Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 71

Opening comments by Ahmed 313-326

Islamism discussion

It has been a few days, and I am willing to try and assist, but I see that Ahmed 313-326 seems to have a lack of response and discussion. That may pose a problem for the effectiveness of this DRN, but it would not for a RFC/U. He has received the notice yet has not edited for 4 days either. So unless he gets involved, this close as stale. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for trying --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by 96.237.171.111

talk:fractal antenna 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.

Opening comments by Discospinster

Opening comments by Blue-Haired Lawyer

Opening comments by Srnec

I do not enjoy participating in this side of Wikipedia.

Sigiheri doesn't know how to edit or discuss at Wikipedia. Replacing reliably sourced material with contrary reliably sourced material is not the right way. Opening a discussion when you've been reverted by multiple editors and then restoring your text again and again claiming that the others must discuss with you is not the normal procedure. His point of view is in fact valid and there are reliable sources that back him up. He should add them appropriately to highlight to readers that an intellectual debate exists on the status of shareholders and the nature of ownership.

If you want to know why his assertions are extremely tendentious, see this and this (GoogleScholar searches). Overwhelmingly, reliable sources just plain assume that shareholders are owners. We have a right to do the same—not to suppress contrary opinions, if they are reliably sourced, but to build upon the basic definition of the shareholder as owner. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Legacypac

The editor is putting in junk that can not be sourced and deleting basic corporate law facts that are so basic they do not even need to be sourced. His sources do not agree with his POV. Further, he has been blocked for edit warring and I just nominated him for another block.

If shareholder ownership is such a "basic fact" why does contemporary legal scholarship insist that shareholders are NOT generally the owners? I have numerous cites while this person, Legacypac, has ZERO. His only evidence that he is right is that he believes it. Obviously, Legacypak does not understand that statements require more than personal beliefs for them to be facts.Sigiheri (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments might be taken more seriously if your sources did not completely disagree with you. No one needs to justify their position if you can't justify your minority view. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this action can be closed now that the proposer (or whatever they are called here) has been blocked for edit warring on the topic? Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others discussion

Volunteer Notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, though I am a regular volunteer here, I'm not opening or taking this for discussion, just making a couple of notes:

• I have notified the participants other than the listing editor as our notification bot is down at this time, apparently.
• We cannot stop anyone from doing anything. All we can do here is to try to help you work our your disagreements through discussion and neutral advice and comments.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

More Volunteer Notes:

• Please do not begin discussion before a DRN volunteer has opened the case for discussion.
• Please do not post in other editors' opening comments sections. All discussion should go in this section (but see my last point, above).
• If a primary participant were blocked indefinitely we might close this request, but a short block will not generally result in closure.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Drmies

These edits constitute a BLP violation, basically: undue negative information of a fairly trivial kind whose effect can only be to disparage the subject. That something about a politician, something supposedly bad, is reported in the paper is not immediate grounds for inclusion. Read the material proposed by this editor, judge if its tone is neutral, and weigh if it has any encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The plaintiff didn't add any diffs--here is a section accusing the subject of using "foul language"; here is a section devoted to an accusation that the subject was complicit in a murder. Both were stuck in the article twice. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. Though I am opening this for discussion and posing a couple of questions, I may not be available to take part over the next two or three days and I invite all other DRN volunteers to jump in. Next, please do not take these questions to imply a particular predetermined answer or POV on my part or an attempt to be critical. They are genuine, neutral, uncritical, "I'm uninformed and want to hear your answer" kinds of inquiries.

• @Drmies #1: Soham321 seems to be attempting to limit this request to a single topic (the one in the second paragraph of the first diff you provided), whereas you seem to be raising a wider issue as indicated by inclusion of your second diff and your statement, "Read the material proposed by this editor, judge if its tone is neutral, and weigh if it has any encyclopedic value." It is axiomatic at Wikipedia that we judge edits, not editors, and thus an editor's motivations are generally irrelevant. As a matter of principle, shouldn't edits be adjudged on their own — for example, in this case, on the basis of BLP issues and undue weight — without taking editor's motivations into consideration? (To say it differently, shouldn't POV pushing be dealt with entirely as a conduct matter rather than a content matter?)
• @Drmies #2: In reference to the Lyngdoh issue only, I take it that this is not a reliable sourcing issue under either WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE, but entirely a balance issue under the lede of WP:BLP which says,

  Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

  (Emphasis added.) How, then, does the WP:WELLKNOWN section of the BLP policy play in? It says:

  In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

  (Emphasis added.) Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Wikipedia policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." Since Soham321 has provided two RS for this edit, WP:WELLKNOWN would seem to indicate that it ought to be included. If that is not correct, then why not?
• About the edit itself: Subject to the answers to my questions above, I also have to say that the material in this edit seems very trivial and unnecessarily detailed for this article. Soham321 has said on Drmies talk page that he is "simply trying to balance the article by providing the views of Modi's critics." To that I would comment that if there is similar trivia in the article which supports Modi, then the proper remedy would be to edit that trivia out, not put this in. If on the other hand, the positive material about Modi in the article is substantial, not trivial, then adding negative trivia just to tarnish Modi is unacceptable. In any event, setting this off in a section by itself and in this much detail rather than incorporating it into a broader section of the article (about, say, Modi's relations with his opponents, or criticisms of Modi in general, or some such) is, in any event, certainly inappropriate by making it far too conspicuous and prominent.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: In reference to Drmies #1 above: I'm not suggesting or promoting this by mentioning it, nor am I implying anything at all about whether Soham321 is or is not POV-pushing, but if Drmies wishes to withdraw from this case and pursue the matter entirely as a conduct matter at ANI or RFC/U or some other conduct venue, I or some other volunteer will close this listing as futile due the lack of Drmie's participation here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Transporterman, you must be a pro. These are valid points you raise. In regard to the second paragraph of the first diff, if such material is, as you suggest, properly incorporated in the article rather than set off in a "criticism" section, it can be a valuable addition, but I'd like to see more than just one newspaper article cited. I have, in fact, removed other trivia from the article--about his having had a tea stall and handed out sandwiches, for instance, edits which were decried as censorship on the talk page. My point about Soham's possible POV here relates only to those two edits: I see they've edited a few other articles, but have not delved deeply enough into them to even want to pursue that in some other venue. My direct concern is this article, which attracts POV attention from the pros and the cons.

  To me, "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented" means indeed multiple sources" (more than one, no need for a dozen), and that the information be noteworthy and relevant is an editorial decision based at least in part on whether the sources agree that the material is relevant to, for instance, the way in which a politician (in this case) goes about his business. To cite a different example, one could argue that information on President Obama seeking the bully pulpit more in his second than in his first term is noteworthy and relevant since it seems to have become his MO; thus, one could argue, it is relevant since it is or has become a personal style. To cite another example, that President Clinton plays the saxophone is trivial until he appears on MTV playing it to attract younger voters. If Modi has insults and sneers as an MO, it can be cited, certainly--but it needs to be properly contextualized and it needs to be made clear that there's enough sources to warrant inclusion in the first place.

