Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 155

My edits being constantly deleted.

I updated the The Exodus page, to include the earlier exodus dates given by Josephus Flavius (a 1st century AD chronicler), and his assertion that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos exodus. But the update was deleted, because it was claimed that Josephus was a primary source.

I re-wrote the update to make it clear that Josephus was not a primary source (1,600 years displaced from the events, and he was analysing history rather than repeating it). But the update was deleted, because it was claimed that Josephus is not a reliable source. This is despite the fact that numerous other Wiki pages continuously quote Josephus without reference to modern interpretation.

I was told that I needed to quote a modern historian, so I re-wrote the update to quote two modern historians, who both discuss and support the Exodus dates given by Josephus Flavius (and his links to the Hyksos Exodus). But the update was again deleted.

They appear to be changing the goal-posts, to prevent this update. And the threat was made to block me for 'not being interested in making an encyclopaedia' (ie: not wanting to increase knowledge.)

Quite the reverse. Josephus Flavius - Judaism's greatest historian - makes some interesting observations about the Exodus, but the Wiki editors will not allow any mention them. Nor to Josephus' very interesting claim that that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus.

This is despite the fact that these same editors WILL allow a discussion about Manetho's assertions (who Josephus quotes). So why the selective editing? Why are discussions about Manetho and biblical dates allowed, but no discussion about Josephus' dates and assertions?

The full text of my update is available.

Tatelyle (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussions on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

They asked for a modern commentary on Josephus Flavius, and it was given.

The claim is again made that Josephus is 'unreliable'. But most of Jewish history is fully dependent upon Josephus' accounts, and Wiki is full of quotes and assertions by Josephus. The first century history of Judaea would not exist, without Josephus.

An assertion by Judaism's greatest historian should be allowable, perhaps as a side topic - even if the editors do not agree with what he says.

The Exodus discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A notice of filing has been left on the The Exodus Talk page. Is that not sufficient?

Volunteer note - Tatelyle could you clarify "How do you think we can help"? If just the exclusion of Josephus is the issue, this is better discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2017 (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 GenQuest

Summary of dispute by DrStrauss

Summary of dispute by plumablue

Summary of dispute by In_ictu_oculi

Summary of dispute by Sululight

Summary of dispute by Estebanpai

Summary of dispute by noblemedic

Summary of dispute by saisahi

Summary of dispute by Tomwan17

Summary of dispute by Farix

Summary of dispute by Tiggerluvi

Summary of dispute by Steel1943

Summary of dispute by Power~enwiki

Summary of dispute by Martinlc

Talk:Ching Hai 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 Tgeorgescu

Nope, per WP:OTHERPARENT the question is being discussed at WP:RSN and besides assertions by fiat no cogent reasons have been presented why the Geisler source would comply with WP:IRS. Also, the matter is being discussed at WP:EAR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by StAnselm

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Need_Geisler_and_Nix_et_al_added_as_reliable_source_citations discussion

•  Volunteer note: the problem isn't clear at all. The matter also seems to be pending at the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'd warn that taking the same dispute to different forums can be easily considered WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I'd suggest to either get the discussion at the other noticeboard closed and the dispute clarified or just continue discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (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 Tgeorgescu

The reason isn't that Moody is Christian, the reason is that Moody is marginal (both academically and as a number of believers that might be represented by its views). Another reason is that his fringe/weak source is contradicted by sources which are more reliable. Does he desire mediation for a WP:RSN debate? Is this guy for real? Or is he awarely trolling? This is especially the case after his previous mediation request was closed for forum shopping. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by StAnselm

Summary of dispute by Approaching

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=18 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 ChristensenMJ

Talk:Kate Kelly_(feminist)#Mormon.2Fformer_Mormon 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 166.107.163.254

Talk:Bay Area_Rapid_Transit#Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TaivoLinguist

Religious issues are tricky. The article in question here consists of a series of broad-based sections that outline the main issues of the Book of Mormon's (BOM) supposed historicity. There are sections on archeology, geography, linguistics, and genetics. Each covers a topic that is relevant to the entire BOM content and the underlying story presented as fact within it. Two sections deal with major outside comments about the text as a whole and its historicity. Finally, the last section names two major Mormon research organizations that are responsible for conducting and publishing the church's historical and scientific research aimed at proving the BOM narrative. The other party wants to add a trivial matter that concerns a minor issue found in only one chapter of the BOM and not a fundamental issue. Once a single trivial issue is allowed to be placed on the page, it opens the door for hundreds of other trivial issues to be placed there by other editors who will then justify the pollution by, "But we talk about olives". While the other editor is sincere in his belief that olives are the most interesting thing in the world and that the chapter of the BOM where they are mentioned is the most important chapter in the whole book, I beg to differ. It is important to keep the big picture in view and not delve into trivialities on pages that are dedicated to the big picture. --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Historical authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Olive_Horticulture discussion

• Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do you think that asking for a third opinion first would be more helpful? --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about it earlier, and I am certainly willing to if you wish, but it seems less likely to help, since the page you linked says it works best if we are dealing in good faith, but less if the issue can't be solved on that talk page. Can we try it in parallel to work on this DR page? There has been much opportunity for others to comment and they haven't chosen to do so. I am not confident that we are all dealing in good faith, as the other person (in the page's talk page) has repeatedly and strongly stated he doesn't think the page should exist, and now he pursues many (mostly empty, it seems to me) arguments to prevent adding anything to it (when there are known, easy solutions to that: if it becomes too long: one creates a sub-page or simply keeps things organized). It very much seems, as I wrote in that talk page, that he is pursuing an editorial agenda (wants the page to be updated only if or as it agrees with his personal views), and feels ownership of the page. --Lcall52 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Answer. I will ignore the personal attacks by the other party. This is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, a policy which the other party seems to consider of no importance in his arguments. --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Response: I do not wish my efforts be personal attacks; I respect TaivoLinguist's intelligence, ability, and greater experience editing wikipedia; I thank him for providing references that have helped educate me about editing; I hope to keep it factual and will again try that. The link TaivoLinguist provided says to give equal weight to both pro & con, per the weight of sources found. The sentence I last proposed does that, by adding a sentence and the source suggested by TaivoLinguist (see my proposed wording in the talk page starting with "Here is a proposal", and my subsequent agreement with his suggestion to change "Others" to "Critics", and a request for further suggestions). The link he gives just above also says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.". His argument earlier was not that they need equal weight, but that very mention of the topic, and the page itself, should not exist. Before that, he gave other arguments (starting with his revert comment) which I also answered. I'd like it if he could respond to my request for a better suggested wording.

