Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 20

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire discussion

As your residential Eau Claire mediator (not a UWEC alumni), please do not accuse one another of wikilawyering. It fosters the totally wrong kind of attitude between editors. Consider:

4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves. [88guy88]

Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited. [Mesconsing]

5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked. [88guy88]

Again, please stop wikilawyering. Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping edit this article. 88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is clear as day to most editors. Content wise, Mesconsing is completely right. Conduct wise, 88guy88 gets it.

Self-published sources, especially when they're promoting a positive image, are almost always wrong to use. Accusing another editor of wikilawyering (twice in one reply to one post, so how could it happen "again"? Seriously, that's a little unfair) is also almost always wrong to do. It seems like an out-of-hand dismissal, and doesn't promote reasoned argument.

So: Content, advantage Mesconsing. Conduct, advantage 88guy88. Nobody wins. Just my 2c. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. My underlying concern with all of this is not so much related to the sources used as it is to the "academic boosterism" tag. I still feel the aricle is disinterested. The "reputation" section of the article currently reads:

In 2012, U.S. News and World Report ranked UW-Eau Claire as the 32nd best Midwestern university out of 146 public and private colleges and as the 5th best university when only public colleges are considered.^[1] Eau Claire is categorized as a "tier 1" institution, and is classified as "more selective," one step away from the magazine's highest category, "most selective."^[2] The magazine also named UW-Eau Claire the fourth best school in the Midwest in terms of undergraduate teaching.^[3]

The Princeton Review has named Eau Claire a "Best Value College" (one of 50 such public campuses in the country) and a "Best Midwestern College."^[4] The magazine described the school as a "challenging, midsize state university that offers an exceptional and very affordable education" and said that "in terms of its array of majors and minors, Eau Claire compares favorably with much larger schools. As one example, more than 700 students are involved directly in faculty research — an honor reserved for graduate students at most universities."^[5] The publication added that "one of the more impressive aspects of the university is its inexpensiveness in relation to the quality of education being offered."^[6] The Princeton Review also included Eau Claire in its list of the 311 most environmentally friendly campuses in the United States.^[7]

In their list of the "100 Best Values in Public Colleges," Kiplinger's Personal Finance has ranked Eau Claire as the 67th best value for in-state students and as the 64th best value for out-of-state students. According to the publication, the "rankings are based on academic quality, overall costs and financial aid availability."^[8][9]

The university is one of four undergraduate institutions in the United States to have four or more Dreyfus teacher scholars on the faculty^[2] and was among the 141 public and private colleges, universities and professional schools named in the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service.^[10] The Templeton Foundation included the university in its list of colleges that "encourage character development."^[11]

UW-Eau Claire sends more students abroad than any other master's level institution in Wisconsin, and it ranks 10th nationally among all master's schools in the number of students who study abroad.^[12]

I think that this section is disinterested and fact based. If, for instance, the article included phrases like, "Eau Claire's quality is reflected by its rankings in..." or "Eau Claire's value is made evident by...", the boosterism tag would be completely appropriate. However, the article simply reports uncontroversial and relevent information. Perhaps we could switch the academic boosterism tag to some sort of "inappropiate sources used" tag.

Thanks for the help. 88guy88 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been awhile since I have heard from anyone, so I am going to move forward with editing. Based on this discussion and Mesconsing's suggestions, the article is flawed on two levels. First, the introductory section of the article contains a sentence that reads "UW-Eau Claire has received high marks from several publications including U.S. News and World Report, the Princeton Review, Money Magazine and Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine." Remedy: I will simply remove this sentence. Second, the "reputation" section of the article uses sources published by the university. Remedy: I will add sources that aren't affiliated with the university to verify all claims made. Once I have done these two things I will remove the "academic boosterism" tag. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Thanks for helping out. 88guy88 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

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

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion

"This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights". Um, no. Wikipedia doesn't deal in 'indictments', scorching or otherwise - this isn't a court of law. I suggest you start again, with a clear statement of what the documentary is being cited for, and with diffs indicating any objections to such citation. We aren't going to decide here whether Mormonism is right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant, and neither are we going to make a similar decision regarding critics of Mormonism. Instead, we trying to write an encyclopaedia - and if there is a dispute regarding content, it helps to know what this is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also added an explanation on talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explaining why I oppose adding a section "Criticism and Controversy" on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Curb Chain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My description of the film is a direct quote from IMDB. I used it only to show that the film is highly critical of the Mormon church. Is it right that a section on this page labelled Controversy and criticism reads more like a well constructed piece of Pro-Mormon propaganda? All the controversy and criticism has been whitewashed out by the team of extremely heavy handed Mormon censors. They are now saying that a consensus is being reached to keep the film reference out. This is not a consensus. This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors. Please could we have a completely independent unbiased decision on whether reference to this highly critical film is relevant to the Controversy and Criticism section of this page. Light Defender (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. I am not, moreover, affiliated in any way with LDS or any of its various splinters or sympathizers. While I believe that you have already received the "completely independent unbiased decision" you have requested, most recently by AndyTheGrump who is per his user page a self-professed atheist, and by Curb Chain who, like me, regularly serves as a mediator in dispute resolution, let me add my opinion: to add the reference to the film to this article would be to give the film undue weight and would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In your being new to the Wikipedia it is easy to come with some preconceived agendas that you would like to achieve. This may or may not be one of the them; to bring the "real" truth about Mormonism to Wikipedia. That would not be a good position to start from. There are a plethora of pages on the topic of Mormonism. It is impossible to include everything in every article and it would be error to assume we should. Upper level articles should have only a summary of the topic as a whole and then refer to a number of additional articles for readers to read if they are interested.

Prop 8 may be a burning issue for you personally, but in the skeme of church with over a 180 years of history, this documentary is insignificant. However, it is probably worth a mention on the Criticism article.