  As for my supposed disinterest--I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it that clear, but this is, in my opinion, way too minor to go to DR for. It is also partly caused by Soham's argument, which is too lengthy, too difficult to read and in too-long paragraphs; that I had to supply the diffs is telling, and I appreciate the time you've taken, Transporterman, to tease out their argument. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

By "pro" I hope you mean something other than the pros you might find in Rosse Buurt . More seriously, you say "but I'd like to see more than just one newspaper article cited". Soham321 has provided two sources in that edit, Times of India and Express India, apparently from two different Indian newswires, not just a regurgitation of the same original source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting as a passerby, I have to wonder if this is truly an appropriate topic for DRN. There are far more than two people concerned with this article. About a dozen editors are active in the article right now (that's in just the last 24 hours) and there is even more activity on the article talk page (including two open RFCs) than there is in the article. Just wondering... --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There were only two editors involved in this particular dispute, however, except for a couple of IP's who weighed in on Drmie's talk page on Drmie's side of the argument. I'm hoping that with the exchange above that this is ripe to go back to the article (see below). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Soham321: Drmies has indicated that with some reworking and proper contextualization that the edit in question may well be suitable for the article. Are you all right with this going back to the article talk page — please, let's do it there rather than on any individual user's talk page, so that the community has a better chance of weighing in — to work out the details? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ready and willing and i will also try to give references to more than two sources if i can. But i may only be able to do so over the week-end. Please accept my gratitude for your complete impartiality and neutrality in this dispute. Soham321 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just write it like it's not an attack. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Rjensen

a recent scholarly book by Kabaservice says Clifton White (when he was a liberal in the 1940s) was outmaneuvered by Communists and decided to use "Communist tactics". The editor in this case wants to make this an entire section of the article. Clifton White is a minor figure and does not deserve that attention. White thought he shojuld be Goldwater's choice as GOP national chairman in 1964 but Goldwater rejected White and White's top aides, and late in the campaign publicly repudiated White. The "Communist tactics" supposedly borrowed from the Communists included using lies and smears, and showing up early at meetings and staying late into the night--all very standard in American politics since the 1790s (Burr killed Hamilton in a duel over smear tactics in 1804 and Jackson shot several politicians who smeared him). It's a minor theme in Kabaservice when he deals with White, and no other RS has highlighted it, so it does not belong in a wide-ranging survey of conservatism in US since the 18th century. Bottom line: this is a proposed a POV edit designed to denigrate Conservatism by attacking one second-tier person (White). Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

A source presented by the IP briefly mentions that a conservative activist, who is not even mentioned in the article, conducted a smeer campaign against a moderate Republican candidate, which he apparently adopted from tactics used in internal fighting in the Communist Party. To generalize from that story that conservatives emulated the Communist Party's tactics is to provide undue weight to a single incident. In order to include this theory we would need to show that it has been advanced by scholars and received significant attention.

I request that this submission be refused because no other dispute resolution method has yet been tried, beyond discussion on the talk page, and no other editor has expressed support for the IP's view.

TFD (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Conservatism in the United States 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.

Opening comments by Dr.K.

This is a misuse of the purpose of this noticeboard. At the very top of this page it is specified that this noticeboard is for content disputes. References are not content. References are used to support article content. The OP has waged a longterm edit-war to remove references supporting the content in the article of Economy of Greece. Ironically the references the OP is asking that they be removed are used to support content that he removed without a valid reason in the first place. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot remove content and ask for sources for the content and when the sources are supplied to complain that they be removed. There has also been a long, relevant discussion on the talkpage of the article which the OP abandoned on 14 April only to return more than a month later to restart the edit-war without apparent reason. In conclusion: The request by the OP on this noticeboard that this is a content dispute is invalid. Also his edit-warring to remove valid, reliable sources from the article is unjustified and his points have been rebutted on the article talk after a lengthy discussion. Let's not waste any more time on non-existing content disputes. Let's instead find a few articles to improve by adding references and not removing them as requested in this case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Thanatos666

Economy of Greece 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.

Opening comments by Djflem

Issues are being addressed at Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit. Djflem (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The359

Opening comments by The Bushranger

• As noted, I believe that the images add value to the article, but I have no problems with them being removed if that is the consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Port Imperial Street Circuit discussion

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take the case. I know we do not have opening comments from both sides, but I have seen the page in question and the read the talk page to get feel for the issue. I'd like to open with a discussion on exactly how everyone feels about each of the images.

• Port Imperial Street Circuit, in the nav box, the outline of the circuit.
• Picture of the site of circuit overlooking Hudson Waterfront with New York and Jersey City skylines.
• Map overlay of the circuit's location on the city streets of Weehawken and West New York.
• View to the ferry terminal at the start/finish line shown as point #1 on map

An immediate concern comes to me on that last picture, which can be addressed by a simple cropping of the bottom half which removes the staircase. So please consider that option when you respond. Opening comments can still be filled in if you wish, so I can get a better perspective of your individual stances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take you up on that offer.

Firstly, I have no issue with the image in the navbox. Every single page on Formula 1 racing circuits have their own image in a navbox. Examples include Silverstone Circuit, Hungaroring, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Autodromo Nazionale Monza and so on.

The picture of the site overlooking the Hudson Waterfront is one of the images that I really have an issue with. My problem is that this is an article about a racing circuit, and that the race will take place on public roads, but the imge doesn't actually show any roads. I have since changed it to be an image of the ferry terminal, which will be adjacent to the start/finish line.

I also have issues with the image of the staircase, primarily because it focuses on the staircase. I don't think that cropping it out is really an option, though, because it's not a particularly great photo to begin with, and also because it will be difficult to explain precisely what the reader is looking at; when finished, the circuit will use the two-lane road in front of the terminal and an undeveloped part of the waterfront that is partially cut out by the photo. I have since changed the caption, because the caption was wrong; point #1 on the map does not refer to the ferry terminal, but to the first corner of the circuit.

I don't have any problems with the map overlay of the circuit. Because the circuit will be on public roads, this image shows exactly which roads will be used. However, I don't think it is that big a deal if the image is removed - other pages for temporary street circuits (such as Circuit de Monaco and Marina Bay Street Circuit) don't show images such as these, while others (namely the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit) do. It's an inconsistency that should be addressed, but it's an issue for the Formula 1 WikiProject to address.

In summary, since the circuit is specifically being created for Formula 1 racing, then the priority should be in keeping the article consistent with the article for other Formula 1 circuits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, just need the other editors to weigh in here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One other editor has declined to participate, saying it's being addressed on the talk page; the only person not to have responded has been active on Wikipedia since the filing was posted, so after this long I think we can conclude that (s)he doesn't want to take part either. As talk page discussion and editing are continuing, I would suggest closing this rather than going ahead with only two participants.