(Not sure where to put this for clarity, since it is after the fact, but: where the box above says "please do not make personal attacks": I meant to indicate the state of the discussion by noting the other party's past comments on the sources. Perhaps instead of "I think he will feel" I should have said "he has said that", or I might have misunderstood. Anyway, thanks. --Lcall52 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC))

...but I tried to also already answer that in the talk page (those not having a certain belief will typically have less motivation to write in its support); I hope the quality of the scholarship I cited speaks for itself, if one checks the sources. The link he cited also says: "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." The link he cites also has a section on Religion which applies here. (I wish him a luscious chocoloate-covered eclair, but if jelly-filled pastries are preferred, we can give that opinion some weight; with proper citations I *might* accept the mention of unfilled, that tasteless twisty kind, or pretzels and water. Edit: please note nerd's small attempt to lighten with generosity and humor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcall52 (talk • contribs)

Counter-point You keep going back to the beginning of our discussion and minimizing the main point which I was making--that trivia has no place in an article that focuses on the big picture. You also conveniently ignored the part of WP:WEIGHT which is actually relevant: False balance for minority views. The discussion of olive horticulture may be of great interest to you, but compared to the other, major, issues discussed in grand terms on the page--archeology, linguistics, geography, and genetics--it pales to insignificance. You simply cannot move beyond that simple fact that your topic is not equivalent in weight to the other topics. That's the definition of "trivial". Do I think this article should be deleted for problematic issues of encyclopedic content? Yes. So what? Do I think that your sources are unscientific [BLP issue removed]]? Yes. So what? That makes no difference whatsoever to the trivial nature of the addition you want to make to an overview article. --Taivo (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Answer Sounds like triviality is in the eye of the beholder, at least here. There are ways to manage content when a page gets long, as mentioned. Again this seems like ownership behavior, as mentioned/linked previously (edit: in the related talk page). --Lcall52 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope Triviality can easily be measured. 1) Archeology, linguistics, geography, and genetics sections ALL involve the entire text of the BOM and are broad categories. 2) Olive cultivation involves one chapter of the BOM and is a narrow topic with very limited applicability. That's easily measured triviality. --Taivo (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And Probably by far the longest chapter in the book, with a complete focus on that topic, and very relevant to the subject of the page, useful to its readers, and interesting enough for the authors of our citations to write about it. Can we have some DR input here? Thanks very much. --Lcall52 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Perspective "Longest chapter" is still a trivial amount when compared to the entire book. The BOM narrative as a whole is not about olives and does not stand or fall based on olives. It's still trivial compared to the broader narratives of archeology, geography, linguistics, and genetics. And "authors" have written about far more trivial topics than olives. That doesn't make their contributions to BOM historicity still trivial. As a scholar, I have written an article and read papers at conferences about a single suffix in a dying language. While I find the topic immensely interesting, that still doesn't make it non-trivial in terms of the narrative of linguistic science as a whole or even historical linguistics in particular. I would never seek to add a reference to it in the Historical linguistics article here in Wikipedia or even in the article on that particular language. It's a matter of weight, not of personal interest on my part or the fact that "authors" have written about it. --Taivo (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Still it seems clear to me that to readers and as a reader, it is very directly relevant, valuable and interesting, because it is something that is discussed at length and was unlikely for Joseph Smith to have known (IMO), given his very limited education. It is not a single suffix. Perhaps we repeat ourselves and maybe should wait for others to comment now. --Lcall52 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia: we are not suffering an electron scarcity crisis. People can learn to skim or skip topics they do not find worthwhile. If they come to this page, they are looking specifically to read about historical evidences and counter-arguments, of which this is clearly one. Maybe now I can shut up.  :) --Lcall52 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

DR: help? --Lcall52 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Still Trivia Your interest level is simply not relevant. We could expand any one of the sections on archeology, linguistics, genetics, and geography by a factor of three and still be more nontrivial than your "olive" instance. We could include every single argument and counterargument ever made about any topic in the BOM and discuss ad nauseum how Smith could have fabricated (or not) the item. That's not the point. The point is that you don't ever include everything in an encyclopedia. Never. Britannica doesn't include every item of information. It summarizes. It sifts through mountains of data and summarizes the information. And your olives are precisely a single suffix. They affect one and only one chapter of the BOM. They are so trivial that they are rarely even mentioned in the critical literature because there are much bigger fish to easily fry--"fish" that affect the veracity of the entire book, not just one chapter. --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - While that had to be the most well organized DRN I have ever seen, it is also against the guidelines per WP:TOPPOST. So if editors would please stick to standard formatting it will help others to read and contribute to the discussion (please note the changes made to the formatting) Now, for a few points;

Lcall52 asked - Can we try [third opinion] in parallel to work on this DR page?

Answer - Unfortunately no. DRN may only be requested when no other dispute resolution venue is being used such as RFC, ANI or AFD etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Taivo said: "Do I think that your sources are unscientific [BLP issue removed]? Yes. So what?"

That is simply uncalled for, doesn't further your argument in any way and gives the impression of losing your patience. It is also a BLP issue. I believe what you mean to say is that the source is too closely related to the subject for objectivity...correct? Because that is guideline and the other is just uncivil and a policy infraction.

No, that's not what I meant and I don't know what you are getting at with the BLP issue. It's immaterial. Perhaps you thought I was making a point about the authors of the references. That's not the point and the authors are irrelevant. The point is that [BLP issue removed]. They are wrapped in the cloak of respectable scholarship, but they are only peer-reviewed by other LDS scholars and church officials responsible for the task. This isn't news. It's the simple fact. But the whole issue, as my comment "So What" indicates, is that my opinion of the quality of the other party's sources is immaterial to the question of triviality. The other party to this dispute was implying in his comments that my opinion of his sources was important. It isn't. --Taivo (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