Additionally, you might want to pull back from the allegations such as, "This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors." I have been around for a few years and I do not censor anyone. One of our policies you might want to read is to assume good faith of our fellow editors. Based upon the tone of your writing here, I can only assume that you have an axe to grind. This is not the place for it, but a personal blog might be an ideal alternative. -^StormRider 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK! Thank you. (As you probably guessed I'm an amateur at all this) - I would like to point out that the only reason there is a reference to this documentary in the article Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is because I put it there yesterday - not long before putting it on this article. I'm still half expecting it to be deleted from that page too? I am still wondering... Under the subtitle 'Controversy and criticism' why would the following sentence: "The church expressed support for a Salt Lake City ordinance protecting members of the LGBT community against discrimination in employment and housing while allowing religious institutions to consider lifestyles in actions such as hiring or providing university accommodations." (Printed in a Mormon owned and published paper) - be given more weight than reference to a documentary which provides overwhelming evidence of it's "decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights." There is simply nothing Encyclopaedic about this! It is pro-Mormon propaganda by a religion infamous for it's "Strick taboo on Homosexuality"^[1] Cheers anyway. Light Defender (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that IMDB is not a good source for referencing most things, and film reviews from IMBD should not be cited. The content is user generated, and therefore not subject to the editorial control of a reliable source. Like Wikipedia it can be a great place to start research.

You will find the LDS articles well curated, and I think it fair to say those who work on them regularly, be they partisan or not, are perhaps a little jaded by the perpetual stream of apologists and excoriators.

The citation "The church expressed ..." reads to me as damning by 21st century western secular standards, so I think that it is reasonable to cite it, especially as the we can be reasonably sure it reflects the opinion of the church.

It is a problem, in this area, though, that much of the background research is either attributed to BYU, or published by a "Deseret" imprint.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

As I said on the talk page, this edit simply isn't notable enough for inclusion on the page. There are a large number of documentary films that have been created to both praise and criticize the LDS Church – this one isn't any more notable than the rest. Listing one would require listing all of them, and that's not appropriate to the scope of the article in question.

I wasn't aware that User:Light Defender may be a new user. I've found new users often come to Wikipedia with a proverbial axe to grind – I did, albeit in a totally different topic than this – and it takes them awhile to figure things out. Dispute resolution is not an avenue in which to override WP:CONSENSUS when one falls in the minority. Hence my terming of this case as "ill-conceived". End this quickly, please.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Axe to grind? No... I just saw this documentary the other day and was shocked and disturbed (It appears civil rights in the UK are somewhat ahead of the US). I now think it's vitally important that anyone investigating this religion should know exactly how instrumental it's been in obstructing or removing the civil rights of millions of people over the last few decades using seriously devious and underhanded methods (Something this documentary shows very clearly). A religion that in recent history was prepared to go to war to defend it's right to polygamy which even more recently banned interracial marriage and now is all of a sudden the champion of 'traditional marriage' between 'One Man and One Woman' - 180 years of history riddled with hypocrisy. This "insignificant" documentary's message will stain this religion in the civilised world for another 180. And yet the Wiki page for this religion still reads like a well constructed Pro-Mormon advertising campaign?

You're right, this is no place for the fight. (Why would an encyclopaedia represent an unbiased/balanced view of a subject?) I'll get on to the BBC and see if we can't get it broadcast globally - perhaps just before the US presidential election (especially if Romney gets through). LOL I've not been in a dispute before, so I'm not sure how to end it? Is there a particular method? I thought I'd conceded yesterday. Cheers Light Defender (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

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.

Occupy Wall Street discussion

First I want to apologize for bringing this here again. I was under the impression that this was resolved, but I was mistaken. This seems like the most logical place to discuss this again.

I brought up here in DRN that as a compromise the section titled "Crime" should be re-named "security concerns" and this was also brought up by another editor that has no connection with the OWS as well during the NPOV noticeboard. According to the discussions, this was accepted as a compromise, along with a reduction of the content that was less notable. Now it seems to me that that's not good enough. I attempted to bring back the title as "Crime" since the issue has started over again, I figured the content of the article should be reflective of how the article was before this discussion began.Racingstripes (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello Racingstripes. Did you have an RfC on this already? Because if not, that seems like the best step to take. With an RfC, you can get more outside opinions on what to do, and then you can have an admin close the discussion to give you a relatively final decision which everyone can stick to. (Just make sure that there is not too much discussion from involved editors in the actual RfC itself, or uninvolved editors might be put off participating.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could try and persuade people to undergo mediation at the Mediation Cabal. I think mediation could actually work better than an RfC in this case if all the involved editors are willing to participate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The issue seems to have cooled off now. If the issue comes up again I will seek third opinions and/or go with the Mediation Cabal.Racingstripes (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2012 (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.

Dog discussion

Other party notifiedJobberone (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've said there. Chrisrus (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Would one of the parties please add the missing references, above. @Chrisrus: Can we take it that Jobberone has properly and, except for the refs, fully stated the matter in dispute? @Both: Here at WP we only repeat what reliable sources say; if the reliable sources disagree or say different things, then we report what both sources say (see the verifiability policy). In both cases, we do so without interpretation or analysis of the sources (see the no original research policy). From which of those policies does this conflict arise? — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at at the IUCN's red list of endangered species ^[1] and for the dingo it directs here->^[2] which is the catalogue of life. You can find the taxonomy for most animals at multiple sites but the above is a good ref. As you can see familiaris and dingo are listed as separate subspecies of Canis lupus which is the consensus of the scientific community at present.

Another problem is not just the scientific fact that the dingo is not familiaris but in the incorrect statement that the union of those two constitutes the 'domestic dog'. There is no reference I can find that states the domestic dog is a union of familiaris and dingo. Chrisus is stretching his point about his references beyond scientific circles, clear verifiability or logic and I don't mean this in a personal way. Additionally that is not the general consensus of the layperson nor the scientific community that they constitute domestic dog. Here is a ref concerning the differences in nomenclature and other things between dingo and dog as well as hybrids->^[3]. Here is a ref on the genetics of the pure dingo vs the dog and dog/dingo hybrids as well as distinguishing them morphologically by precise skull measurements, CT scans, and plain film x-rays->^[4].

It is plain that Australia is trying hard to preserve the genetic integrity of the pure Canis lupus dingo which has a distinct morphology and genetic structure from familiaris.

