it doesn't preclude your involvement, but it does mean that your position will be viewed with a more jaudiced eye than would that of someone who doesn't have their own web site on the topic.

• I hope this clarifies things for everyone. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Jim1138

As Shii has stated, the critical information is well sourced. Jung Myung Seok raped many, many underage girls, then fled Korea to avoid prosecution. JMS's guilt in the matter is well-established beyond any doubt. I find it amazing that JMS only received a ten year sentence. JMS's followers seem determined to whitewash the article. There is a long list of SPAs (GIOSCali would appear to be another), socks, and editors banned from editing Wikipedia or Providence. This seems an attempt to WP:CRUSH JMS's critics. As PeterDaley72 pointed out, JMS's followers will go to great lengths, including violence, to silence their critics. This is not an article about a peaceful religious institution. While the article could be improved, removal of information critical to Providence and JMS must be avoided. Breaking out the critical information into a separate section would in effect whitewhash the sections it is removed from and should be avoided. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the dispute resolution realm, we generally want to tread with caution about attributing motive to other editors and try to just focus on content. That said, if you have concerns that the process is being misused or manipulated, you also have access to other forums such as ANI and 3O, though having issues on multiple forums at once is probably not a good idea. On articles where there are allegations raised such as those in this case, a focus on content becomes doubly important; I noticed the talk page discussion invoked Godwin's Law almost right off the bat, which is not a good way to resolve an issue. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Open discussion, round 2

OK, I think everyone has now weighed in and I posted some responses to each person's comments with ideas and my preliminary thoughts. It appears to me that the issues can be summed up as follows:

1. Is there a need to add or remove material in the article that is critical of the religion and/or its founder?
2. Is there a need for discussion, assessment or analysis of the movement's critics?
3. Should any of the above be moved into a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" section, or should it be incorporated throughout?
4. Is there a need to add more positive material on the organization?
5. For all of the above, are reliable sources being proposed and utilized?
6. Ideology aside, is the article disorganized and would it benefit from some rearranging?
7. Finally, Is there a WP:CPUSH issue? While one of the participants here has openly disclosed his COI/POV, it may be true that there are other participants who also have a COI/POV in the opposite direction who perhaps have been less forthcoming. I think it is vital that all participants clearly and honestly outline their views and be upfront if they have anything that presents a WP:COI issue.

• It is now time to open a general discussion here. Please everyone remain civil and focus on specific content to be added or subtracted from the article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm burned out on this. I withdraw. Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My replies have also been curt because I am currently busy with other work. But I think this formal discussion has shown that there is a broad consensus against the kind of changes GIOSCali wants to make, and that this consensus is based both in Wikipedia policies and in a reasonable skepticism of the sources he has presented. Shii (tock) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, close this proposal already.

The current edit of #Theology does give more or less a fair balance of RS material out there. What GIOSCali claims to be a reliable secondary source on this is fake (to address the question "Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable?"). So a proposal built on such false premise ought to be rejected.

The source GIOSCali specifies as a Yonhap News Agency "article" is in reality a "press release..independent of the editorial direction of the (Yonhap)". This you can verify using Google translator. Such a promotional piece fits the definition of "questionable source" that should adhere to WP:SELFSOURCE guidelines, severely limiting its use. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Key Points

The argument is not that the majority of content should be removed, nor that the current article fails to use reliable sourcing. The argument is that the current article is incomplete--some important information is missing, and some current sources are being misused in some, not all cases. While editors have addressed some of these points, others have gone unaddressed or have not been met with viable solutions or alternatives.

For clarification I have included key points A, B, and C.

A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok. Again, these facts having nothing to do with (WP:UNDUE), the phrasing of the article, or the nature of the group.

1. There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10).
2. The Seoul Broadcasting System in Korea was found guilty of doctoring Jung's sermons to portray him as a sex offender and was forced to pay reparations to the CGM, eventually issuing an official apology letter.
3. Jung Myeong Seok was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea in a case unrelated to the one for which he currently serves a sentence.
4. Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea.

Again, these are basic facts surrounding the subject, without which the article would be incomplete.