While you try to state one thing, you turn around and double down. Accusations against publishers or a university is a BLP concern per WP:BLPREMOVE, specifically; Wikipedia:Libel. Please see Defamation. This also shows an extreme bias towards the subject. If your behavior at DRN is an issue I will simply close the request and recommend an ANI report. If you want a true resolution please show good faith and remain civil. DRN is not a platform for personal attacks or accusations against individuals, groups, publishers or authors. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. That wasn't an attack at all, but a simple statement of the facts as is well-known in both LDS and non-LDS circles. But my original point is still that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand--the triviality of the propoosed addition to the article. There is no further need to even mention it since it's irrelevant and I will play by the rules of your sandbox. --Taivo (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If you are prepared to follow DRN protocols the request can resume however, if you object to me as a moderator you can raise your objection on the DRN talk page with your rationale. If both editors wish to continue, please add arguments that are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. All comments, arguments and suggestions that are not within Wikipedia policy will be discounted.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My arguments are above--the proposed addition is trivial and unencyclopedic when compared with the existing content of the page and its purpose. --Taivo (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Mine are also above. I wish to add a simple mention that some have written on a topic that seems to me very relevant to the page and fits its purpose; if not another page (or section) should be recommended, but it seems the best fit and I think wikipedia policy says that pages' purpose are determined by the community, or parts can be broken out when needed. The reference I want to add is not an attempt to expound or argue the point, merely to mention that it exists, with references for and against. The reference against the validity of the argument was provided by TaivoLinguist (the other participant in this disagreement), and I am pleased to include it. I think if it seems trivial, it makes sense to keep it brief and of course things can be put in separate sections and/or written in a skimmable way so readers can find what interests them and ignore the rest. I am happy to answer other questions; I hope things I have said in this discussion and in the article's talk page about this are helpful or at least relevant also. Thanks much for your participation here and the reformatting. I'll read WP:TOPPOST in the next few days. (If I'm missing an important point please feel free to re-emphasize it for my future reference.) --Lcall52 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing on Talk Page. I might note here that there are continuing substantive comments at Talk:Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon from previously uninvolved editors and a longer comment from me there as well (since it fit in context with the other editors' comments, it was better placed there than here). --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with his assertions on that talk page (it seems historically relevant to me, whether a not-well-educated person in modern history could have known, to that extent of detail, about something in ancient history; that is directly relevant to the historical question: is the writing ancient or modern? -- barring a more appropriate page or section for the content as I've suggested; etc, etc). I'm willing to discuss there but would be much more comfortable if 1) the moderator here requests that that discussion be carried there, and 2) if the moderator here thinks discussion there does not risk losing the chance to resolve here, especially if there is not a resolution there within some reasonable time. --Lcall52 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether Smith invented or copied something into the BOM manuscript he was writing is not a question of historical authenticity. It's a question of whether Smith was or was not lying about how the BOM was written. That's a different issue. Historical authenticity is measuring whether the factual information that the BOM says is factual is actually factual. Since the BOM never claims that olives were cultivated in the New World, it's not a question of factual verification and so isn't an issue of historical authenticity. And the discussion on the Talk Page was continued by other, previously uninvolved editors. Since they have chosen to discuss the issue there, there is nothing special about this page. You wanted other points of view in the discussion. You got them--two of them so far. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lacking a suggestion from you on an acceptable form or placement (my initial placement was in the "Other defenses of historicity" section), and given your comments here and on the talk page, it seems (at least) the effect of your arguments, from the first revert until now, is simply to stop the effort. --Lcall52 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I will await moderator input before continuing. Thanks. --Lcall52 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not, and never have, thought that this was an appropriate addition to the article. There is no acceptable place for it within the article because it is immaterial to the issue of historical authenticity. It is relevant for the question of Smith's sources, but not for the question of historical authenticity which is the topic of the article. That is basically the opinion of the two editors who commented on the article's Talk Page as well. --Taivo (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The definition of "historical authenticity" given by TaivoLinguist seems unnecessarily strict and owner-like, for a medium not dedicated to academic specialists. The page Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon seems to deal with issues very specifically around possible authors who lived during Smith's time, and the witnesses during that time, not on BoM content issues like "could Smith have known this ancient history, under the real circumstances of his life". The book claims ancient origin, and this is about its contents, not about suggestions on authorship. So "historical authenticity" seems to me to match it exactly, more than other pages of which I am aware (pending correction by others). Again I solicit a suggestion on form or placement, acceptable to others, for this simple information which tries to show both sides of an argument. Or, if someone can explain more clearly why it goes in one page, vs. another; hopefully this wouldn't have to start all over again on the other page; in fact I would readily concede if you got it added to that other page without being reverted or without a gauntlet of objections that it doesn't fit anywhere. Or someone could suggest (and demonstrate) any path to resolution that might accomodate all, without simply shutting the effort down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcall52 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) edited 21:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)~

ps: I note that the other 2 editors, in the article talk page, both seemed to say they found having a new section for this content to be acceptable. Not sure what it would be called since to me "other" already makes sense until there is a clear group with a common theme to separate out as a group. --Lcall52 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Will the moderator give User:Lcall52 a warning about civility since he continues to negate my input with accusations of ownership? Seems only fair. My point is clearly stated and matches what the other two editors considered to be the best option for the page--leave the olives parable off since it affects one and only one chapter of the text, is trivial in consequence, and isn't an issue of historical authenticity, but an issue of Smith's sources. Origin of the Book of Mormon actually seems like a superior place to mention the issue of whether or not Smith copied olive horticulture from 19th-century sources or not. --Taivo (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good way to tell whether or not you're dealing with BOM historical authenticity questions or not: What is the question that the issue raises concerning the BOM? If the question is "Is this real?" then you've got a historical authenticity question. If the question is "Did Smith copy this from a 19th century source?" then you've got an origin question. The olives question is clearly and unequivocally the latter since no one questions the accuracy of the description, but everyone questions Smith's source. (By "everyone" I mean critics of the BOM.) --Taivo (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some thinking aloud here, for reaction: Short version: Another candidate pair of delineating questions is "is this about argued possible modern authorship?" vs. "is this about whether a description of ancient things fits in ancient times?". That seems to fits the current content of both pages quite well--do you disagree? Long version: I like the idea of having a division based on a clear question. To me though, the way the questions are currently phrased means the section "Anthon Transcript", and maybe one other, seem muddy in that respect. So my suggested delineating questions, which aren't perfect either, but it solves the "Anthon Transcript" question for me, and puts my citation back in the "historical authenticity" page. Or is there an even better pair of questions? So, while it isn't clear to me how to make the division in the future, maybe because the pages are so related, would you actively support adding a section, say, to the other ("Origin") page with the two proposed sentences (~"some have written...refs.... Critics however...ref.), and argue with me for that (if there were debate on that talk page)? What would you suggest the section be called (something neutral :) ? If we agreed on that (and I don't know yet if I do), we might still have to agree about my "North America" phrasing which you disliked (from the talk page, earlier)--and a suggestion there would be good, especially if it recognizes Joseph Smith's limited educational opportunities (and I acknowledge, that is only as far as is known, it's hard to prove a negative). I'm mostly thinking aloud here, for discussion; not sure what I think about it quite yet. (If I'm violating or neglecting something in this comment...other than lack of conciseness...let me know which policy....) Thanks. --Lcall52 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support adding the olives with a comment on the controversy to the Origin of the Book of Mormon page, because I still strongly oppose its inclusion on Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon page. And I would support moving the Anthon Transcript paragraph there as well. It doesn't belong on the "Historical Authenticity" page (you'll note I never included it in my arguments against olives). The controversy over the olives chapter isn't about its accuracy in olive farming, but over where Smith copied it from (a 19th century source or looking in his tophat). That's "Origin" material. --Taivo (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