Editors would be welcome to refile if discussion doesn't resolve the dispute; I also note that the help requested was "offering some additional voices to the argument", so perhaps a request for comments would be worth considering if discussion isn't getting anywhere. CarrieVS (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a compromise position that editors can agree on? Perhaps the extra images can be incorporated in a separate gallery subsection. Despite the fact that one of editors involved can live with (we dont need to love the changes made sometimes) the removal, there is insufficient participate to recommend that as the outcome. As there hasnt been any discussion here for some time, I think its appropriate to close the DR case as unresolved. Further discussion should take place back at the article, but it may end up that an editor or editors will need to WP:LETGO. The article will still improve into the future in other ways. -- Nbound (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Michaellappert

Opening comments by 68.24.131.128

Opening comments by 72.235.238.59

Opening comments by Haruth

Opening comments by 75.7.229.209

DRN Volunteer Comment

Im not taking the case at this stage (and others are welcome to take it aswell), but a link to the previous discussion (it wasnt on the Lappert's talk page) would be appreciated. Also if you took part in the discussion you should add yourself as an involved user. Expanding on what your position and complaints are exactly would also be good (ie. what is your position, and your argument for it being so).
If the complaint is primarily about conduct, rather than content, it would be better served posting this at the admin noticeboard, where users can be dealt wih appropriately if required; if this is the case, please pursue it there, then let us know and this discussion will be closed -- Nbound

Lappert's 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.

Opening comments by Zad68

I think I'm going to have to apologize to Cjwilky and the other editors involved in this DRN. Although the explanation given in the Dispute overview is a bit unclear and does not identify the issue I am bringing up here, and I agree with the other editors in being confused about the objections to having the article state "homeopathy causes cancer" when it does not, I now agree with the end result of the edit suggested: In sentence in the 5th paragraph in the lead, source PMID 12974558 (Malik) should be removed along with the phrase "such as cancer", and Malik can also be removed from the "On clinical grounds, patients who choose to use homeopathy in preference to normal medicine..." sentence as well (no article prose change needed there). I said on the Talk page I thought Malik was a review article and I was wrong, it's not, it's a small 2003 prospective primary study. It's sometimes OK to use the background sections of primary studies but I don't think that's OK here: We have PMID 17285788 (Altunc), a recent systematic review article and a high-quality secondary source , which doesn't appear to use that primary study, and that casts doubt on the quality of its results struck out, see note below. I don't think Malik is necessary as we have Altunc, and the remaining sources don't support "such as cancer" (and it's not necessary to mention "cancer" either as it's just an example). Zad68 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I struck out my observation that Altunc didn't use Malik because it's irrelevant: Malik studied adults and Altunc is pediatrics, and so it wouldn't be expected that Altunc might use Malik. Thanks to Brunton for pointing this out. Zad68 13:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Brunton

The disputed statement in the article does not say "that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer"; it says: "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." This statement is adequately supported by the sources used. I'm not sure that there is much of a dispute here; it seems to be more a single editor disagreeing with every other editor so far involved in the discussion (who they describe as "the skeptic gang" and "signed up Skeptics ") based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of what the disputed wording actually says. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JoelWhy

First of all NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT HOMEOPATHY IS A CANCER RISK! The article (and the source) explain that people who use homeopathy may "risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." (i.e. Had they gone to a doctor immediately rather than first seeking diagnosis/treatment from a homeopath, they may have been properly diagnosed sooner.)

The sourced article discusses Complimentary and Alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy is a type of CAM. Moreover, the article specifically says that 71% of the subjects in the study were using homeopathy. This is not synthesis. It's directly on point. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My poor phrasing, it is about the diagnosis issue as you say, but could you please quote where in the study it says what you claim in your first para? I don't see that. Cjwilky (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond to this question at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Opening comments by TippyGoomba

Cjwilky opens with the statement:

A reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy.

He objects to the following sentence in the article:

Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer.

The claim that cancer is a risk of using homeopathy is a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. From what I gather, this is his only objection. The objection is addressed by the explanation that he misunderstands the difference between something causing cancer and something delaying cancer treatment. The sentence does even imply that the homeopathy preceded the cancer, a prerequisite for the causal relation that Cjwilky is imagining. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by LeadSongDog

Upon consideration, I think I'd better just sit back and watch this play out. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have checked the source and am happy it properly supports what WP says. I don't really get what this dispute is about, since the complaint seems to bear no relation to what the texts are actually stating. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Daffydavid

The dispute opened here is an inaccurate description of the article and the disputed material. I cannot see how it has been represented as CAM leads to an increase in cancer. They are clearly stating - " Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process." They further state that the CAM used 70% of the time was homeopathy. CJ's argument is the same as arguing that a study on murder weapons states that 70% of the time guns are used but since the study title is "murder weapons" we shouldn't use it in an article on guns.--Daffydavid (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by AndyTheGrump (not listed above)

It appears that Cjwilky has completely failed to understand what the source in question claims: it does not suggest that CAM increases the risk of getting cancer. Could I suggest that perhaps Cjwilky should read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article and the skeptics here claim "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." My bad phrasing. Its about CAM and cancer nevertheless. Cjwilky (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond to this comment at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Comment by Gaijin42 (not listed above)

I am uninvolved, and have come across this dispute from this posting. The phrases in the article are absolutely adequately sourced by the study. Nobody is attempting to insert a claim that homeopathy causes cancer. The text is that those who delay standard medical treatment of cancer, and instead use CAM (including homeopathy) have worse outcomes. This is directly stated in the study. Frankly CJwilky has a really bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT as there is a clear consensus from other editors that the statements are adequately sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by JzG (not listed above)

The source says that people have worse cancer outcomes when they use alternatives to medicine. As the study notes, homeopathy is one of the most widespread alternatives to medicine. The study includes a figure of 70%, making homeopathy the dominant alternative to medicine among this group. Several secondary sources make the link.

Cjwilky does not like this. That's not a surprise, he doesn't like very much about the scientific consensus around homeopathy. He is a believer. His opinion is every bit as relevant as the view of a young earth creationist on matters pertaining to evolutionary biology, and for exactly the same reasons.

You can't resolve this dispute to everyone's satisfaction, because the dominant view among homeopathy believers is that the article should be deleted and rewritten from their perspective, which would be an abject failure of WP:NPOV (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy). Guy (Help!) 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy discussion

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not "taking" or opening this matter for discussion at this point in time, but just want to make a couple of comments:

• Please do not commence discussion of this matter until a volunteer has opened this case for discussion.
• Please do not post comments to any other editors' opening comments space above. All discussion (once discussion has been opened) should go in this section, not above.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take this case and I believe that we should be able to resolve this issue in an amicable way to everyone's satisfaction. I would like to request that comments are posted below, or in response to this message, just to keep things tidy and easy to read for anyone else who wants to help out. From reading over the talk page and the opening statements, there appears to be a bit of an issue with what the provided reference is actually stating and it seems the context may have been misunderstood in some way. To clarify the current status of the dispute, as per the talk page and here:

• The reference here is disputed (Please correct me if I'm wrong) and
• the general editorial consensus is that the source is valid, and should not be removed.