These issues can be discussed in the body of the article or in other satellite articles already established in Wikipedia. Let's leave the the dingo and statements about their union with familiaris out of the lead for the dog article. ThanksJobberone (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As you say, "except for the refs", he hasn't provided the citations in question. We're using MSW3, which is the usual standard on Wikipedia about existant mammals. He seemed to question my interpretation at times, while at others seemed to question the authority of MSW3 and held these others as superior. I haven't addressed what these others say or don't say, only what the one we have been using says. Chrisrus (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrisus is using WP:OR to create a "union" of two subspecies to make one subspecies, which is nonsense. The article's topic is Canis lupis familiaris, not Canis lupis familiaris ∪ Canis lupis dingo. Chrisus needs to rethink not about biology but about article topic partitioning. Speciate (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Now that I've found them, I've taken a look at the references and the arguments made by Chrisus in this edit on the talk page. I'm afraid that while I can see how those sources can be read to support the edit supported by Chrisus, the problem is that they must be interpreted or analyzed in order to come to that result, mainly due to the ambiguity of the three MSW3 sources. I do not believe, therefore, that they support either the statement desired by Chrisus in the Dog article or the statement,

"While current taxonomy lists it as "provisionally separate" from C. l. familiaris, the current taxonomy notes that it is legitimate to view the two as united into one subspecies, the "domestic dog", while admitting that this "stretches the subspecies concept."^[1][2]"

in the Canis lupus dingo article and I therefore believe that both of those statements constitute prohibited WP:OR. That's not to say that Chrisus' interpretation is wrong, I'm not at all sure whether it is or is not wrong because the sources are so ambiguous. If it is not wrong, however, then it ought to be supported by the scientific references identified in the comment section of the MSW3 Canis lupus article and some light might be derived from examination of those references. Until that light can be observed and cited in support, however, those edits should not be included in those articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "Canis lupus contains the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate" mean? Why does it say "domestic dog" on the comments section of both subspecies? You had some trouble understanding that, you say. Well, perhaps we could find an {{expert|biology}} to help us. It's as obvious to me. Do you claim some background in this area? Chrisrus (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When the source is such that one has to ask those questions then the source must be interpreted in order to come to a particular conclusion. Such interpretation is prohibited by OR. I did not simply say that I did not understand the source; I said that I could not evaluate the correctness of your desired edits for certain because the source is ambiguous. While you may wish for an expert's help here, I fail to see what an expert can contribute; an expert's interpretation of an ambiguous text is still just that, an interpretation, and is still forbidden OR. That, indeed, is the primary reason that the presence of experts as Wikipedia editors is problematic, as discussed in this essay (and is one of the reasons I do not edit in the area of my own expertise, law). The sources say what they say. The purpose of the verifiability policy is to allow encyclopedia users to go to the reliable sources and verify that what is said in the encyclopedia is actually said in the sources. A reader simply could not do that with the edits you want to make and these sources: to support those edits the reader would have to make an analysis or interpretation of the source (in particular, the very analysis you made in this edit) and that's not allowed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::The text isn't ambiguous. Feel free to reply to join that discussion in it's context. Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This dispute does not seem to be resolved after all. Chrisus is either ignoring your decision or has misunderstood you.Jobberone (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@Transporterman, the text isn't ambiguous. When MSW3 stamp Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo (please click on that, it's not the same as the Australian Dingo) as both being [domestic dog], they mean that both are domestic dog. Any other interpretation would be undue reading into things. I hope you continue to follow that discussion in it's context and invite you to join the discussion there, but please forgive me if I hesitate to repeat everything here. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This editing pattern is tendentious, disruptive, does not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting reliable sources, does not engage in consensus building by repeatedly ignoring other editor's suggestions and explanations, ignoring dispute resolutions and tenaciously holding on to their increasingly isolated POV, and finally by rejecting and ignoring community input as evidenced by resisting moderation and ignoring Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly. I'm not certain where I should proceed from here.Jobberone (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would invite and welcome other DRN clerk/mediators to evaluate and lend a hand in this dispute. @Chrisrus: I won't argue the issue of ambiguity with you, my opinion in just that, my opinion, and you're free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. @Jobberone: Those are conduct issues which are not appropriate for this noticeboard. The proper way to address them would be to take them to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U for advice, WP:AN or WP:ANI for sanctions, but I express no opinion on whether or not doing so is or is not warranted in this case. — 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I knew this wasn't the proper forum to mediate conduct issues. I was not aware mentioning them was also inappropriate. Again my apologies. This is my first time here so forgive, please. Thank you for your time in this matter. Regards.Jobberone (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than have other DRN clerks weigh in on this, I have listed the OR question at the Original Research Noticeboard for additional opinions by the knowledgeable folks who toil at that venue. If that listing does not resolve the matter, the question can be relisted here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (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.

Charles R. Pellegrino discussion

I am not an administrator. I have explained my position at Talk:Charles_R._Pellegrino, I believe Redslider has replaced well sourced material with unsourced original research in an article that is a biography of a living person. I believe that it is correct to revert such edits. Any editor, including Redslider, is welcome to edit the article further, if they can provide proper sources. Sparthorse (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see this returned to the article's talk page if possible. However, since this seems to be more of a personal dispute than a content dispute, I would recommend that you take this to the Cabal and seek mediation. Other DRN editors, please weigh in here if you feel differently. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you explain the term "personal" in this context? Using a false charge of "vandalism" to improperly revert someone's edit would seem to me a use/procedural matter. Can you clarify? thank you. Redslider (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

my mistake on 'Sparthorse' status as adm. I thought only adms could block/revert someone's material. Whatever he is, I stand by by charge that he abused his authority.