One problem we have with all these "X of the Book of Mormon" pages is that they serve one and only one function--a religious one. Critics use them to bash Mormons and their book. Mormons use them as a promotion tool. Neither use is encyclopedic. (And, hence, my willingness to do away with all of them.) Both uses lead to "topic creep", where topics, such as the Anthon paragraph, will be moved by critics from page to page to page so that it's hard to find a BOM page that doesn't include some mention of the Anthon Transcript. The same is true of topics that Mormons use to promote the book such as the olive topic. There is, in fact, an entire article devoted to the Parable of the Olive Tree that reads like a missionary tract and not like an encyclopedia article (except in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism perhaps). It's a pervasive problem in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" since there is little, if any, quality control other than the ethereal "consensus", which is virtually impossible to achieve on religious pages without creating paragraphs that resemble Frankenstein's monster more than they resemble Hamlet. --Taivo (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The solution is described in the Wikipedia:NPOV#Religion page. I'm still interested in your thoughts on my other questions, such as the split questions I suggest, and the others. --Lcall52 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my position several times already and your arguments have not moved me in any direction. I have agreed with you that the Anthon Transcript section probably doesn't belong on the "Historical Authenticity" page and should be removed or moved, but I still think that your addition of olives is trivial and irrelevant to the topic of the page. --Taivo (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There are two additional comments from uninvolved editors at the talk page. Fred Bauder has stated two things. First, that he is aware of this DRN request, and second, his view on the inclusion which is basically; "after taking a good look at the title of this article, History, I don't think a detail of horticulture actually fits". Richard Keatinge added a reply. In the reply his opinion was basically; "My preference would be for removal, unless more and better sources can be found.". I say basically only because other comments made were not based on Wikipedia policy or unhelpful. Some comments could be seen as less than civil, to say the least. The new editors have the option of being added to the request as "involved editors" or may continue to discuss here on this DRN as uninvolved editors but even if the discussion returns to the article's talk page, editors are encouraged to remain civil.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I have collapsed the discussion at the article talk page. I didn't notice if the moderator had asked for discussion to be centralized here, but it is usually the rule for the moderator to ask for discussion to be centralized here. Please do not discuss this also at the article talk page until this discussion here is resolved (or failed). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - One of the participants says that they will read the talk page guidelines within a few days. I don't know what the issue is, but reading the talk page guidelines immediately would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary convenience break

The issue seems to be about an inconclusive and minor argument, slightly referenced to fervent LDS apologists. It doesn't seem to be worth including - even the two or three sentences needed to outline it seem to give it undue weight - but I suppose it could be mentioned in a section of other trivial arguments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I continue to think anyone who comes to the page comes to read about a subject. That some don't find the subject interesting doesn't mean those who come to the page also don't; it has 2,633 page views in the last 30 days, per the info link. Enough has been written to justify two short sentences, with sources both pro & con. No one here has mentioned whether they have looked at the sources, such as the long article, with a well-written summary section at the end. --Lcall52 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Enough has not been written to justify two short sentences of trivia that have little or nothing to do with the issue of historical authenticity. Remember that those page views are looking at an article that doesn't have anything about olives, so trying to justify your addition by traffic to the page makes no sense. Your olive comment is still trivial and is still not really a question of historical authenticity. Put it on the "Origin" page because it has far more to do with whether Smith was writing fiction based on sources he had access to or not. --Taivo (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - Wikipedia has a number of articles of this type. Whether or not to keep the article is not really a part of the dispute but has been brought up. The reason I think this might need further discussion is only because of something that I thought of early on but got side tracked from. That is, the article title is the only title making use of Historical authenticity of... We do have a number of articles titled; "Historicity of..", including the Bible. The article should probably be moved (renamed) to reflect this standardized, encyclopedic tone.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not really talking about eliminating this article. That is an opinion I have, but it's not relevant to whether or not we add the other party's comment. This dispute is about whether or not his comment is relevant to this article and is significant enough if it is (both of which points I would answer "No" to). But we've never really included the elimination of the article in the discussion. Changing the title of the article would be fine with me. --Taivo (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a point here. The article has a number of issues. Some larger than others. A lot of reference format issues, the title is unlike any other of it's kind on the encyclopedia, large swaths of unreferenced content. Yet...it has a B rating. Not sure if it even constitutes a C article. Are editors being allowed to make changes that are even actually needed? Are they even trying?

There is no doubt that the subject being raised by the editor of the DRN is relevant to the Book of Mormon. Does that make it relevant to the historicity? The only way you can judge that is to parse it out and look at it. But to do it honestly we have to understand what we're trying to add this content to. We aren't rescuing an FA article. But we also don't want to add nonsense. Is this nonsense? No. It may constitute original research at the moment but there already exist a consensus among editors that it is related, if even just as trivia. The current form seems to have sources. Are they biased sources? Perhaps but how does that effect the reliability of the source? Can we dismiss a source for being biased? How much discussion has been provided to look at the content and how much has been simply to dismiss it? What is the actual point (even if badly written)? Can it be rescued? If not exactly why is irrelevant if it relates directly to a part of the Book of Mormon? Is it possible there is real context that could expand the mention to be more obviously related to a historicity? What every editor wants is to have their contribution given consideration. The debate has been long for you TaivoLinguist but I am not sure how much time has really been given in the discussion as to what the content is to begin forming an opinion for inclusion or exclusion. The actual part of the BOM is Parable of the Olive Tree. Is this something that can be, in any way something a source or author may have discussed at any length for historical significance or doubts published etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(hitting page conflicts; will try to read the prior comment and reply more thoughtfully once I get this in w/o loss...) To try to merge some parts of the thread: I think my suggested delineating questions for the 2 pages' content ("is this primarily about possible modern authors?" vs. "is this about whether a description of ancient things fits in ancient times?") make a much clearer, less ambiguous separation between the content of the 2 pages we have lately discussed (origins, vs. historical authenticity): I propose that those questions are easier to understand how to apply to a specific case (vs. "Is this real?"), match the current content better, and make more conceptual sense going forward as a way to organize things. But I'm willing to discuss that or see it improved still, or to hear a clearer pair of questions from you, as the ones you propose seem vague and easily re-interpreted in the future, and do not serve the readers' expectations that I think the pages titles create. I quoted the hit count because it means people are interested in the general topic: I also found the Anthon Transcript quite interesting when I first read it, as it had info I had not seen before; the same would be true about my suggested content for readers who come to the page to learn about the topic (though there is less of it and it is perhaps less interesting than the Anthon Transcript, so the lesser # of words fits that difference). I don't see the validity of arguing to prevent new information being on a page, just because it is not already on the page so people must not be interested (but maybe I misunderstood your point(s)). You also didn't answer as to what section heading you would recommend, if the content were to go on the Origins page. I also note that none of my four references about that chapter are official Church sources, one of my references is 624 pages on the subject, another is a long scholarly article with 4 authors (available online): those four plus your reference seem well worth two sentences. --Lcall52 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully my last comment here and below are at least partially relevant to what you raise. --Lcall52 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly? It wasn't really helpful. Let's try to move past the older arguments. Not everything needs a counter point. Instead of discussing the sources themselves you need to try and demonstrate that the sources have context, support the claim and are reliable to the criteria of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are a number of articles this content might be able to go into however, for the moment, let us stick to the single dispute of whether or not the contribution falls within the scope of the article, which is historicity.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Religion articles, especially articles relating to a book that you either believe is 100% fake or believe is 100% real, have a problem with sources from the beginning. All sources tend to be biased. Pro sources are invariably published either by a certain university press which the volunteers are reluctant to allow to be named or by an LDS church-owned and operated publishing house (which I won't name for the same reason). This university press is a reliable press in all other topics, but is hopelessly prone to bias in topics relating to the LDS church and the BOM. The inherent bias of the church-owned and operated press should go without saying. Critical sources tend to be written by equally biased publishers because standard university presses don't wade into religious debates of this nature. Because it is taken for granted in mainstream scholarship that the BOM is a piece of fiction invented by Smith, reputable scholars don't waste their research time and effort trying to disprove it with peer-reviewed scholarship. Because it is taken for granted in LDS scholarship that the BOM is a work of divine revelation and factual, the publishers that they rely on seek peer-review among the faithful and not among mainstream scholars. So relying on Wikipedia policy for reliable sources would strip this article (and almost all of the "X in the Book of Mormon" articles) of all its content and its very reason for existence. Who reads this article? The curious? This article contains two and only two things: 1) arguments to steer the curious clear of Mormonism and 2) arguments to steer the curious into Mormonism. So that's why this article should not exist IMHO. But that's not the issue here, just background to why these articles tend not to operate like other Wikipedia articles with reliable sources, etc. This issue has been debated many times on a variety of these articles. In the end, non-Mormons tend to discredit these articles as of no encyclopedic value while Mormons want them retained.