I would like to open the discussion by asking Cjwilky why they believe the source states about cancer being a risk of using homeopathy and why they believe it should be removed. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The core dispute appears to be that cjwilky appears to be arguing against a position that nobody is actually taking. I am not sure if this is out of a genuine misunderstanding of what is being discussed, or if he is just using a strawman as an argumentative device. In addition to the question you asked, I would ask him to accurately (ie, not a strawman) repeat the argument we are making that he thinks the source does not support. I believe that will shed significant light on the situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you volunteers for taking part here. I did initially put the issue in an unclear way, apologies.

The issue is, the source (Malik) states that patients using CAM therapies accounts for a delay in seeking medical advice in the case of cancer. Whilst homeopathy is one of the CAM therapies the patients in the study were using, nowhere does the study state that the choice of using homeopathy itself is responsible for this. Its a CAM factor, not specifically a homeopathy factor. To make the leap and say that seeking homeopathy is responsible for not seeking further treatment is orginal research.

A further point is that the source concerns breast cancer specifically, not "cancer".

To actually be specific about the original research, and illustrate the danger of doing original research, the study says: 53% of patients delayed. Of those, 34% because they chose to use CAM therapies. So thats 18% of the total patients delaying because they chose a CAM therapy. The proportion of the total patients using CAM therapy who used homeopathy is 70%. Do the maths - its perfectly feasible that with 30% not using homeopathy that they make up all of the 18% who are the significant population that delayed seeking medical advice due to using a CAM therapy. Cjwilky (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your dispute. You are correct that we should clarify breast cancer in the study and not generalize to all cancers. However, numerically I believe you are misreading the study. the 70% is not of the whole proportion, but of the portion that delayed due to CAM. "Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. [...] Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)".

• 100% of study (n138)
  • 53 % that delayed (n73)
    • Of those that delayed, 34% had "antecedant use of CAM" (n24) (As you stipulated in your comment just above)
    • Also of those that delayed 29% used CAM prior to visiting a physician. (n21) (followed immediately by breakdown)
    • It is unclear to me what the distinction is between the 34% and the 29% as antecedant means before. perhaps the full study would clarify.
      • Of those that used CAM prior, 70% use homeopathy (n14) (12% of entire study, 29% of those that delayed, and 70% of those that used CAM) ( 70% + 15% + 13% = 98%, 98> 34 98>53)

To read the numbers as you are interpreting would mean that 100% of the study used some sort of CAM Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're correct re my mistake. However, its not made clear if the people using homeopathy beforehand delayed as per the > or = 1 month period defined. They may have delayed by a day, a week. This is the problem with doing original research, assumptions can easily be made. The conclusion of the study is not about homeopathy and isn't that what we are supposed to be doing here, citing what studies conclude and not interpreting them? Cjwilky (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We know certainly that they did not delay a day or a week, because the study explicitly says "Delay in seeking medical advice was defined as time period of > or = 1 month between initial perception of lump and first physician visit" and " Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. Common reasons were; antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies (34%)" and " Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)" If the study had the level of ambiguity you describe, than the whole "definition of delay" is meaningless for all of the CAM results and completely invalidating the study - it would not have passed peer review.

If Homeopathy was a small % of the CAM, I would say your objection had merit, but it is almost 3/4! The study says that Delay of mainstream treatment using CAM, 70% of which was homeopathy, results in worse outcomes. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that CJwilky's attempts here to shift the blame for delays in treatment to other forms of CAM are not only WP:OR, but a violation of WP:NPOV policy. I'm quite sure that if supporters of other forms of CAM engaged in similar special pleading, and suggested that homoeopathy was solely responsible, CJwilky would object most strongly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So, first you misread the article, claiming that we had written homeopathy causes cancer. We clarified that, and then you argue that the numbers are misleading, because only 18% of the people in the study delayed treatment, meaning that perhaps no people using homeopathy were in that group. Again, you were shown that you were misreading the material. So, then you move on to arguing against its inclusion because they may have only delayed for a day or a week. Yet again, you misread the material. Please see the article Moving the goalpost. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Going over what's been said just above it appears to me that the situation keeps changing. I've gone over the talk page and things still don't seem to add up. The source in question does state homeopathy as one of the common CAM methods, "[...]Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)[...]". It also states, "[...]CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice[...]". From my understanding of this, Homeopathy is a CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and there was a link found between CAM use and those patients delaying in seeking further medical assistance.

The argument presented by CJwilky appears to differentiate based on the discussion and it's quite perplexing to say the least while trying to analyse and come up with a solution. So, a question for CJwilky: Is it just that the source is not explicitly related to homeopathy or is it related to the interpretation of the source in the article? If either, what would you prefer to be done in order to resolve the situation amicably? Crashdoom ^Talk 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Right from the beginning of the talk page I said " ....is about CAM not specifically homeopathy." That is my point. The study clearly does not say that the use of homeopathy relates to that delay. It could easily be that 70% of the people who did not delay also used homeopathy - we can look at the numbers in many different ways as we do our original research. There is significant assumption about the numbers that the skeptics here are talking about to make their claim that use of homeopathy and not just CAM in general is a cause of the delay.

Joel, if you follow the talk page you'll see it was clear what the issue was. I made a mistake part way through the talk page in abreviating the issue and continued that at the beginning of this DRN, thats what it was, a mistake, acknowledged and dealt with. I claim that skeptics are making assumptions about the numbers. Without knowing the full details its impossible to say exactly how things lie specifically with homeopathy, ajurveda etc.