Would 'Sparthorse' please specify, precisely what the "well sourced material" and "unsourced...original research" is, so that we may know exactly what he refers to? The source for the claim that Pellegrino's degree is not valid rests with the textual comment of Mr. Brennan (contact with an unspecified party at the university) and his statement about his subsequent distribution of that allegation to the media, which then picked it up and repeated it. No further sources are given in the press articles besides university sources party to the dispute. "The quote of "Pat Walsh" is not sourced to Mr. Rich, in Mr. Rich's NYT article, and for all anyone knows it might have been simply lifted from the email materials distributed by David Brennan. Walsh's claim was that "...Pellegrino was never awarded a Ph.D. from Victoria and therefore could not have had it stripped from him or reinstated at a later date" (Rich,NYT) could not be the case, unless someone wishes to contend Pellegrino just wandered into the library thirty years later, handed the university a thesis published in 1983 to be cataloged as an "awarded doctoral thesis". Nonsense. My primary source is the Library Catalog entry (a document with legal standing in NZ courts), accession and other data clearly showing that Dr. Pellegrino completed the last requirement of a Phd. candidacy - the thesis, that there is a date gap of almost thirty years between publication and acknowledgement by the university of that accession - strong suggestion that whatever happened to his degree, happened after 1983, and well after the acceptance of this thesis. Nothing original or 'researchy' about that at all. It's solid documentation that supports Dr. Pellegrino's account (that the degree was stripped after it was awarded). Certainly enough evidence to contravene allegations that he didn't get his Phd. The burden of proof now falls on the detractors to prove he didn't get it and to offer plausible reason to include such personally discrediting statements in the text. Simple as that. Beyond questions of sources, is a Wikpedia non-administrator who arbitrarily employees a bogus charge of "vandalism" to revert (& without warning) another editor's material. 'Sparthorse' has yet to explain a single item in the revised text that even comes close to Wikipedia's definitions of "vandalism". More important is that doubt has legitimately been cast (sourced or not) on text in a Wikipedia biography that stands to defame and discredit a living person. That, above all other arguments should be a cause for reversing his action and blocking him from further involvement with the biography in question. This goes way beyond a "my-source, "your-source" fight. My question remains, is this the proper place to seek remedy? What proper Wikipedia authority is it that ought be consulted to hear the matter? There are other matters that cast doubt on the assertion of invalid credentials, but it is better to reserve those for the proper forum, than to spend more time here. The argument given should be more than sufficient for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redslider (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 February 2012‎ (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello Redslider. Have you checked out the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research? I think it would be worth reading these policies carefully so that you can gain a better understanding of why your contributions were reverted. For example, take the following text you added: "Controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Pellegrino proved to be baseless. Questions regarding the validity of his degree were circulated around the internet and in the news media based upon false and unauthenticated information propagated by some of his detractors, including editors of recent prior editions of this Wikipedia biography." This is cited to an unreliable source (a Blogspot blog), which actually claims the opposite to your text; therefore, your text is not verified. Furthermore, because it is not verified, and also because it appears to be your own interpretation of events, it falls under our definition of original research. For these reasons, I'm afraid that there is no way that we can keep your text in Wikipedia as it is. However, if you can satisfy the verifiability and no original research policies by citing your assertions to a reliable source, the case for inclusion will be a lot stronger. (Having said that, I personally have my doubts that you will be able to find such a source, given the evidence already present in the article.) Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stradivarius. (I hope I'm making my inline comments here correctly and in the right place. This process is new to me). Thank you. Your pointing directly to the passage that seems be giving trouble is of great help. I did ask Spartahorse to identify what and where the objections were, but he simply reiterated his complaint without citing the exact source. Perhaps that is something for you administrators to look into - At least that when there is an action like reversion, it must be accompanied by some specific identification of the passages causing the complaint as well as the exact reasons for it being judged "inappropriate". Not my call, but I think it would go a long way to clear up some of these matters if that were required. I'll say nothing else about content; I didn't really want to even mention it at all, but Spartahorse was so imprecise in his specification that I felt compelled to cover those bases. On the matter of Sourcing itself, I understand. Indeed I had sourced the passage you quote; but before I saved it with sources, Spartahorse had reverted the page, and I didn't feel it was worth another try without first speaking to him about it, and subsequently coming here with my complaint. To understand better, are you saying that the VUW library catalog entry showing the proper receipt of the thesis and its accession as a "VUW Awarded Doctoral Thesis" as well as other catalog descriptions is a sufficient, or insufficient, source to call into question other parts of the biography that state, by direct assertion or by inference, that the subject failed to get their degree as they stated? That is, is the university library record sufficient source to make the simple statement "Dr. Pellegrino received his Phd. from the University....etc."; and to edit such phrases as "claimed to..." and the like which suggest the matter is in doubt? You know, I frequently see, throughout Wikipedia cautions against writing things that would be "harmful", "derogatory", even "contentious" about a living person. I certainly think that might be the case here, where a persons character and reputation is being impugned both directly and indirectly (and made a central matter of the biography as if it were true based on indisputable evidence or, that the editors would like the readers to think it was still in doubt). So I wonder what the Wikipedia cautions abut defaming living persons mean, and if the Research Library record is sufficient cause/source to reverse the implications? I have other sources, as well; but prefer not to use them at this time for my own reasons. Anyway, is that passage the only one that is giving problems (it was primarily added to try to 'unring the bell' a little, after the present Wikipedia version has for so long been used as a source that has served to spread the doubtful assertion throughout the internet. The damage, of course cannot be undone entirely, but I think the man is at least owed a correction from one of primary sources of its propagation. If you think the source I'm using sufficient for at least correcting the record, let me know and I'll try again. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) No. Sparthorse's edit summary was pretty clear: publishing a thesis does not give you an automatic Ph.D. There is a source in the article stating that the Victoria University of Wellington did not award Charles R. Pellegrino a Ph.D even if his thesis can be found in its database.Curb Chain (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

From past, personal experience, I can testify that Sparthorse is quick to make strong accusations using derogatory names against users whose edits he doesn't like. While I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic of the article in question to make any comment on the edits one way or another, I do understand Redslider's ire at Sparthorse's apparently unwarranted accusations of vandalism. It would be appropriate to gently remind Sparthorse to tone down his rhetoric and assume good faith, especially in topics where he is not especially knowledgeable and qualified. AugustinMa (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AugustinMa. Yes, his rather strong and patronizing tone did not help the process. But I was most concerned that Spartahorse seems to be determined to maintain the status quo of an article that continues to unfairly do damage to a man's reputation (and by extension, to Wikipedia's reputation as well.) That part I fail to understand. If it was the passage that Stradivarus suggests needs to be better sourced, then I have no explanation for why Spartahorse didn't simply call that passage into question with a notice that it needs to be better sourced. It wasn't a passage that did harm to the person so I don't even think it needed immediate removal; on the contrary, it was attempting to remedy harm currently being done by the original (and now reverted) text. If Spartahorse had just dealt with or complained about that, I would have understood the matter and either sourced it better, argued the case, or removed it, and that would have been that. But by falsely charging me with "vadalism" as his complaint and reason, and removing all my revisions, he pretty much is saying he likes Dr. Pellegrino being injustly pilloried on shakey grounds at best. And I do think that is serious cause for complaint and still wondering where that complaint should be taken? If you have any suggestions, I appreciate hearing them. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the concerning edits: You removed huge tracts of referenced information regarding explicit official statement from the awarding university of the university in question NOT awarding Charles R. Pellegrino a Ph.D. You then wrote prose without citations. You state that you were about to provide sources to back up the claim that he did earn his Ph.D. According to our policies, we do not accept original research. You state you have your own reasons not to provide citations. I see no reason why the current state of the article should be changed to your revision.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider's arguments seem to be based upon his interpretation of the holdings record at the University, which he discusses at the talk page. I think he's wrong. I also just looked at Pellegrino's website - he doesn't seem to be claiming there that he has a PhD and there is no evidence that a PhD was 'stripped' from him. Redslider, I really think you should back off right now. If either Pellegrino or the University make more statements about this we can probably use them, but we can't change the article based on your interpretation of the library's web page. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see he's ignored everyone else and the article now says he had a PhD, with no suggestion that this has ever been challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 February 2012 (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.