B. An entirely separate issue: sources being misused in cases, particularly regarding the theology of the group.

1. For example, claiming that the belief of salvation is achieved through intercourse with the Messiah is (WP:Exceptional). Although there are a few sources which claim this, they are clearly stated as opinions by specific people and should be clearly conveyed as such.
2. As for the primary sources mentioned by Peter Daley, the argument is not that these sources should not be used, but that they must be used correctly. I do not object to the use of primary material--in fact I think it is wholly necessary. My only constraint is that the WP:NOR is followed and that phrases not be WP:CHERRYPICK to support the critical viewpoint.

C. There are several sources(not just one) that portray the theology of the group as different from the majority of critical reports. Some of these are on WP:KO/RS, others are not, but could be submitted for verifiability. The one mentioned by user:kiyoweap was indeed a press release but still indicative of the separate theology that members claim-- because a limited number of WP:KO/RS sources are available, alternatives would have to be explored if sources like this are not acceptable(i.e. verifying other Korean articles, etc.) which would take additional time, but may be the best option.

If it would help, the articles could be translated for the purposes of this discussion. The core issue still needs to be addressed: with claims about the theology being so polarized, it would seem difficult to integrate the two. Perhaps as John Carter suggested, the best way to structure the article would be from a historical perspective.

As for the potential issue with POV, perhaps offering some background information will help. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am a theology student studying modern Christianity, particularly in East Asia. What caught my attention about the CGM was that while Jung was convicted of these crimes, he was only serving a ten year sentence. After some research, I found the article had some gaps in information. This became the basis for these discussions.

GIOSCali (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For purposes of discussion, it may help for editors to refer to specific arguments A, B, or C.

It seems editors have generally commented regarding argument C. GIOSCali (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above might relate to an issue I have at least commented on elsewhere, in reference to specifically Chinese "religious groups" or cults. Specifically, at least to me, particularly in terms of Chinese versions of Christianity, there seems to me to be an unusually frequent occurrence of allegations of sexual misconduct against the leaders. Part of that, of course, could, I suppose, be due to different cultural norms. Another part of it, of course, particularly in China, which has a tendency to dislike anything not under state control, the possibility that at least in some cases it might be a trumped-up charge for the purposes of defamation and discreditation. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge that I as an individual haven't seen any specific sources discussing the possibility of the government either coercing or manufacturing such allegations. Also, I acknowledge that it might be less important in this case than others, unfortunately, because the Unification Church, from which this group split, has faced similar allegations from some otherwise creditable sources, and, at least so far as I can tell as an outsider, I suppose there might be some sort of general views of religion in the East which might make such ideas more prominent there. While I would definitely support development of content, or maybe even a separate article, if possible, about the unusual characteristics of criticism of Christianity in the Far East, from what I can tell anyway, the sources reporting the matters seem as reliable as any others, so that material should be included somewhere. Just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The aim is not proposing information that just favors the CGM, but including critical information which is currently missing from the article..

• Why would there be any opposition to including the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok ?(i.e. that SBS was found to have doctored his sermons/lost a lawsuit in the matter, or that JMS was acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2012)? The issue is not WP:NPOV... I have not seen any policy arguments against including this information... is there any reason why these facts should not be included? See point A above...

• Separately, it seems most editors have concerns regarding sources offering an opposing views on theology, but only one source has been examined... How is this consensus?

If this is indeed an issue, there are several more sources which I would be happy to submit for verifiability...

(My position on the subject matter was disclosed above in the preceding edit--)

• So apart from the theological questions, is there any reason why the information regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok should not be included? i.e., are editors not willing to include even relevant info such as JMS being acquitted in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea on all charges of sexual assault against minors?

GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Legitimate inquiry to the other users, at least the stuff on the theology and an assessment of the verifiability of these SBS lawsuits. I will be frank: I am more dubious about the court stuff if the man is in fact doing time in prison - often prosecutors drop other charges once they have a single conviction; victims also frequently recant. So before I close this as unresolved, I shall ping the the others for a quick yes, no, or maybe. @Jim1138:, @Shii:, @PeterDaley72:, @John Carter: @Kiyoweap:: Anything here to work on? Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia usually describes how a topic is described in prominent secondary sources. Given the obvious unanimity of prominent secondary sources, and the concerns you offered about GIOS's alternate theory, I think it would be safe to label it a conspiracy theory, which we have guidelines for dealing with. Shii (tock) 07:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GIOSCali's A1,2,3,4 strays from the proposed topic of theology into courtroom dealings, and these should have been nudged back to page talk. I guess I'll move topics there. In short, A1 (perjury) and A4 (Kim Do-hyun) are from GIOS's dubious source #2 (see talk). A2 (SBS committed certain broadcast infractions in 1999), but this is stale and trivial compared to what is known since trial in 2007. A3 (sex charges on minors) pretty much as Montanabw says. Prosecution refused to indict on a particular charge. It's creepy if your Christian church is running a kiddie modeling school, but not exactly a crime unless kiddie porn turned up. I see nothing here about "sexual assault" though. B2, former high-ranking members confessed this had been taught. Will add this with sourcing. Will you close this now? --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

 – I have now inserted into the article an source for B2. Jo Gyeong-suk, former Seoul Branch (already in the article) revealed the messianic salvation doctrine was taught. From The Christian Times newspaper (ko:기독교타임즈). On closer reading, Jo Gyeong-suk is female and says she is one of the victims, so this is not as strong a source as the male leadership confessing to teaching this to their member. Perhaps though that part of the teaching was left strictly to female preachers. For A1, GIOSCali's source was Civil Government monthly. Correction on that. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, why would it be considered "stale and trivial" that the Seoul Broadcasting System, major media in Korea, was found to have intentionally altered Jung's sermons and forced to pay reparations to the CGM? Why would that not belong on the page? Especially when broadcasts from the SBS are currently being cited on the article?

For A3, actually the prosecution did not drop the case. The Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Jung(forcibly taking obscene pictures of minors would be sexual assault). Why would this information not belong on the page, when other allegations and court proceedings are mentioned?

Regarding the actions of Kim, there are several additional sources that publish his letters demanding money.

GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What is reported in the news may potentially be featured in the article, but not with inflated significance, or in a sly way to mislead and insinuate.

SBS's infractions were not so serious as to undermine the core allegations. If true, please cite rival news organizations who should have made huge headlines out of them, and/or issued major retractions.

As of 1999 when the news broke, the cult leader is not guilty or "public figure". The Korean court may have reasonably judged SBS liable for "defamation" at that time. That defamation case has been eclipsed by news in 2007 and thereafter, when details emerged in criminal trial about what members were subjected to. That's what I mean by "stale".

Saying that prosecutors absolved JMS of all counts on "sexual assault" against minors is extremely prejudicial and misleading, when the actual case had to do with a modeling school that JMS ran, where it was alleged that teenage students had lewd photos taken of them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussion

OK folks, it's pretty clear that the talk page discussion has simply migrated over here and there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes. The discussion here keeps coming back to the original issues and not moving forward. So I don't think mediation and DR/N is going to help this any, and I don't want to waste people's time any further here. Therefore, I will refer this case back to the talk page and mark the debate as closed due to failure to reach consensus. This in no way says that anyone is right or wrong, only that you failed to reach an agreement. I want to thank you all for staying on-topic and being respectful both of each other and of the process. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (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.

Summary of dispute by Sciencewatcher

User talk:Kd3qc discussion

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

Summary of dispute by 24.33.93.239

Summary of dispute by 2602:306:C5E1:A830:41A3:38D8:8E5E:384D

Talk:Brown rice discussion

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

Summary of dispute by

Talk:Sexism discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Female infanticide in India discussion

Volunteer note - The statement as to how we can help ("point out the obvious") is not within the scope of this forum. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: If Darkness Shines does not post a Summary of Dispute by 15:30 UTC on 22 April 2015, this request will be closed as futile. No editor is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so, and Darkness Shines has been active at the encyclopedia since having received notice of this request without participating here, which will be taken as an indication that he does not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

• The issue of whether to include a particular image in an article is a yes-no question which is better suited for Requests for Comments than for moderated discussion at this noticeboard, the purpose of which is to try to facilitate discussion and possible compromise. This thread is being closed as better suited to a different dispute resolution mechanism, RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2015 (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.