Crashdoom, the source is related to CAM in its conclusion. Nowhere is it clear in the source that homeopathy leads to choosing to delay medical help. The interpretation of the source is original research, and is advised against in the wiki guidelines. Resolution would be to remove the source from the Homeopathy article, and remove "of serious conditions such as cancer" (There is nothing in the Altunc source that refers to "serious conditions" in this context). Cjwilky (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You agree that the study shows a relationship between CAM and cancer outcomes. 70% of the CAM was homeopathy. Your insistence that this study has no relevance to homeopathy is ludicrous. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To act according to CJWilky's insistence that we should conclude that this study has no relevance to homeopathy would imply a gross violation of WP:NPOV - he is proposing that other forms of CAM (which make up only 30% of the instances in question) are solely responsible for delays in seeking treatment. There are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for making this partisan assumption, and it is entirely unacceptable to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I admire your passion in your belief Andygump and Gaijin, but as you say, WP:NPOV is the way forward. The burden of proof is on showing clearly, and not merely that you consider in YOUR analysis that its likely, that the study shows use of homeopathy specifically leads to delays in treatment. Maybe it is known what proportion of homeopathy users compared to non CAM users did not delay? Is this less or more than those that did delay? Is that statistically significnat? So far I only see people making assumptions. Its not about what you believe but what the source clearly states. Cjwilky (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. Does anyone agree with Cjwilky? Sounds like he's just being difficult here. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You have postulated several possible flaws in the survey (in particular non-delaying users of homeopathy). Such hypothesis are interesting, but pure conjecture, and in any case WP:ORGIGINALRESEARCH We do not second guess reliable sources. Regardless, even if your conjecture is right, it does not change the result of the study. What the source clearly states is "use of CAM , 70% of which was homeopathy, for whatever reason it was used, in lieu of prompt medical treatment, results in worse outcomes". Delay is the ultimate problem, whether by Homeopathy, other CAM, or any other reason (as the study clearly says), but as Homeopathy is the single most common reason for delay in the study, it is directly relevant to the article. We can debate the best wording for this, that does not misstate what the article actually says, but your position that it must not be included at all is completely untenable. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tippy goes for rhetoric :-/ Responding to the points is what this is about.

Gaijin, you are clearly doing WP:ORGIGINALRESEARCH or maybe you can show where the authors say what you are claiming? What we use in the article is what the source says, not what your interpretation of it is. It mustn't be included because its not supported by that study, only your interpretation of it - it really is very simple. Cjwilky (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Shadowjams

2001: and some other editors have been involved in a dispute on the Boston article. What I didn't realize is how far this position had been taken, and a number of long-standing leads were changed without any discussion by 2001: within the last month. I undid those edits. I left the Boston one alone because we're having a discussion about that. I, and others, have been extremely patient with the Boston bombing article lead issue. This is a fundamental misunderstanding with the WP:MOSBOLD style-guideline. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by My76Strat

My involvement here relates primarily with two articles: Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Moore tornado. Time constraints prevent me from reviewing the tangential relationship of the other titles mentioned. The guidance at MOS:BOLDTITLE as it relates to 2011 Mississippi River floods is a redundancy caution for titles that relate to a recurring event that is highlighting a specific occurrence within the cycle of occurrences. If the bombing article was titled 2013 Boston Marathon the counsel would apply. The Moore tornado is not singling out the 2013 occurrence from a recurring list as if tornadoes are common occurrences in Moore, they are not and certainly are not akin to annual events like the river floods that are used for the example. --My76Strat (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally, the example for Babe Ruth Award lends credence. 2001 keeps insisting that because the bombing article has Boston Marathon as part of the title that somehow we must bluelink describe Boston Marathon requiring we either disjoint the boldface as in, The Boston Marathon bombings, or a necessary redundancy like The Boston Marathon was the site of the Boston Marathon bombings. He laid a list of points that he said needed to be included in the lead sentence which unless you could create a sentence that touched each of his points would not qualify. one point being the descriptive bluelinking of Boston Marathon. Just as the example for Babe Ruth is quite fluently able to bold the title, the bombing article could as well. Force 2001's criteria on the award article and you would necessitate your own redundancy and the bold title suddenly does not work. I told 2001 before, and I'll assert it here: The article is about the Boston Marathon bombings and there is no requirement to include Boston Marathon in the first sentence.

Bolding of article titles in lead sentences discussion

Essentially from what I can see, 2001 is interpreting the MOS correctly, there isnt a need to bold the titles on every page, especially when it causes information to become redundant, important links to disappear, or be far more long winded than should be required. This is only an at-face opinion at this point, it is possible that 2001's examples may not all fit into MOS guidelines. The discussion on the Boston bombings talk page is very long, I would appreciate if both sides could in dot point form summarise their argument points (Note: there is no need to rebut the other side via your dot point listings, and please limit to no more than a dozen or so (if that!)).

It may be possible in some circumstances to arrange a compromise wording, which can be bolded and be without redundancy or the other issues. There are more than two ways to skin a cat write a lead :).

The point that edits were long standing isnt a strong one, consensus can change, and editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD.

Note: This is my first DRN case, so I apologise if I make any procedural mistakes. - Nbound (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems I have made one already - we should await My76Strat's opening comment before proceeding for a little longer before proceeding beyond these dotpoints (Say 12 hours?) -- Nbound (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're making the same mistake 2001: is, that is, simply seeing the same words and concluding it's a redundancy. The problem only occurs if it's the same article, that's repeated in the lead sentence, not the same word. You need to look at the name as a single article... Boston Marathon bombing is a single entity, and it's not repeated again in the sentence. Same with all of the other examples. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Shadowjams, as I stated, it was only an at-face opinion [if it were completely clear, none of us would be here! :) ]. Both sides do have some good arguments. I will weigh these up after Im finished at work (8-10hrs). In any case the solution is likely to be a series of compromises. I agree very strongly that the internal comment should be removed from the article though, as it has the potential to stifle creativity. -- Nbound (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that a redundancy would have to involve repetition of the entire title to be covered, e.g. "The Boston Marathon bombings were Boston Marathon bombings", or "The 2011 Joplin tornado was a 2011 Joplin tornado"? (But a slightly reordered "The 2011 Joplin tornado was a 2011 tornado in Joplin" would be fine?) Please clarify this. I can't imagine anyone needing guidance not to fashion such a sentence, and it does not appear that's what the MOS intends to cover. The MOS clearly includes examples where the redundancies are individual elements of a descriptive title; note the specific one used in the WP:REDUNDANCY example (footnote 7) about "Pakistani-Iraqi relations".

As for the Babe Ruth Award example, Babe Ruth is not a primary focus of the award nor integral to it, so it's less important that a link appear early; the award is simply named after him, whereas the Boston Marathon bombings happened at the Boston Marathon, a subject many readers may be unfamiliar with, so we should link it early to provide a concise definition in the first sentence. Knowing biographical details of who an award is named after is not vital for comprehension. (And "Babe Ruth Award" is an official name, thus must be bolded.) The word "award" also doesn't need further clarification, whereas "bombings" needs to be clarified as being the two bombs that went off, which requires even more verbiage with a bold title. Suggesting that boldface is more important than providing additional information to readers seems counterproductive to the goals of an encyclopedia.

I did note multiple times that I have no problem with the hidden comment being pared down to sound less overbearing, and as I noted, I added it per consensus on similar articles and copied it from one of those articles (I have no idea where the exact comment originated.) I have gone and removed it entirely as a measure of good faith. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I interrupt for a second?

I think this might be a 'point you in the right direction' case rather than a 'find a solution here'. Is this a dispute about a number of articles, or a dispute about a guideline, with these articles being examples?

If you just want to sort out the bolding in the lead sentence on these specific articles, we can help you here. But it sounds like they may be only symptoms of a more general disagreement.