List of tallest buildings in the world discussion

The reason the user Deryck Chan is bringing this to issue is that Hong Kong by itself is not a country. If you look at the list of buildings the category specifically states "Country" and each other building is listed under it's parent country and not for example "Houston, Texas" which would be equivalent to "Hong Kong" by itself which is just a Special Administrative Region of China. The category listing specifically states "Country" and following the convention of the other countries listed, Hong Kong should be listed under it's parent country of China. Although listing it as Hong Kong, China would also be acceptable. 114.229.251.187 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia with accurate information, the above user Deryck C. unfortunately has resolved to push his POV despite my numerous attempts to explain to him that Hong Kong is not a country and only just a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. He is persistent in trying label Hong Kong as a "country" when that would be inaccurate, the readers of Wikipedia deserve and demand accuracy of the information presented in all articles. Thank you very much! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk note: 114.229.251.187 (talk) has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles discussion

Acupuncture discussion

Ok, this is outrageous. Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to, and know more about than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together, from the vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks it is being subjected to on this website by sceptic fanatics, and I'm the one being attacked now. I didn't revert a single thing, you check the logs, I didn't revert a single thing on the main page, yet I was persecuted for "Edit Warring". What a joke! It said that Edit Warring was when a contributor did 3 reverts in a single day, yet I didn't even do ONE, and I'm "warned" for "Edit Warring".

Then, WLU comes along and says

"the elaborate ceremony of interview, "diagnosis" and selection of points is worthless and education should instead be a brief study of how to maintain sterile procedures and avoid hitting nerves, blood vessels and organs? Of course, for a lot of practitioners that would be like a priest or someone with a PhD in theology becoming an atheist, it would be incredibly hard to admit they wasted so much of their lives on what is really the equivalent of memorizing the chants used by witchdoctors. It would take a lot of courage to abandon the pretense of "ancient Chinese wisdom" and stick with simple safety precautions instead."

to which I replied

"the only really valuable research out there are the Chinese studies (because of the expert skill of Chinese practitioners in general in this regard vis-a-vie Western practitioners), and you'll note that they are all universally positive on the efficacy of acupuncture. But for a zealous rational-skeptic extremist fanatic like you to accept that WLU would be like a Spanish Inquistor suddenly deciding to stop persecuting witches for their "heresy".

which is just tit for tat, and I didn't start it, and I didn't continue it, so I'm not the bad guy here.

On a broader level, its not NPOV for an encyclopedia to sound like one of those amateurish, zealous "quackwatch" websites on a topic of such massive historical and cultural significance and gravitas as acupuncture: a practice thousands of years old that has affected the lives of Billions of people. Sure, you may have your scientific criticisms of it, but those criticism originate from a paradigm completely foreign to the native context in which TCM and acupuncture is understood, and should NOT be given the major weighting in the article that it is currently given.Dickmojo (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how you can claim that you "know more about (acupuncture) than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together". I am passionate about this subject too, it is part of my profession, at which I also have over a decade of experience. You have been consistently unable to provide reliable sources for the claims you make. Please provide diffs of any "vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks" that have been made upon you by any other editor. The quotation above from WLU is directed at acupuncturists generally, not you personally. Your response was a personal attack, as I have previously mentioned. Famousdog (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog, I don't exactly know what your profession is, but let me put it this way, if I came on here and loudly proclaimed to everyone and insinuated that what you do was a complete sham, that you were a con-man, that you trick the people you have a duty of care to out of their money and are unethical, in short that your contribution to society was worthless, in fact worse than worthless was in fact dangerous and harmful, that the knowledge you possess, which is rare and hard to acquire, is all rubbish, and used loaded terms like "pseudoscience" and "quackery" to describe your work when its actually very profound and solemn practice that has improved the lives of countless people, then I'm sure that it would be considered a personal attack as well.

Now, acupuncture is one of those empirical practices where hands-on experience matters. To draw an analogy with Kung-fu, you could read a Kung-fu book, you could read a research article which says that using Kung-fu for self defence is completely worthless and a croc and that its ineffective and compare it unfavorably to using a handgun for self defence, but I'm sorry unless you've had 10 years of diligent training and practice of Kung-fu under your belt, you don't know anything about it, and frankly, should just shut up.Dickmojo (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did that, I would simply provide reliable sources to demonstrate that what I do professionally is not "a complete sham" and you cannot blame other editors if you take WLU's generalised comments as a personal attack. Regarding your second point. Only 500 people on earth have ever visited space, however there are hundreds of thousands of people who are "experts" in astrophysics and zero gravity - the argument from personal experience cuts no ice on Wikipedia, as well it shouldn't. Famousdog (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not adequate to adjust any page since wikipedia's articles are based on what can be verified in realiable sources. No editor can claim their personal experience and knowledge is sufficient to change any page, particularly since the Essjay controversy. If you are an experienced practitioner and/or researcher, you should have access to the types of texts, and the ability to interpret them, such that you should have little issue locating and integrating the kinds of reliable sources we demand. Claiming we should just shut up and believe you is not appropriate, and if you continue make such claims it is completely appropriate that you should be page banned for POV-pushing. There is no justification for edits and edit summaries like these:

• Edited the lede for balance~ if we're going to say "proponents of acupuncture say this", then we also need to specify who disagrees, i.e zealous Edzard Ernst-worshiping sceptic extremist fanatics. DON'T REVERT IT just because the truth hurts
• Undid revision 474354046 by Mann jess (talk) You're the one edit warring Jess, if you dispute the consensus then bring it up in the talk page

Edit warring means making the same edit repeatedly despite other editors undoing it (the three revert rule is a marker of pathological edit warring, but any contested edits that are repeatedly undone is in fact edit warring). It doesn't matter if you are convinced you are right and the other editors are wrong - everyone who reverts thinks they are right and justified. Therefore, this sequence of edits are also inappropriate:

• first edit which was reverted by me, that you restored, but was again reverted by Mann jess this time, and your final revert with the inappropriate edit summary above (and was reverted by McSly).