Summary of dispute by User:Sabrebd

Summary of dispute by User:Amortias

Summary of dispute by User:Martinevans123

Talk:Honorific nicknames_in_popular_music discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Hyrudagon

Papakha discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Krimuk90

User talk:Krimuk90 discussion

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

Summary of dispute by null

Summary of dispute by

Talk:Don Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29 discussion

Talk:Emina (poem)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Discussion has failed due to commenting on contributors rather than content, and failure to make constructive suggestions. Resume discussion of article content on the talk page, or take conduct issues to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (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. Location of dispute Talk:Emina (poem) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sabahudin9 (talk · contribs) Yerevani Axjik (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Yerevani Axjik began editing Emina on 5 April 2015. The poem was written by a Bosnian Serb writer in the year 1902 about a Bosnian girl. The user removed any mention of the poem being Bosnian, the girls ethnicity was changed from Bosniak to the offensive Yugoslav-era term Bosnian Muslim and added Serbian categories to the article. I reverted the edits and we have been having a discussion on the articles talk page about the users edits, which I feel to be nationalistic, for the past few days but it's getting no where between the two of us. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reverted the users edits How do you think we can help? We need an outsiders opinion. Summary of dispute by Yerevani Axjik The problem is that the sourced used claiming the poem as Bosnian actually doesn't mentions it as such, as I demonstrated at the talk page. So I removed this, and the intro said that the poem is of its author - Aleksa Šantić, nor Bosnian nor Serbian. However, author is a Serbian poet, and contributed to the Serbian literature largely. Therefore, in the categories, I added that the poem is part of Serbian as well as Bosnian culture. I did remove the category "Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims", as the poem has nothing to do with Islam, since it's a love poem, not religious one, although, the religious phrasing is there. User:Sabahudin9 claims it's not Serbian at all, since Šantić was born in Herzegovina, Mostar. Which is ofcourse nonsense, as there would be no Italian literature prior to the Italian unification in mid 19th century. Also, the ethnicity of the poem's subject - Emina - is unsourced and we cannot know what was her ethnicity, we only know that she's a Muslim. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Talk:Emina (poem) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 24 hour closing notice: If Yerevani Axjik does not post a Summary of Dispute by 15:00 UTC on 21 April 2015, this request will be closed as futile. No editor is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so, and Yerevani Axjik has been active at the encyclopedia since having received notice of this request without participating here, which will be taken as an indication that she does not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) Closing notice withdrawn. This is ripe for a volunteer to open it for discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I am willing to act as the volunteer moderator for this case. I know nothing about the poem in question other than what I have just read, and I know little about the ethnicities and languages of the Balkan region. It appears that the issues have to do with the ethnicity of the poet and of the subject. Will the editors please explain, first, exactly what the issues are, and, second, what they want to see in the article? I will not be providing a third opinion (as requested above), but will attempt to mediate a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Please remember to comment on content, not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. (Civility is required not only at DRN but everywhere in Wikipedia.) Please also be aware that if there are any conduct issues, because Bosnia is in the Balkan region as usually defined, conduct disputes can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBMAC, so please be civil and comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I am asking the editors what each editor thinks the issues are and what should be in the article. I do not want to be told what the other editor wants or what the other editor has done. We are only talking about content, because the objective of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC) If either of the editors would like to provide a timeline of dates, such as events in the history of Bosnia and of the Ottoman Empire, the birth of Emina, the writing of the poem, later events involving Emina and the poem, etc., in order to help us focus on content, such as where the national boundaries were at any given time, that would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by Sabahudin9 The poem belongs to the culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it is BosnIAN. The author is a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina making him a Bosnian Serb. The poem is about a Bosnian girl and is written in the Bosnian language. User:Yerevani Axjik feels that because the author was an ethnic Serb, the poem also belongs to the SerbIAN culture. The poem has nothing to do with Serbia. If you look back though the edits, the original article said that it is a Bosnian poem written by a Bosnian Serb author. The user replaced all mention of Bosniaks with the Yugoslav-era term Bosnian Muslim. The girl that the poem is about was an ethnic Bosniak, I have sourced this. Also the user added that Emina was born in the Ottoman Empire's Bosnia Eyalet, which is factually inaccurate as Bosnia-Herzegovina ceased to be part of the Ottoman Empire in 1878 and Emina was born in 1884. Comment on content, not on contributors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This user has a history of denying Bosniaks of an ethnic identity. You can look through the users edits. The user has been on an edit-spree, removing the term Bosniaks or replacing it with with the Yugoslav-era Muslims. The term Muslims by nationality was only used in Communist Yugoslavia from 1968 until 1992 to refer to Bosniaks and other Slavic Muslims. That user is applying a term that was used for only 24 years to a woman who died before the term was even created. Also, the article doubles as a wiki about the poem and about the girl Emina Sefic... that is why the categories Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims are on there.