If the dispute is over what MOS:BOLDTITLE actually means, and these are only examples, then we can't. We're good at applying policy to individual content disputes here, but deciding what a policy or guideline means in general is beyond our scope. If this is the case, the first port of call is probably WT:LEAD, especially if you think the guideline could or should be edited to make it clearer. CarrieVS (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's both, since it pertains to those specific articles, especially Boston Marathon bombings where we've had lengthy discussions; the other articles were ones where I made changes that were reverted, due to a dispute over how MOS:BOLDTITLE should be interpreted. But at the core, it is a disagreement over how MOS:BOLDTITLE should be applied in general. If you think taking it to WT:LEAD or an RFC is more appropriate, then that can be done. I posted here rather than on WT:LEAD (I actually posted on WT:MOS first then removed it) because the headers say that they're about discussing improvements to the MOS, as is most of the content, and say to seek dispute resolution for disputes. The MOS should probably be improved to cover these situations better, and I intend to discuss such improvements at some point, but I don't know if that addresses the immediate dispute. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS is spot on, we dont have the authority here to decide on matters such as how it is to be applied across wikipedia (They were built on consensus views of the community, not by us here at the DRN). My general advice would be to keep the heading reasonably well written. There isnt any need to bold if its just going to make the article harder to read. If you can get in a bold title without making it seem clunky, then go for it, if not then dont worry about it, its not a big deal. A good idea might be to consider if the particular sentence would pass an A-Class of FA review (Im sure you know how picky reviewers can be!), If it passes, bold or not, then its a good opening sentence. If you do want decide on what MOS:BOLD means then I would suggest following Carrie's idea and posting it at the suggested locations.

OTOH, specific advice for the Boston Marathon bombings example, would be that I disagree that the link to the marathon needs to be in the opening sentence. It is obviously a marathon which is in Boston (ie. self descriptive), and the bombings are far more well known than the event itself. It should of course be mentioned and linked to somewhere in the opening paragraph. I would think that something more pertinent like a link to terrorism would have a good place in the opening sentence.

The Boston Marathon Bombings were a co-ordinated terrorist attack which occured on April 15, 2013. Two pressure cooker bombs exploded at 2:49 p.m. EDT (18:49 UTC), about 13 seconds and 210 yards (190 m) apart, near the finish line on Boylston Street. The direct result of these blasts was the death of 3 people and injuring of 264 other Boston Marathon attendees. <continue lead here>

(Or similar - feel free to use if everyone likes it).

In essence there is no need to just switch and change around the opening sentence, the entire opening can be moved around and rewritten. The results you guys come up with may be as neither party expected, but remember, its not about winning, its about improving the article. And sometimes a little compromise can go a long way (this is a general statement directed at no editor in particular).

Another option is to put the article up for peer review [PR] (but also specifically mention the opening sentence as a focus of the review as a whole) and see what some other opinions suggest. -- Nbound (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

While it's not absolutely necessary to have Boston Marathon in the opening sentence, I believe including it, that there were two bombs, and what the human impact of the bombs were are needed to fulfill the "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition" criterion. The suggested opening also uses the more vague description of "terrorist attack", rather than simply stating that two bombs exploded; "terrorist attack" is no more descriptive without further definition than "bombings" is. (And the information on the casualties is moved further down; they can't really be included before the information on the bombs is presented for context.) This is less informative and much more verbose, being done simply to bold the title.

I'd also disagree that the bombings are much more well-known than the Boston Marathon itself; it's a very old and extremely notable sporting event within the U.S. (drawing half a million people yearly), and your view that the bombings are more well-known (I assume due to heavy media coverage) is precisely why it should be wikilinked early if possible: so readers not familiar with the particular marathon can easily click through and be familiarized with its significance.

Further, making "terrorist attack" a key focus muddles the nuance of exactly what role terrorism played, as can be seen from reading the rest of the article (state-level criminal charges rather than federal terrorism charges, investigated as a terrorist attack but bombers unconnected to any terror groups, though generally recognized as "terrorism" but not in the same sense as a more-involved attack by a terrorist group.) It's not even included in the "attack type" at the moment, though I've personally been neutral on that point, and am going by what the article currently reflects per consensus of other editors. Suddenly sticking "terrorist attack" in the lead probably shouldn't be done simply to bold the title, but rather only if there's agreement that it should be there whether or not the title is bolded.

While other synonyms for "bombings" or simplifications of "terrorist attack" could be used with a similar structure, they suffer from the same problem of simply not providing more than vague information that then still requires further explanation...the exact explanation that we currently have in place.

Your suggestion to bring it up for peer review makes some sense, though since this concerns several articles, going to WT:LEAD to try to get more general clarification might be more appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the move to WT:LEAD would be better and Ill close the discussion accordingly. Peer review may still have some use if the sides can't agree on how to implement the advice given over there. Obviously, in good faith, neither side should edit the leads until this has had some more reasoned discussion at LEAD. -- Nbound (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by

Opening comments by Whpq

My involvement started with the second AFD and continued with the merge discussions which was closed as a merge/redirect. I redirected per consensus and then the reversions started, leading us to this dispute. I believe the course of action should be to simply have an uninvolved administrator review the closure. -- Whpq (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by User:Katanin

I have been heavily involved in these discussions over the past few months and have argued for either the merging or deletion of the article. The reason for the conclusions of "keep" on the first AfDs were not due to the content of the arguments therein, they were because of "Poor discussion quality" and due to a "bad-faith sockvandtrollfest"; essentially due to a large number of sock puppets and ad hominems. I have stated my arguments both on the first AfD and the merge discussion here. I stand by my argument, and believe that this debacle falls under WP:OWN on the part of User:MouthlessBobcat. While I understand that he is proud of his contributions, I still stick by my argument. - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nathan Johnson

• I simply closed the latest RfC as an uninvolved users per a request at WP:AN/RFC. I have no interest in the subject. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mr. Gerbear

I reverted MouthlessBobcat's edits because consensus had been established in the talk page, and warned him appropriately. I felt that the warning level I gave was appropriate as said user has a history of going against consensus and, obvious from his attitude in many of his comments, not a team player. Afterwards, I received this message on my Talk Page, which was reverted. MouthlessBobcat was then issued a 24-hour block for this personal attack.

MouthlessBobcat's accusations of racism and hate are unfounded. In fact, I had voted to keep the Francesca Hogi article in the second deletion discussion.