Also problematic are unduly promoting edits include this one. That's merely your mainspace contributions, that doesn't include your largely source-free commentary on the talk page. You are free to vigorously defend your profession - using reliable sources. Not your opinion. Claims like "someone else was mean to me" doesn't justify personal attacks like comparing other editors to the Spanish Inquisition, zealots and fanatics.

No editor has any issue with the historical and cultural significance of acupuncture, and much of the page focusses on the history and theory of it. However, when it comes to efficacy, that is a medical claim which rests on modern scientific testing published in reliable sources - not 2,000 year old prescientific claims of efficacy, and in particular not assertions of efficacy not even backed by an actual 2,000 year old source. If you can not separate your personal and professional opinion from your editing enough to adhere to our policies and guidelines, then you really should not be editing the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how dispute resolution is necessary here. We have two users requesting that the article be changed without providing new sources - their argument primarily being that wikipedia is biased towards scientific consensus and peer reviewed publications - and then we have a few experienced editors saying that can't be done, per policy. I don't know how that makes me a zealous fanatic, and I would urge anyone with evidence to the contrary to take the issue to RFCU with diffs showing that I've attempted to "stop opposing consensus from forming", posted "vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks", or "bullied new editors" to get my way. This is not the place for such inquiries, and in no way serve to change the weight of policy against the idea that an editor's opinion, experience, or sensitivities should be considered over scientific consensus supported by peer reviewed publications.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is not even close to accurately representing current sources and their due weight. I concur with lack of need for dispute resolution - no edit warring that I've seen, just lots of polarised debate on the talk page. Then again I haven't followed it very long.

I've not seen your username before and I'm not accusing anyone here of those characterisations. I am however providing a background for Dickmojo's totally understandable frustration and pointing out major flaws in WP for these protoscience articles. I've no idea if there's any point doing the latter here. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture is not a protoscience article. It's alternative medicine. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jess here; I'm not sure that DR is appropriate for the situation. RFC/U seems to be a more applicable venue. If DM continues with personal attacks then a trip to dramaland would be appropriate. N^oformation ^Talk 02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) After looking at the article's talk page, one thing I've noticed is that there is an awful lot of discussion about the topic from many editors. Talk pages are not for discussing the topic, but rather they are for discussing how to improve the article. I understand that these can sometimes overlap, but I have found that if editors remind themselves of this and try to focus on artice improvement, the unwelcome rhetoric is less likely to flow. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True, hence the comment about WP:SILENCE, though definitely too late. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid that the level of rhetoric continually obscures the real issue with the general assumptions about what the article should look like. I understand that WLU and others post based on reliable sources, and that dickmojo rarely cites sources and posts long commentary. However, that does not mean dickmojo is not making important points (I do not condone his rhetoric and attacks, but I share his frustration). I think both experts on acupuncture and lay people perceive a tone of "debunking" to be too prevalent in the article. Clearing up the facts and stating the true current state of the research (mixed, and troubled) are important, but the article shouldn't seek to answer any particular question as its mission, it should describe the subject.Herbxue (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not blame us, it is the sources that fail to support acupuncture's efficacy for anything beyond pain and nausea, and equivocal for both. Supporters and believers in acupuncture seem to want the page to portray it as having multiple, significant effects on a variety of medical conditions. Fine, I will accept this if shown the appropriate reliable sources. It's not my fault if they don't exist. There is a vast amount of research on acupuncture - most of it is negative, particularly the higher-quality studies. That's where the story ends for me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This board seems to be being used as a stick to beat Dickmojo, who seems to be guilty of little more than trying to correct the highly POV nature of acupuncture and not understanding WP's extremely obscure set of rules and guidelines.

On many of these Fringe/Protoscience articles, there is a resident set of skeptics who will use every trick in the book to deter anyone from even correcting POV, never mind general improvement of the article's dismal state. They instarevert any such changes, misuse WP guidelines and bully new editors in talk pages & on user pages to stop any opposing consensus forming.

There is rarely explanation of reverts, never any partial reversion, never any friendly help for new users.

Ultimately, WP is highly flawed for such articles. If you had enough time and motivation you could probably do something about it. But to new editors, these articles make WP look like a nasty, unfair and broken place. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, having joined Wikipedia six months ago Dickmojo is not a new user. Nor is shortness of tenure an excuse for repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policies (which are not "obscure" at all). And "correct the highly POV nature" is really not a fair characterization of Dickmojo's behavior from my cursory examination of the edit history. It looks more like someone with a "pro-acupuncture" point of view trying to skew what appears to be a fairly neutral article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems basic WP guidelines are now at least listed for new people if they ever look at their talk page -- it wasn't that way when I started.

Do you believe that this DR is warranted? If not, do you think Dickmojo feels harrassed or not?

"It looks more like someone with a "pro-acupuncture" point of view trying to skew what appears to be a fairly neutral article." This is not a crime. There are at least 3 people with an anti- POV trying to keep the article POV.

How can you state the article is neutral when acupuncture is heavily criticised with references to scientific research in the lede but there is no mention of the highly reliable source proving efficacy of a certain acupuncture technique? This Cochrane review is in fact characterised as a source for Scientific research has not found any physical or biological correlate of qi, meridians and acupuncture points. The misrepresentation of this source is extreme.