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC) First statement by Yerevani Axjik I never denied that the poem is part of the Bosnian culture, I only said it is part of the Serbian culture as well. The author is a Serb, we both agree on that, he can be from any place... Bosnia, Dalmatia, Herzegovina etc. The subject of the poem is irrelevant. So if a poet writes, let's say, a poem about some Greek goddess on Cherokee language, is this poem a Greek poem? Absolutely not. The poem was writen in Serbo-Croatian, a language that Serbs call Serbian. Claiming that the poem was writen in Bosnian, a language created in 1991 by nationalist politicians is an absolute nonsense. The term Bosniaks as a nationality is also created in 1993. It never designated a nationality prior to this year. Bosnia and Herzegovina was de iure part of the Ottoman Empire until 1908. The category Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina is reserved for biographical articles, not poems. And the category Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina is reserved by notable Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderator Is there then agreement that the poet was a Bosnian Serb? Does that mean a person of Serbian ethnicity who resided in Bosnia? If not, what was the ethnicity and residence of the poet? Is there agreement that the poem was written in Serbian, that is, in the Serbo-Croatian language using the Cyrillic alphabet? If not, what language is the poem in? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC) There seem to be some issues about terminology, such as the terms "Bosnian" and "Bosniak". Can one of the editors try to explain to me neutrally what the difference is between Bosnian and Bosniak, and whether it affects the article? There seems to be an issue about the status of the region of Bosnia in which Emina resided as part of the Ottoman Empire. Can one of the editors try to explain to me neutrally what the issue is about whether the region was part of the Ottoman Empire, and how it affects the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Are there any other issues about the article about the poem? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Sabahudin9 There is a difference between Serb culture and SerbIAN culture. The poet was a Bosnian Serb who never claimed to be SerbIAN and spent his entire life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The poem is written in the Bosnian dialect of the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian language. The poem is heavily influenced by the Islamic culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is written about a Bosniak (Muslim) girl named Emina Sefic. In Bosnia there are three major ethnic groups, divided by religion. The Muslims are known as Bosniaks, Orthodox Christians refer to themselves nowadays as Bosnian Serbs and Catholics refer to themselves as Bosnian Croats. The term Bosnians refers to all people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of ethnicity. During the Communist rule of SFR Yugoslavia, Bosniaks were denied of an ethnic identity, being called Muslims by nationality. So their religion became their ethnicity. Serbs were not called Christians by nationality and Catholics were not Catholics by nationality. It was propaganda and an attempt to deny Bosniaks of an identity. The term Muslims as an ethnicity was only used from 1968 until the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992. Bosniaks began again being referred to as Bosniaks and not the Yugoslav-era term Muslims. Comment on content, not contributors Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yerevani Axjik seems to believe that those 24 years of Communist propaganda should rule all of history. The user replaced the term Bosniak with Bosnian Muslim and linked the Bosnian part with the Bosnia Eyalet... a division of the Ottoman Empire which lost control over Bosnia in 1878. Emina Sefic, the girl that the poem is about was born in 1884, during the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Austro-Hungarians referred to Bosniaks as Bosniaks, it was not until the era of Yugoslavia that Bosniaks were referred to as Muslims by nationality, a failed attempt to deny Bosniaks of an ethnic identity. You are free to choose what you would like to use from my statement in this discussion. Comment on content, not contributors The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. By the way, this was not even a discussion until User:Yerevani Axjik edited Emina two weeks ago. The article was created in 2012 and nobody else has had any problems with the articles content until Yerevani Axjik. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Yerevani Axjik There is no difference between Serb or Serbian culture. Look at the definiton of the Serbian culture - "Serbian culture refers to the culture of Serbia and of ethnic Serbs." There is no difference between Serbs from Serbia and those living in Bosnia or those in Croatia. They're all ethnic Serbs, who lived in one country between 1918 until 1992, and during the Ottoman Empire. The poem was writen in Serbo-Croatian, a language which Serbs refer to as Serbian. During the communist Yugoslavia, Bosniaks weren't denied of anything, and from a nationalist point of view everything seems like a propaganda. There was a large debate over national identity of South Slavic Muslims, some Bosnian Muslims (like Salim Ćerić) preferred the term Muslim, others preferred the term Bosnian while some preferred the term Bosniak. Only in 1993 was the latter term adopted by certain politicians led by Alija Izetbegović. It's completely wrong to see history in a retroactive way. The Austrian-Hungarians didn't refer to anyone anyithing, it was a policy pushed by Béni Kállay who wanted to create a single identity for all ethnic groups - Croats, Muslims and Serbs, and to call them all Bosniaks, through the term was later rejected by all. This only says that national identity didn't exist at the time, or it was very blur and rare (Kallay, B.: Geschichte Der Serben: Von Den Ältesten Zeiten Bis 1815, 1876., p. 170). Therefore, in this uncertainty, it would be better if we would stick to things we know - the subject was born in Bosnia to a Muslim family, her ethnicity is however unknown. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderator Comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to resolve a dispute about the text of the article about the poem. If there are any more comments about other editors, rather than about the article, it may be necessary to fail the dispute resolution. Is there then agreement that the poet was a Bosnian Serb? If not, how should we characterize his nationality and ethnicity? Is there agreement that the poem is part of both Bosnian culture and Serbian culture? With reference to the current wording of the article, are there any specific aspects of the wording that should be changed? If so, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Sabahudin9 The poet was a Bosnian Serb. I never denied that. The poem is Bosnian because he is from Bosnia and Herzegovina not Serbia and the poem was written in the Bosnian language.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Yerevani Axjik Bosnian language is a rather political than lignuistic term. Bosniaks refer to their language as Bosnian, Serbs call it Serbian, Croats call it Croatian and Montenegrins call it Montenegrin. Sabahudin9's claim that the poem was writen in Bosnian language is ridiculous and unsourced. Šantić was a Serb, who wrote much about Serbian patriotism, not to mention his well-known Pesma Srbiji (A Poem to Serbia) and other poems with Serbian patriotic subject. Indeed, he was born in Herzegovina, a region part of the present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, which makes him as well part of the culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, his contribution to the Serbian culture is obvious, and therefore, it is baseless to deny that. I never denied the poem is Bosnian, as much it is Serbian, therefore, it cannot be defined as a "Bosnian poem". It is Šantić's poem, and both Bosnian and Serbian. It also must be understand that Serbs are native people to Bosnia and Herzegovina, with their presence dating back to the Slavic migrations. It is their homeland as much as Serbia is, and through history, Serbs had tendency of unifying Bosnia and Herzegovina with Serbia (Greater Serbia). So, once again, I'll repeat my requests. The poem should be define as "poem writen by Aleksa Šantić", without any mention of being Bosnian or Serbian. Also, the categories I previously added should remain in the article, with categories "Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina" and "Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims" being removed, as the poem isn't biographical or religious. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by volunteer moderator We don't seem to be making much progress. Let's try something different. I don't think that the two editors will ever agree on the article. If I am mistaken, please surprise me and provide an agreed version of the article. However, I think that the answer at this point is a Request for Comments. So, what should be the questions in the RFC? Please try to remember that the issue is improvement of the article, not the other editors. Please say what you want to go into a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) If you would like to provide draft versions of what you think that the article should be, that would be excellent. If you have draft language, please provide it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by Sabahudin9 To say that the Bosnian language is a "political term" rather than a linguistic term is yet another attempt to deny Bosniaks of an identity. If that's the case then Serbian is also a "political term" and not a language. The poem was written by the Bosnian Serb poet Aleksa Šantić in the dialect of the Bosnian language in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Comment on content, not on contributors.Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. User:Yerevani Axjik has resorted to accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a user that was blocked two years ago because I, like that user, say that Santic was a Bosnian Serb rather than Serbian. Because he WAS. User:Yerevani Axji literally just went onto Santic's wiki and replaced "Bosnian Serb" with "Serb" to prove their point see this edit. Everybody else agreed that this man was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina, raised there, spent his entire life there, and died there... he was a Bosnian Serb, it's fact, not an opinion. You explanation for your removal of "Bosnian Serb" on his wiki was "Šantić contributed greatly to the whole Serbian culture, therefore canot be exclusively described as a Bosnian Serb poet, since he was a member of the Serbian Royal Academy and was active in Serbia as well." So if Barack Obama joined the Serbian Royal Academy, he would be Serbian and a Serbian politician? Logical.-- Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by Yerevani Axjik Serbian language is also more political than linguistic term for the Serbo-Croatian language. It is used by Serbs. There's no such thing as Bosnian dialect, there are only three dialects in Serbo-Croatian language - Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian, depending on yat reflex, it can be Ikavian, Ijekavian and Ekavian. Šantić wrote in Shtokavian with Ijekavian reflex. I would like to here comments on my proposal, if any. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by volunteer moderator We don't seem to be making much progress. I would like to try to identify what questions the RFC should ask. So far, the questions seem to be what to say was the nationality or ethnicity of the poet, what to say was the nationality or ethnicity of the woman, and what was the language or dialect of the poem. Will each of the editors provide his own proposals as to that? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Yerevani Axjik says "I would like to [hear] comments on my proposal, if any." What is that proposal? I haven't seen any concrete proposals to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Closing statement by volunteer moderator I am closing this thread as Failed because, first, one of the editors won't stop complaining about another editor, and, second, neither editor has proposed what should be the questions in the Request for Comments. If either of them wants to improve the article, either of them is welcome to post an RFC. I will remind both participants that Bosnia and Serbia are in the Balkan region as usually defined, so that disruptive editing is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Don't try to restart World War One. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (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:Misconduct in_the_Philadelphia_Police_Department