So now let's get to the issue at hand with this background. The sources which the other party cites are considered reliable by the faithful. They are familiar sources to anyone who has critically studied the BOM. Critics consider these sources to be highly unreliable for the same reason that the faithful consider them reliable. The sources are not the issue here. The issues are 1) relevance and 2) triviality. Triviality isn't always an issue of "But someone has written about it". Triviality is weight, not just existence of argumentation. This olive addition concerns a single chapter of the BOM while the other issues on the page concern the book as a whole. But the greater issue that the sources point out and that is the basis for the great majority of Mormon writing on the topic as well as all of the critical writing is not one of historicity, but whether or not Smith copied a 19th source or not. That makes this not a historicity issue (is the olive narrative accurate), but an origin issue (did Smith copy it from a 19th century source). It's all about what question the sources are answering when they discuss this single chapter in the BOM. They don't focus on historicity, but on origin. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIASED states; "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." and goes further to state; "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...""--Mark Miller (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The dispute

I would like to ask Lcall52 to add the exact contribution in question as it was added to the article and the source or sources used to reference the claim below in this section. Also if you could please provide the diff of your addition. The diff is the history difference showing when you added the content. If you are unable to provide the diff that is OK.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and add the information to save some time. Here is the contribution in question and these diffs; diff 1 and diff 2.

Some Mormon authors have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of olive horticulture.^{[1] [2][3][4]}

• Volunteer comment - In looking at the contribution there are a few things that stand out.

• First, the opening, which would certainly be a red flag for most experienced editors, starts off with unsupported attribution; "Some Mormon authors...". Wikipedia's Manual of Style speaks directly to this: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed". The use of this must be "properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source".
• The claim; "..have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of olive horticulture". There appears to be some context missing as to why this is historical information. Which is why it seems out of place and/or like trivia that is disconnected from the rest of the article. That would be needed here for the claim to have context to the subject. That's very important.

Sources for the claims must be verifiable so that the reader and other contributors, can verify the claims are supported by the source. You have only provided the page number of one source. I'm going to stop for just a moment and look at the sources themselves before continuing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. Now I'm hitting edit conflicts so i hope i get it this time. In case it helps, based on TaivoLinguist's suggested other reference and content changes (in earlier discussion on the talk page), this might be better: "Some Mormon authors (in references) have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of details of olive horticulture, that were not known to be available to Joseph Smith given his limited education at the time.^[1][2][3][4]. Critics have written that relevant information about olive horticulture was available at that time, in the general region where Joseph Smith lived.^[5]." The diff is here: diff between my page and prior

Further suggestions on the wording (remove weasel-words, etc) are appreciated. I didn't cite pages in one reference because all 624 pages are on this topic. I like your suggested page title change, and thanks for your input in general. --Lcall52 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe "...given his limited education and the complex connections between the content and ancient practices." (per the breath of material in the references) --Lcall52 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Could you "unpack" this please?

Mormon authors have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of details of olive horticulture that were not known to be available to Joseph Smith given his limited education at the time. Critics have written that relevant information about olive horticulture was available at that time, in the general region where Joseph Smith lived.

Break down each source. Please provide the page number of the source and if there is no available online preview, please provide a snippet of the exact portion being used to support which claim..--Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Do you mean assign each reference to part of the sentence? For the sources, 2 are online and in each case the entire page is on this subject; 1 is an entire book on the subject so I'm not sure how to pick out pages, and for the other one, I mentioned the pages in the reference. They all cover the relationship between this BOM chapter and olive culture, such that I wouldn't know where to begin to break them down unless specific quotes are needed: it's a big topic so ... topic sentence of a chapter summary or such? Which chapter, where the whole book is involved? The 2 that are online are probably a good start. The long book can be previews (ToC and more) via if you click "Look Inside". (I'll answer your comment in the other thread, probably sometime tomorrow.) That might not be at all what you were looking for but I can try again tomorrow. Thanks.