By my reckoning, the acupuncture lede is weighted about 70-30 towards criticism, . Not only that it is excessively long and misrepresents the state of research.Mindjuicer (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption that editors who oppose inclusion of poorly sourced material are "anti-acunpuncture" says a lot. That is battlefield mentality, and it's not helpful. If you feel the sources are being so sorely misrepresented, you should create a new section on the article talk page (or here), and lay out every source you have which indicates an alternative view not being given proper weight. Keep in mind that primary sources are less useful than secondary sources. Compare those sources you list to the sources we're currently using, including the publication medium, author's credentials, and reproduction in respected literature. I assure you that if there is strong evidence in the literature that acupuncture is effective for a broader range of problems than listed, or for the existence of qi, or any other part of TCM, editors here would be happy to improve the article by including it. Simply claiming "there's a bias" won't accomplish what you're aiming to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You've demonstrated many of the problems that NPOV editors have.

Firstly, you accuse me of assuming 'that editors who oppose inclusion of poorly sourced material are "anti-acunpuncture"'. I do not know what poorly-sourced material you are talking about and apparently neither do you. This makes it a doubly strange accusation to make on DRN -- hypocritical too.

I note you don't castigate Scjessey for categorising Dickmojo as a pro-acupuncture editor.

Cochrane is not just a secondary source, it's about the strongest source of medical science there is.

The electromagnetic source is also secondary and listed on Pubmed.

This is the second time I've been contradicted on this DRN topic by someone making wildly inaccurate statements that they should know they have to verify before making.

I note your "we" argument. Sorry if I do not fit in with your "we" purely because of wanting to accurately represent the two sources above.

The second source has been discussed on the talk page in the last two days and I queried removal of the Cochrane source a few days ago. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply pointed to WP:BATTLEFIELD, and you responded by attacking me, and further grouping editors into opposing categories. I'll reiterate: that will not accomplish what you aim to. All your assumptions about me, above, are incorrect. I won't be continuing this discussion until you're able to calm down, address other editors collaboratively, and provide proper sources for your proposal. The cochrane source has been discussed on the talk page. If you feel it hasn't been fairly considered and weighted, then you should say that on the talk page, here, WP:RSN, or in an RFC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make clear, if I was making specific accusations of anyone here I would mention them by name. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, I consider myself a neutral party to this dispute (never edited the article) but I see a bunch of personalization of the dispute and attacking the individuals. Let's drop the sticks to beat other editors with and look at the content that is being disputed. Can we all agree to that before moving forward? Hasteur (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the dispute, as I see it, is that these guidelines contrast with Mindjuicer's and Dickmojo's reading of the situation. Let me illustrate this. Above, Dickmojo says "Sure, you may have your scientific criticisms of [acupuncture], but those criticism originate from a paradigm completely foreign to the native context in which TCM and acupuncture is understood, and should NOT be given the major weighting in the article that it is currently given." This interpretation runs counter to what the guidelines listed above state, which is that on scientific matters, Wikipedia must weight its coverage according to the perspective from mainstream science.

We can cover the historical importance of concepts like meridians and qi, and this kind of coverage can and should take up a significant part of the article. However, when it comes to scientific claims like whether qi and meridians actually exist, then we must go with the modern, mainstream scientific consensus. Our guidelines on reliable sources in medical articles are very clear about how this consensus is measured, and they point squarely at giving the 2008 literature review more weight than the 2003 review, which it subsumes. Dickmojo's claim that "research into the electro-conductivity properties of acupuncture points and meridians is suggestive" does not seem to be backed up by the 2008 source, so I'm afraid that we can't include it. It is possible that we could alter the article if more reliable secondary sources on the subject are forthcoming, but until this happens there is really nothing that we can do.

I can understand Dickmojo's and Mindjuicer's frustration with this situation, but I'm afraid that however much they try and argue the point on the talk page, their efforts will likely be in vain. I recommend that they back off from this dispute, as continuing to edit against the guidelines may be enough to convince an administrator to block for tendentious editing, especially if the personal accusations and attacks continue.

As a general plan of what to do next, I agree with Noformation's suggestion of holding an request for comment on user conduct on Dickmojo and/or Mindjuicer if their conduct doesn't improve. This means both learning to edit per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and learning to collaborate with other editors. I also agree with Noformation's other suggestion that if there are any more blatant personal attacks, then a trip to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents may become necessary. I hope, however, that Dickmojo and Mindjuicer can improve their behaviour and adherence to policy well enough and quickly enough that this will not be necessary. I will leave this thread open for a little while longer in case anyone has questions, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be a lot that dispute resolution can achieve here. If anything in my post is unclear, please let me know and I will clarify it. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've basically cut to the heart of the matter there, Stradivarius. I started this DR in order to find some way to move forward with the acupuncture article and stop the opinionated ranting (from both sides) not, as Mindjuicer alleges, "as a stick to beat Dickmojo with." The only way that I can see to move forward is if Dickmojo and Mindjuicer (and some other editors) put their egos to one side and back up their opinions with evidence and sources. I, and the other editors, will continue to do likewise. As I have said to Mindjuicer elsewhere recently, I also think that the fanciful interpretation of scientific studies and synthesis need to stop. Famousdog (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a RFC/U or WQA might have been better ways forward. Reliable sources indicating acupuncture is, at best, a means of treating two symptoms with barely clinically significant reusults. When this is pointed out, and the response is "you don't understand acupuncture like I do, plus sources from 2000 years ago validate it", the issue is not with the article or the sources - it is with the editor. Pages are edited according to reliable sources - not editor viewpoints. Claiming I am "anti-acupuncture" because I accurately summarize the sources in proportion to their appearance within the guidelines for fringe theories suggests the problem is not me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I still do not see why you guys are lumping MJ in with DM, just because he is defending DM and annoying you? Hardly an issue of poor behavior, just disagreement. Second, Famousdog is warning against synthesis, and yet WLU that is what you do when you take your selected sample of reviews, decide which aspect of their conclusions you wish to mention, and frame them as established scientific fact. As I and Mindjuicer have pointed out, several Cochrane reviews make the conclusion that Acupuncture is likely a valuable treatment, and sometimes superior to conventional care. But you continually perpetuate this myth that acupuncture is of no value other than equivocal for two symptoms. You don't get to just choose which aspects of the sources you want to have presented, and then get pissed when you're challenged on it. If you weren't on such a mission with this page, we would have a relatively neutral sounding lede and a frank discussion of the research issues in the body, and the public would be perfectly well-informed. Look at other encyclopedias - they are generally not on a mission to debunk but rather to inform.63.139.146.30 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disagreement that never reaches consensus, does not acknowledge our policies and guidelines and does not introduce any new sources or more accurate summaries of sources is tendentious editing. Consistently I and other have been accused of being "skeptics" who don't understand acupuncture - but no new sources have been provided (including Cochrane reviews). What reviews are missing? The most recent ones have two positive conclusions - neck pain and postoperative nausea. If there are others, please present them on the talk page. It's very easy to criticize other editors for leaving out information, but without a demonstration of a source that is not integrated and should be, the page simply can't move forward. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new section on the talk page specifically to list reliable, secondary sources demonstrating acupuncture's efficacy that have not yet been included. Hopefully this will help resolve some of this discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