I believe MouthlessBobcat has acted and is continuing to act in bad faith. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Frietjes

I do not feel there was consensus to close the merger discussion on the article talk page. prior AfDs were marred by sockpuppetry and SPA !votes, and I do not feel that there were enough confirmed non-SPA non-sock !votes to close the discussion. I also feel as though the speedy closure of the previous AfD was unnecessary per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY. In my opinion, if we just wait a couple months, the last Survivor season will be in the rear view mirror, and we will be able to better judge the notability of the subject. I have no objection to redirecting the article, just an objection to how the decision was made. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan discussion

Hello, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here at DRN. MouthlessBobcat, could you please explain which user(s) are the other side of the dispute? Howicus (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Howicus, I added every single user involved with this dispute. I also added both users who closed the deletion discussions to keep the article the way it is. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that consensus was against you in the merge discussion. Unless there is evidence that the consensus has changed (or Ms. Hogi does something else noteworthy) I don't see any reason to unmerge the article. Howicus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please excuse me, but have you read the article thoroughly and looked through both deletion discussions? I don't see how the article isn't suitable for publishing. I have stated as to why she is notable outside of the franchise. If I didn't think she was, I wouldn't have taken the time to make the article. 108.13.115.48 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Signed MouthlessBobcat (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read over the article, as of this revision , and I'm not really sure if there are enough reliable sources there. For sure, sources 2 and 8 are just the opinions of fans, so I don't think those sources can be used. A lot of the sources go back to cbs.com, and I can't seem to find a policy saying one thing or the other on that sort of source. I'll keep looking, and maybe I'll ask at the help desk. Howicus (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

CBS is a primary source. Use of primary sources is addressed at WP:GNG which notes that sources "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So then my opinion is that there frankly aren't enough secondary sources to establish the notability of the article's subject. Howicus (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a problem. I'm willing to do anything to get my article published. It's just the principle. Right now I'm studying for my finals, but hopefully later today I will add and edit better sources and do a sandbox of it. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is not the only reason that the article was redirected. As noted in the merge proposal, WP:BLP1E is also a consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes you are correct, but you are also forgetting if the article is sourced well and has good enough reception outside of WP:BLP1E, such as season favorite, season winner, or controversial subject, it warrants an article. Like I said, you guys complaining about Russell Hantz not having an article makes me sick. I almost feel like making him a well written one just to make this whole thing fair, and I just might. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Rising above the one-event would require significant and sustained coverage. Being a season favorite, season winner, or controversial subject alone is not sufficient. Whether Russell Hantz has a standalone article is largely irrelevant to whether a standalone article for Francesca Hogi is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just about done with updating the article so this dispute can be ended. Thank you so much for keeping this dispute open a little longer. Just my studies come first. We shouldn't even be here as my original article was fine the way it was but I have updated it and I should post it this afternoon. The latest this evening. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Revising the article won't necessarily end the dispute. If she is still deemed not notable to warrant her own article, then we will retain the redirect. - Katanin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

uninvolved 3rd party opinion I am not taking an opinion about if this woman should or should not have an article, I stopped watching the show many seasons ago, and have no idea how important she is. I do note that after two AFDs, even ones where it wasn't a real "keep", I think an immediate merge discussion which was then closed quickly suspiciously looks like an attempt at gaming the system, and I would recommend a revert to the standalone article, followed by a full AFD/Merge discussion again that has neutral (admin?) closing and enough time ensured to gain a wide consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just a clarification, there was a 3rd AFD which was procedurally closed as AFD is not the venue for merge discussions so sending it for a full AFD discussion isn't a likely avenue. As the whole thing surrounds notability, the Notability Noticeboard is probably the best next step. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh, The 3rd closure stinks of Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY failure. Per Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_proposed_after_a_deletion_discussion merge is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an AFD discussion, and the procedural close because the nominator said "merge" instead of "delete or merge" is stupid. However, even this 3rd AFd provides more evidence to my original point, which is that immediately making a merge discussion, and closing on the dot after one week, when 3 AFDs were closed under unusual circumstances seems like an attempt at avoiding gaining a true consensus. (Note that upon review of the article history, I would probably !vote merge in a discussion unless some other evidence for notability is provided, but I think that this railroading is a gross miscarriage of wikipolicy.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Updated Article to consider

Updated Article Please Read

I apologize for being so late. Got caught up in a few things. Nevertheless, here it is. The reception section is what I'm mostly concerned about as that is the make or break as to whether the article is suitable for wikipedia. I've updated the sources and added new ones and properly explained how they connect to her nobility. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a detailed look at it later, but just glancing at it, I noticed one of the sources is tumblr, which is definitely not a WP:RS. Howicus (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the sourcing seems weak, and typical of reality WP:BLP1E non-notability. Find a news/magazine article written about her that is focusing on something other than Survivor, and I would give it a weak keep as "BLP2E". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources are largely interviews, blogs, and fan sites. Regardless of whatever happened to the article in the past, there aren't enough reliable sources for an article now. Howicus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Bah, ugh I have to politely disagree with you. I'm giving you in the least a WP:NotJustYet.

There are more sources of her being a judge in the Miss Maine, beauty pageant. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/20/living/reality-stars-hebert-underwood-help-crown-new-miss-maine-usa/ She has also done more projects outside of Survivor that should be noteworthy. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NotJustYet is the equivalent of saying "not notable now, maybe in the future". It seems to me that we are done here; notability continues to be elusive. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree. The bangor daily news article doesn't say much about Hogi, just that she was present at that event. Howicus (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh, I still say the sources are accurate. Maybe I'll try again in a few weeks when you people want to stop being so incompetent. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, accurate is not good enough. Please don't accuse other editors of being wilfully incompetent just because they disagree with you.

Obviously, you have the ability to do whatever you like unless you get blocked or banned, but I would advise you not to try again unless and until you find some new, better sources to show notability - even if that means waiting until she's done something else notable. To keep bringing up the same thing that you know consensus is against you on is futile and, if it's carried on beyond a certain point, disruptive. CarrieVS (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well I just don't get why the article isn't suitable enough. Usually when I make articles, it has a Wikipedia:AFD. If it fails, I usually accept it and move on, it is passes, the article has no more problems. Because that's the point of an AFD. To prove if the article is set for the site. This article not only had one that passed, but I believe there were now three. I thought there were two but a third admin decided to keep the article. Keep that in mind.

It wasn't until unregistered members and sockpuppets decided to come up consensuses that the article wasn't fit for wikipedia when I believe it is. So far I'm not satisfied. I think I have more than good enough sources to support the article good enough for publishing. Articles like this, and let's not forget this are suitable, but this one isn't. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I really do. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this case, so I haven't looked closely enough at the article and sources to form my own opinion. Besides, as a volunteer I'm only here to mediate. But it seems clear to me that consensus is against you and unlikely to change. As frustrating as it must be for something you've worked hard on not to be kept, at a certain point you have to accept it, unless you can find some new reason.

Just because something wasn't deleted in the past doesn't necessarily mean it must be kept now; Consensus can change. And that other articles have been kept has little bearing on with whether this one should be.

Please also remember that unregistered users have as much right to an opinion as you do. Sockpuppets do not, but if you have evidence of sockpuppetry you should take it (unless it's already been dealt with) to WP:SPI. As I say, I haven't yet looked very closely at anything other than this discussion, so the consensus I was referring to is on this page. I see a lot of editors here and no-one besides you saying the article should be kept. Regardless of anything that happened at past AFDs, it seems that the consensus is to merge the article.