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed in wrong venue. Use AN or ANI for requests for administrator intervention. Feel free to refile here if you don't get what you want there and are interested in content dispute resolution, but if you choose to do so please realize that we will not discuss or allow discussion of editors or editors' conduct here, only discussions of content are allowed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:10, 28 April 2015 (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. Location of dispute Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk · contribs) SummerPhD (talk · contribs) Dispute overview SummerPhD has deleted most of the good faith contributions to the article, "Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department", even though almost all of the listed cases had met the article's established criteria (an official finding of misconduct such as a termination, lawsuit settlement/judgement, or conviction). I suspect that SummerPhD has a connection with the PPD, as he has nuked the misconduct article but not the accomplishments section nor PPD line-of-duty deaths article (to all of which I have heavily contributed). It seems that SummerPhD does not want the public to know about Philadelphia police wrongdoing; such info is not available from any other source. My motive is to give the entire history and modus operandi of the PPD, including the good and the bad. SummerPhD has falsely accused me of having an axe to grind against the PPD, a lie which I have proven wrong by my extensive positive additions to the article. Misconduct is a significant aspect of the PPD, as per findings by the U.S. Justice Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Pennsylvania Crime Commission, and the like. As such, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wiki's rules are "not carved in stone" policies alone should kick in. I believe that SummerPhD's bias has made his interpretations of Wiki's guidelines too rigid and one dimensional. I believe that the public has a right to know that a police force has committed thousands of acts of corruption and brutality. SummerPhD has discouraged me and everyone else in his path from contributing to this article and Wikipedia in general. He has relentlessly nitpicked my contributions and harassed me with technicalities. All of my additions were made in good faith and over 99% were properly sourced, although I did make a few honest mistakes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page debates. How do you think we can help? I request that an administrator intervene and establish guidelines for the referenced article. If he/she finds that the huge amount of Philadelphia police crimes should be hidden from the public, then I will no longer pursue the matter and just accept the fact that I was a fool to have contributed to the article in the first place. However, I doubt that the founder of Wikipedia would want that to happen, judging by his comments on his recent "60 Minutes" television interview. Summary of dispute by SummerPhD Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Misconduct in_the_Philadelphia_Police_Department 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.