One way that this can easily be resolved is if the sources do not support the facts as being presented. Even by removing the word "Some", the issue is still whether a source claims that ; "Mormon authors have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of details of olive horticulture that were not known to be available to Joseph Smith" and that this is not merely being supported by examples of Mormon authors who do. The same is a concern for the part about "critics". By "unpack" I mean simply to demonstrate that each source supports the claims by presenting either the portion from the source that is being summarized or provide clear page numbers so others may. Without that, the content is unverifiable and it's exclusion is justified. Can this be demonstrated as supporting or not by any involved editor? That will speed things along immensely.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Lcall52 please don't forget to sign your posts and before you go for the day (if you are still around) could you respond to my last post directly above this one?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll hopefully think more clearly tomorrow than I am now, but a quick question: Are you saying provide quotes, or for someone besides me to look at the sources and confirm they say relevant things? The 2 online links are viewable by anyone in this thread; in one of them, even the closing summary is long but I could try to pull out the summary-of-the-summary, and hopefully not violate copyright, or if someone wants they could certainly bring it up...? For one book I provided page numbers but not sure what else to do. For the long book, the above amazon link then "look inside" is my best idea. Sorry if I'm not getting it yet. I'm not sure how to say "people have written academic articles, a section of a book, and an entire book on the subject" in wikipedese. --Lcall52 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you 24 hrs to respond to the request above. Any editor can respond so, if the other editor wishes to unpack this and demonstrate that it is not supported by the sources directly then you can always reply. But, it was my hope that you could fully demonstrate with the sources you provided the claims being made. If you are unable to do so, that is what this comes down to.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And just to be sure I am being specific, you need to show where, in each source, the claim is supported directly. You can use a link or you can type out a passage from the source (snippets of copyrighted works must be kept short but is allowed). The source cannot be the entire book. If the source is a longer portion than a single page, give all the page numbers but, it must be available to view otherwise I am requesting you, as the contributing editor to type out the portions and tell us the page number. Without the specifics this is likely to be excluded.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• The first on-line source (I don't own the off-line books) is focused on the origin and how the olive narrative supports Smith's translation work and not his authorship based on 19th century sources: "Jacob 5 is a virtuoso performance by Joseph Smith in his role as translator. He presents an intricate, accurate account of olive horticulture, and uses variances from the "proper" technique as a teaching tool. It should be noted that there was (and is) no olive culture done in New England. Furthermore, the original manuscript exists for part of this chapter — Jacob 5:46-48, 57-61, 69-70, and 77. Only one word is altered after dictation: "diged" in "digged about" of verse 47. [1] Thus, Joseph produced this material by dictation, with no revision. "
• While the second on-line source contains an extensive discussion of olive horticulture comparing it to the BOM/Zenos narrative, in the final section "Conclusion and Perspectives" the focus is almost entirely on whether or not Smith could have known these things based on his upbringing in New England and limited knowledge of olive horticulture. In other words, it looks like a historicity issue with the length, but its focus, as conclusively evidenced in the final concluding section, is on origin just as in the first on-line reference.
• The third on-line source listed above is a critical source from an on-line ex-mormon forum. It is entirely focused on origin and not on historicity at all.

In conclusion, the three on-line sources focus all their arguments on the issue of origin, and not on the issue of historicity. Even the lengthiest of the on-line sources concludes that the accuracy of the olive description supports Smith's origin story and not the critical narrative that Smith's tale is fiction and he pulled the olive narrative from 19th century sources. --Taivo (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, and the earlier clearer distinguishing questions for choosing between the two pages, and for (earlier still) saying you would support putting this on the Origins page. What section would you propose for it, on the Origins page? (I still need to read & think about Mark Miller's comments and links about sources, and how that relates to this proposal, or to all the content, on the two pages mentioned.) --Lcall52 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait...the 4th reference is a reddit forum? Why was that not a bigger issue than biased sources? Was this discussed and I missed it? At any rate...no, we cannot use a reddit forum. No, it is not a reliable source and no, there is no manner or way to rescue that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The reddit source was proposed by TaivoLinguist as a balancing (opposing) viewpoint; thinking of the general NPOV idea, I didn't oppose (ie, "mormons wrote X, critics wrote Y"). --Lcall52 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The specific source being excluded is number 5 ^ "Jacob 5. Olive trees allegory and apologetics". Retrieved 2017-08-25. It is above the box quote because I excluded the inline sources in the slightly different version.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you are experiencing first-hand the world of BOM articles--biased, unscholarly, and unreliable sources are the norm. In this case we witness the frustrating bifurcation of sources. Mormon sources from LDS scholars have all the trappings of reliable scholarly sources (until you delve beneath the surface to see that peer review is only among the faithful and the publishers are church-owned at some level [including at church-owned universities]). Critical sources are rarely from scholarly sources because no self-respecting scholar will waste his precious research time on countering Mormon claims because it 1) does nothing to promote his/her career and 2) is virtually impossible to publish with mainstream and academic publishers. Without the balancing, but admittedly poor, critical voices, these articles easily turn into missionary tracts. --Taivo (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The decision whether to believe something, or on whom and what to trust, can have many different reasons, and carries logical implications. It is not surprising that believers would be more motivated to write about why they believe, or that non-believers (in any thing) might be less likely or motivated. --Lcall52 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the article Parable of the Olive Tree for an example of a BOM article that, without balancing critical voices, is virtually a missionary tract. --Taivo (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Source number 4 (working backwards) ^ "The Allegory of the Olive Tree - Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship". Retrieved 2017-08-09 has very a very specific description of what the paper is; "The purpose of this paper is to analyze the botanical and horticultural aspects of olive culture inherent in Zenos’s allegory and compare them with ancient and modern information about raising and cultivating olives.". With nearly the entire publication being merely an interpretive analysis of the Jacob 5 from BOM. With only a few paragraphs at the end for any conclusions. I am not entirely sure I am seeing the same context the original DRN requesting editor saw. I'm inclined to agree with TaivoLinguist that this is a trivial or passing mention. Let me be clear, it does support some of the passage. In particular; "[t]he Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of details of olive horticulture that were not known to be available to Joseph Smith". But it does not state it was because of his education level but that olives did not grow in the eastern climate and this information would not have been widely available there at the time ( "Not much more than this was known about olives in the eastern United States (an area not suitable for olive cultivation) in 1829 when the Book of Mormon was translated" ). Here are the supporting snippets; "Most of the botanical and horticultural principles in Jacob 5 are sound" and "Joseph Smith probably knew how to prune, dig about, dung, and nourish local fruit trees; he probably knew a little about grafting, and he may have been familiar with some other horticultural principles, but not likely those peculiarly related to olive culture." The problem is, this is an opinion piece because it attempts to interpret and analyze the passages and then draw conclusions but the conclusions are not direct to the context of historicity, just an overview of the origins of the section as TaivoLinguist stated. This tries to draw a reasoning as to why the passage is there and interpret the allegory itself. It fails to draw a conclusive, direct explanation as to if or how Joseph Smith wrote the section. It can support a small portion of the statement but not as written and because it does not have the proper context of historicity I would have to agree that it fails context and is also theological interpretation or opinion which would have to be attributed in the text of the claim which would then give undue weight to these authors opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Source number 3, FairMormon is not a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking. It's a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I need to think about all the above, read the earlier links about reliability etc. from Mark Miller, and I am not sure I'll have the time/ability to do a good job at that today or in a given period of time. Thanks very much for the discussion and input; this has been/will be a learning experience. Perhaps later I can try to rewrite the proposed passage per Mark Miller's comments of 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) and of 04:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC), and consider a section for it on the Origins page; constructive suggestions would be most appreciated. --Lcall52 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

(I support the suggested page rename if someone else does it, but before I start another dive I also want to learn about archiving and how to check older talk page comments.) --Lcall52 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Page Move Requested

Uncontroversial page move to "Historicity of the Book of Mormon" requested here. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The notification said an old page of the name "Historicity of the Book of Mormon" was deleted (prior to the move). Is there a way to see if there was pre-existing content on that old, now-deleted page? --Lcall52 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The old page was a redirect. Content is moved automatically when a page is moved to a new name. There was no content there. It just means that at some point in the past the page was moved from "Historicity" to "Historical Authenticity". --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (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 Ian.thomson

OP twice tried to censor the article, then tried to create artificial balance (reverted each time by different editors), then cited a public opinion poll (that didn't quite back up their argument) for a scientific claim. This is removing or downplaying material that the talk page archives reveal regular consensus for. It was only after this that I finally entered the scene, reverting his latest edit to the article, warning him about edit warring using the standard template, and starting the talk page discussion.