COI

Above in Dickmojo's first statement he writes "Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to." DM, are you aware of our conflict of interest guidelines that strongly discourage you from being involved with acupuncture articles? Your statement indicates to me that your goal at WP is not overall improvement of the pedia, but rather to push a POV that is dear to you. It also indicates that you cannot edit the article dispassionately. Wikipedia is not a place to defend your profession nor a venue in which to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the crux of the issue here is that you see things from a POV that is not mainstream, and so to you the mainstream sounds extreme. N^oformation ^Talk 21:20, 17 February 2012 (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.

Boom! Studios discussion

(Comment from uninvolved editor)This looks like a case of edit warring. Can you please provide the version/diff you want, and the diff/version that the disputing party (Njkaters (talk · contribs)) wants?Curb Chain (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2012 (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.

India discussion

Ask the Buddhist and Jain editors on Wikipedia what they think of the Hindu fundamentalist language Fowler is shoving down our throats with ownership behavior.. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute overview from uninvolved editor

• Material about Shramana, is proposed to be added (aided with some refs) by User:SAV.
• Proposal is rejected on grounds WP:UNDUE by User:Fowler&fowler.
• User:SAV expresses the opinion that the following text is objectionable "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism." with the argument that "Buddhism is not a reform movement of Hinduism, but of the extreme aesthetiscism of the Shramana".
• Fowler amends the text to "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism,[25] both becoming independent religions.[26]".
• This was supported by refs & discussion in good faith by Fowler&fowler & RegentsPark.
• User:SAV tries to pin down F&f to SAV's statement "believe Buddhism and Jainism were reforms of Vedism, just as protestantism was a reform of Catholicism". At this point it is not clear whether SAV is delinquent in not suggesting alternate acceptable words to satisfy the nuance that he champions, or it is a case of "not hearing what others say" deliberately.
• My opinion:POV trolling by User:SAV. More than adequate response has been given & it is now a case of "don't feed the trolls." AshLin (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my contradicting reference: Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 81-208-0815-0 Page 18. "There is no evidence to show that Jainism and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times."SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a mass market textbook that has gone through five editions, it isn't particularly trustworthy as a representative of the state of the scholarly community's opinion on this matter (cf: publisher's website); additionally, the publisher's website quotes K. Kunjunni Raja, in the "Adyar Library Bulletin" (1991) who appears to believe that the book makes a claim quite different from your own interpretation of the book, "The book aims at establishing harmony among religions and helping people towards the realization of 'God within Man'. Regarding 'Hinduism' the author thinks that if all these religions that accept the fourfold pillar of Karma Samsara Jnana Mukti may be called Hindu, then Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism may also have to be called 'Hinduism'." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. The point being that Buddhism and Jainism are not "reform" movements of Vedic religion. Ask the Buddhists and Jains editors on Wikipedia. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So you misrepresent a textbook aimed at a mass market, and proceed to claim that personal truth is the form of verification we ought to use? I suggest you read WP:V WP:RS WP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT. They do not support your assertion that we ought to "ask editors," they rather suggest that we ought to seek out the highest quality scholarly opinion on the matter, and determine what (and possibly what variety of) opinion scholars hold. Scholars may very well support your position, but at the current point in time we won't know. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor

The references presented by User:Fowler&fowler in discussion in India talk page are far more superior and mainstream than the weak references by user SAV. Also, as an editor brought up and schooled in India, I am aware of the general view (as taught in texts supported by different major schools of Indian history) that Buddhism and Jainism were born as reforms against the orthodoxies and strictness of late Vedic era. So, completely agree with the present version, and completely agree with AshLin that "Don't fed the trolls." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, you are a Hindu fundamentalist brought up in India. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lal Mani Joshi said "To say that Gautama the Buddha was born a Hindu (as some contemporary Hindus have claimed) is entirely nonsensical. There is no evidence to think that the Vedic religion was prevalent among the Sakyas, Mallas and Licchavis. On the contrary, there is evidence of the progress and influence of several varieties of Sramanic religion and philosophy which had nothing in common with Brahmanic theism, sacrificialism, and world-affirmation. The ideologies of the sramanas cannot be traced to Indo-Aryans...." page 10. The Buddhist Visnu by Holt. 2004. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am traveling and woefully short of time. I believe AshLin, Fifelfoo, and Dwaipayanc (who is not even remotely Hindu fundamentalist!) have adequately dealt with the complaint, and there is little for me to add. Mr. Saib Aba Venkatesh, who seems to be the kind of SPA we unfortunately see all too often on the India page, will not relent no matter what the response. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from RegentsPark

Fowler has provided impeccable sources (please see the discussion on the India talk page) and wikipedia relies on sources rather than on what particular editors believe or think may the truth. Both fowler and I have made changes to the text based on the assumption that SaidAbaVenkatesh's objections are made in good faith (though, reading that editor's comments above, that is a questionable assumption), but, clearly, we can't make changes that are inconsistent with what reliable sources say. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (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.

DeSmogBlog Deserves Deniergate Recognition discussion

Comment from univolved editor Squiddy has started a discussion on the article talkpage, and agrees that the information should be included in the article. His issue is with the non-neutral wording of the current version. Shambala2011, please consider his comment there, and try to draft a more appropriate version of the section on the talkpage before changing the article. In addition, you are on the verge of breaching WP:3RR; please do not revert the article again without first establishing consensus on the talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:56, 17 February 2012 (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.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Asia#Asia 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.