Zsnell443 then claimed that we had accused him of "inciting a riot" (demonstrably false). When I notified him that CreationWiki and Conservapedia are not regarded as reliable sources, he stuck words in my mouth, and called me a close-minded, "anti-theology" atheist (something that is easily verified to be untrue, as if it was relevant at all). I pointed out that this was neither true, relevant, nor especially insightful into the relationship between religion and science; and tried to explain succinctly our policies regarding sourcing and neutrality. He did apologize, while claiming that failure to include his personal beliefs amounts to bias in the article (regardless of our policies) and showing a lack of awareness of what exactly a Scientific theory is. I elsewhere again tried to explain our site's policies regarding politics and faith, as well as letting him know that there's more to the world that Christian creationists and Atheist "Darwinists," apparently to no avail. I did admittedly dare him to try to insert his POV into the Evolution article (and implied that his continual accusations were psychological projection), though it proved necessary to clarify that he'd have to use edit requests. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, when I said "censorship," I did not mean later disagreement but the initial removal of sourced information that disagreed with their POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ken Ham discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing party, User:Zsnell443, has listed one other editor. In fact the filing party has made edits against consensus that have been reverted by several experienced editors. The filing party is trying to give equal weight to a fringe science position, and has been cautioned about ArbCom discretionary sanctions involving pseudo-science. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including that neutral point of view supports mainstream science rather than fringe science, the other editors appear to have been correct in reverting the filing party's edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This thread will be closed shortly unless a policy-based reason can be given why it should be kept open. The filing party may choose to discuss at the fringe theory noticeboard, but is likely to be advised that their viewpoint is fringe. Disruptive editing may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - Please do not refer to the removal or reverting of edits due to a point of view dispute as "censorship". Please do not refer to the edits by the other editor whom you think is wrong as "censorship". It is popular to shout "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute, but it doesn't really resolve the dispute. Usually it is the POV warrior who claims that removal of their edits is censorship. This time it seems that the experienced editor who was maintaining neutral point of view complained that the other editor had censored their edits. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong or in accordance with or against Wikipedia policies. The other edits are very seldom censorship. This isn't censorship; this is a dispute about pseudoscience. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment to User:Ian.thomson - Yes. Removing good scientific information still isn't censorship. There are many forms of disruptive editing, and most of them are not censorship and most of them are not vandalism. You can "win" a content dispute by being right without having to claim "vandalism" or "censorship". Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2017 (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 scope_creep

Hi I don't have a dispute as such. I undertook a copyedit of a heavily spammed WP:BIO article: Dan Wagner and took out everything that wasn't puffery, or couldn't be verified via references, of which there was a lot. It was full of blog references, WP:OR, puffery, financials, share prices, IPO's, share movements, monies gained, and other non notable stuff; everything you see in this type of puffed up article written by spammers, several of them have now been blocked. The person who opened this dispute, at: User talk:95.210.221.6 wants to put a statement back in, which is synthesized from various newspaper and online articles and can't be verified to be true, hence the reason I removed it. Specifically, 95.210.221.6, who I have asked to undertake disclosure per WP:PAID, as it is somebody representing Dan Wagner, want to put in the statement that Dan Wagner is the father of eCommerce. After several hours of searching I couldn't verify the statement. I like these father types, as I'm a software engineer,like Vint Cerf, father of IP and Alan Turing, father of AI, but couldn't verify the statement. It was that original statement, that got me copy editing the article in the first place. My reason for taking it out, is it couldn't be verified as factual. It is plain WP:OR. If it was a known thing, it would be all over the shop, in IT and computing books, magazines, newspapers, the wayback machine, whitepapers, but it isn't. scope_creep (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is the founder of British eCommerce. scope_creep (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yak shaving

As stated on the talk page, the original citation from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955 is actually 'the founder of the British e-commerce'. That particular piece reads like a press release and is questionable under WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:QUESTIONABLE. 5 of the 6 Chinese supporting articles cited in the talk page are word-for-word the same as the Taiwan News article. The last Chinese article from the China Post does not support this claim. The newly supplied press clippings do not call the subject the 'founder of the British e-commerce'. The IP editor claims the clippings imply the subject is the founder and/or a pioneer which is WP:SYNTH, 'is a conjectural interpretation of a source' (WP:BLPREMOVE) and has no place in WP:BLP. I agree with the both scope_creep, Melcous & Ol king col, the statement should no be included. Also, it's worth noting this is a similar POV to other previously banned IP's/users, most notable Techtrek who was recently banned for socking, WP:QUACK seems very relevant. Yak shaving (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Melcous

I first came to this article as it had been flagged as one with WP:COI and WP:PUFFERY issues. I don't claim any kind of expertise or knowledge on the topic or subject of the article. But to make such a broad claim as "the founder of ecommerce" in the opening line of a WP:BLP would seem to me to require consistent and widespread confirmation (and as has been said above, if the claim was true, one would expect it to have that kind of verifiability). Instead what has been proposed is a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as well as some poorly worded Chinese and Taiwanese sources that appear to be based on press releases issue by the subject of the article (or his company) when entering that market, at least one of which appears to be truncated from a quote that simply refers to him being the founder of a particular ecommerce company. The discussion has been made more difficult by the history of promotional editing on this article, and the difficulty in distinguishing between a number of IP editors, but there has seemed to me to be a fairly clear WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page that the phrase does not belong in the article. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ol king col

The claim that the subject is "the founder of British e-commerce" or words to that effect is being pushed by the filing editor based off 3 articles, the first is a recent Taiwan News article which as another author has noted appears to be based / repeating a press release. Of the other 2 sources 1 is 20 years old, the other is nearly 30 years old, both are press clippings that the filing editor has been able to supply, but no one else has been able to verify. That these articles state words to the effect that Dan Wagner was involved in e-commerce is not in dispute. Claiming he is "the founder" is what most other editors disagree with as outside these articles there is no other verifiable source. In fact there is plenty of evidence that E-commerce was happening in the UK before Mr Wagner even set up his company, and therefore it can not verifiable that he is the founder. The filing editor has made 2 recommendations, one that the statement "Dan Wagner is the founder of the British E-Commerce." as this is clearly unvrified, and untrue it can not be included. Alternatively they believe the article should say "Dan Wagner has been called the founder of the British E-Commerce by [attribute here]." I can supply 3 articles comparing the subject to David Brent http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7341836/powa-dan-wagner-david-bowie-brent & http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3894780/Real-life-David-Brent-convinced-Goldman-Sachs-firm-worth-16bn.html & https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/28590/bowie-bentleys-and-cantonese-powa-failure-fallout-rumbles-on by the filing editors own argument we should include the statement that "Dan Wagner has been compared to David Brent". That's a patently ridiculous statement, and not worthy of Wikipedia. Finally, the subject has been in the news alot in the last few years, first for generating a huge amount of Series A investment for his business, and subsequently for the collapse of the same business, in not one of theses many, many articles in many, many very reputable publications has the claim that he is the "founder of British e-commerce" appeared. Ol king col (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 95.210.221.6 (the filer)

• I have myself mentioned in "How do you think we can help?" section that there is contention on page related to previous editors. I know parties that maybe related to the subject or against the subject in some way were blocked and that has created more contention on the page with the remaining editors. However, I have no relation to any of the other editors (current or previous). I only joined this page when I tried to make an edit and was told to discuss it on the talk page. Editors may think that consensus is not in favour of adding the phrase but surely that is why I am here, no? To help determine a clearer consensus as I understand that consensus is not a vote of more editors, but rather valid arguments matter. Please help us determine a clear consensus and interpret the references correctly.
• I have made two recommendations:
  • Say "Dan Wagner is the founder of the British E-Commerce.". I have given references here https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlU0ZVlfTGMwd0U and here https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlE2eGphSEtaajA and much more recently here https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955.
  • Say "Dan Wagner has been called the founder of the British E-Commerce by [attribute here]." If editors disagree with above, references still support this.
• I think the second statement is fairly neutral and does not promote point of view of the subject or any editors, it also does not need widespread references as it will not be mentioned as a fact, it will be attributed to a specific, notable sources saying that. Editors have disagreed to this on talk page but I believe that this point of view is counter to wiki policies so I want the moderators here to evaluate this option as it is WP:NPOV. 95.210.221.6 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Has been previously discussed here but the issue was closed as number of IP's were banned - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=789452294#Talk:Dan_Wagner.23Intro Yak shaving (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• I want to note that King Col and Yak Shaving are also both singularly focused on this topic only and which is fine to have interest in a single topic but I want to request moderators to keep the discussion in line by striking accusations as users were banned on both sides and I have no idea who is who apart from the ones I am talking to in this dispute.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dan Wagner#Non_consensus_based_update_to_article discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Evaluating the merits of the case and spec. the sources.@Scope creep:--Hi, can you elucidate a bit more on your current stand?Does corrected means that you accept him as the father of Brit.Ecomm.?Thanks!Godric on Leave (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No I don't accept him as the founder of British eCommerce. It was merely confirming Ol king col statement. That was the original statement of the spammer, or series of spammers going back several weeks/months; the situation is confused, but that they needed to put in that particular statement in, to push the individual from merely being a commercial manager, director entrepreneur type into somebody in the same realm as somebody like Tim Berners-Lee, which of course is incorrect and can't proven as fact. The reason I conflated founder and father, is a kind of lexical trap, which that statement provides, and which I fell in to. And you would think I'd know. When you say founder, meaning they began it, the beginning, as in start in the computer industry, it means you invented it. That is what the spammer expects the reader to think, when reading the article. He must have invented the British eCommerce. It is false. He may have used to technology invented by other people, in the first instance of a particular type (which may have been innovative), but to say to he was the founder of British eCommerce is entirely false; can't be proven per WP policies. It is entirely synthetic argument built on press releases and hearsay. The first time I heard the term Ecommerce was in 1995/1996. I was the big thing. Truly, everybody was in on it. But it was invented by Michael Aldrich 20 years before that, who is the true founder of British eCommerce. scope_creep (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Godric on Leave and Robert McClenon, can you inform me how to proceed from here? Can you check the references I provided. They are not press releases, one is from a national UK newspaper, another is from the main publication for the advertising and marketing community and the third is one of five articles that appeared recently in Taiwan (with the one provided being the most authoritative - Taiwan News). Other language references are allowed on wikipedia and these are translatable. There are also English scanned copies in my references (as explained above).

95.210.221.6 (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

List of_companies_of_France 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 ThinkingTwice

I'm against the removal of the mention to the fact that this term is seen as controversial in the lead section because as per WP:Lead the section should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed.

When you have organisations like the BBC who clearly acknowledge in reliable sources that this word divides opinion and summarises articles with words like "sexist" and goes on to describe it as "labelled with a term which divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society" as they do in this reference (link) on the subject. It clearly shows that there is controversy which should be acknowledged in the lead as well as in the article.

However another worrying step is the fact that after the blanking of the controversial viewpoint from the lead there has then been a concerted effort lead by User:Morty C-137 (linked here) to then try to railroaded a consensus by belittling and dismissing commentators who are mentioned in the criticism section as WP:Fringe simply because they do not have the same opinion as Morty C-137. This is an attempt to water down and remove half the section, presumably as a steppingstone for its entire removal in the future. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 06:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheValeyard

Not sure what the point is here. Leave the criticism in its own section, don't clutter the lead with OpEds by some people like Cathy Young who don't like mansplaining and other feminist issues. Problem solved. TheValeyard (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

Summary of dispute by Fyddlestix

Summary of dispute by Millahnna

Summary of dispute by Morty C-137

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

It's true there's been more edit warring than discussing, but this is probably a good place to have the extended discussion. I'm more-or-less agnostic about whether the content in question should be included. However, some of the objections seem surmountable. For example, one objection was that too much criticism was loaded into the lead. This can be easily solved by figuring out a better place for it. There were also issues of synthesis and weasel wording raised. This seems to be related to the "some critics say" style of writing. Maybe a compromise can be found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

Mansplaining discussion

• Note to volunteer - I suggest that this be closed as premature. The last part of this post by Mr. Magoo and McBarker on the article's talk page: represents a good attempt to discuss this dispute. However it was made today, and I think that the other editors should have a chance to respond to that post before dispute resolution is required. Cjhard (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it was made on August 19th. The two only bothered to reply because I tried to edit it in after waiting for their reply for 10 days. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I note the comment about " the other party of editors made up heavily out of recently created accounts" - before this proceeds, the party User:ThinkingTwice needs to name these editors are parties to this, as so far I don't see any evidence for this. Seven editors have been named, one being about 4 months old and another 7, which isn't newly created or "heavily made up", and those two have edited 2 and 3 times respectively this month. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There was one left missing from the list, also months old. And uhh, ThinkingTwice has got nothing to do with this. User Morty got into a lot of ANI trouble and specific editors started raising attention to him already having squabbles with editors from the get-go and that he knew wikicode etc. To me it also seemed suspicious, and if you sockpuppet once then of course you do it again so anyone would be super suspicious about any team-like activity. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

But I believe this notice listing has done its work now and can be closed because it really brought in people to the talk and currently discussion is rolling well. However once this listing is closed I wonder if they care anymore after that. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (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.