If you want to stand any chance of changing that, you will need to address the arguments the other editors have made. Do you disagree that the sources are "largely interviews, blogs, and fan sites"? If so, why? If not, why are they reliable sources to in spite of it? Why does the Bangor Daily News article prove notability if it "doesn't say much about Hogi, just that she was present at that event"? Complaining about past proceedings will not do you a blind bit of good: whether we put the matter to rest here or start another merge discussion or do anything else, in the long run, the only way this article will be kept is if someone can defend it on its merits. CarrieVS (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. Some sources are editorials, community events, television and media appearances. Who said that interviews weren't good enough reception? MouthlessBobcat (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not the same as unanimity. This has been discussed to death. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Srich32977

• This is regarding two issues: 1. the tagging in the Hans-Hermann Hoppe RfC discussion with "This user may have been canvassed" notes. (There is no evidence that they've been individually canvassed.) And 2. the sub-section in the RfC about the possible canvassing. I contend that tagging the users serves no useful purpose (In fact, it is disruptive - what possible response could they have?). Also, the canvasing subsection is off-topic to the RfC and should be deleted or hatted. (I do not understand how BLP fits in.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Wikiwind

This is silly. RfC discussion is currently underway. Carolmooredc doesn't like the direction in which discussion is going, so he is trying to obstruct emerging consensus. There is no evidence that these users are individually canvassed, and he shouldn't use Template:Canvassed as a means of discrediting comments he don't like.--В и к и T 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe RfC

(Below Srich32977)...

• • As a side note, shouldn't the tagged editors and alleged canvasser be notified of this DRN? 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SRich didn't give this DRN a chance to be assessed and accepted; he didn't give me a chance to finish it and notify the two editors. And alleged canvasser hasn't bothered to answer my talk page note about it and would have a conflict of interest in commenting on either issue since he's the alleged canvasser. He can file a separate DRN if he has a problem with my concerns. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Below Wikiwind)...

I put the discussion section and the tags on right after I saw that Canvassing was happening (and I figured out from WP:Canvass what to do about it), when only a couple people had posted. Anyway, I think the whole RfC is just one of a long litany of WP:BLP violations which I'm bringing to WP:BLP this week.

The issue here is templates and discussion sections for canvassing and the lack of guidance on what to do about it in the policy page. Please keep to those issues.

Also, did you see the orignal biased "campaigning" message or did anyone contact you privately or did you see some other discussion encouraging you and others to engage in this RfC? (That might be a WP:COI that you might want to admit.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What WP:COI?? Please stop attacking me! I was not contacted privately about this RFC. On the other hand, maybe you have WP:COI, considering your current involvement on that article.--В и к и T 20:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. If someone had seen a canvassing note anywhere they might have a WP:COI. (Volunteers here could clarify that point.) Obviously having been threatened with WP:ANI by you for doing what I consider to be compliant with policy, I was forced to come here for clarification of a policy which is not very clear. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion above was moved to here from below opening comments.
• Note 2: This issue is primarily a conduct issue. WP:ANI should be the next stop if there is no hope of the issues being sorted in an appropriate way.

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.

Opening comments by Niteshift36

Opening comments by Frogkermit

Opening comments by Jojhutton

Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here, but I'm neither "taking" or opening this listing for discussion at this time. Since there appeared to be some confusion about how DRN works, I've left a note at the article talk page to clear up any lingering confusion. As I said in that note, if the editors other than the listing editor do not weigh in here in two or three days, then this listing is very likely going to be closed by a volunteer as stale. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. AussieLegend, the other editors' actions may be justified, depending on interpretation, by WP:CCC, though WP:CCC does state that change of consensus can be disruptive. I do agree that the other editors should have made it more clear on why consensus was changed. I recommend reading WP:CCC. Please comment on your thoughts after reading WP:CCC. Regards, smileguy91^talk 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Im a DRN volunteer, but im not going to be taking part in this discussion, and I cant as I know AussieLegend from numerous articles Ive collaborated with him on. I will say though, in regards to the opinion given by smileguy91 only, the MOS cannot be changed by a few editors forming consensus to operate against it. Basically, because the MOS was formed by a larger community-wide consensus, it reigns as the community preferred option, until it is overturned by the appropriate means. Just as a group of editors cant decide edit-warring or sockpuppeting is acceptable in their own particular circumstance (unless it is backed by a community wide consensus). See Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS -- Nbound (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you Smileguy91 for your involvement. Indeed, consensus can change, but valid reasons are needed, backed up by valid arguments. Additionally, one of the principles of WP:CON, and indeed a principle that we follow in every decision making process is that consensus is not determined by a vote, instead it is determined on the strength of the arguments put forward, especially taking note of validity with respect to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Yet, what we have here is effectively a vote, 3 against 1. None of the arguments presented by those seeking to change consensus referred to policy or guidelines and only one source was presented. The source presented demonstrated only that the series has been released on a 4-disc/13 episode DVD set in the UK. Ironically, this is not in dispute, after the series first aired as 11 episodes it was certainly broken into 13 episodes for home media release and subsequent airing on broadcast medium. Nbound's reference to the MOS is correct, it can't be ignored. MOS:TV says that articles must present the full history of a series. When I stated that at the discussion I was accused, more than once, by Nightshift36 of misinterpreting the MOS. This happened even after I went to MOS:TV and specifically asked about the applicability. The response there was "(and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section." Like my insistence that it was OK for other participants to make opening comments here, this was ignored.

When Terra Nova first aired, the premiere and finale aired as two, two-hour episodes, not 2 pairs of back to back episodes or 4 single episodes. This was supported by the Fox website at the time but that link is now dead, so the fact has been declared as "unverifiable", despite the lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes (started by Nightshift36) where the Fox website was referenced more than once. This was the case even when the press releases reproduced by The Futon Critic, which is widely regarded as a reliable source, were presented. Those press releases quite clearly declare the premiere and finale to be single episodes: The first says "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA" and the second says "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA". (emphasis added) It's clear that Fox treated these as single episodes, yet Nightshift36 declares The Futon Critic to be a dubious source. In summary, the arguments for changing consensus have been declaring MOS:TV to be inapplicable, claiming that widely regarded reliable sources are dubious and completely ignoring a previous discussion that one of the editors in this "discussion" started. So yes, I do believe that consensus can change but in the discussion at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) there have been no compelling arguments or evidence that we should completely overturn the previous consensus and ignore the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by DanDan0101

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax discussion

I am a DRN volunteer and this appears to be a clear cut case so I will comment early, the webpages dont meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements and should be removed. As stated in the previous discussion between the involved users Wikipedia is not for things WP:MADEUP in one day, even if the creater thinks the site is the WP:NEXTBIGTHING -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As such I have removed the information from the article. Please do not reinstate without some reasoning backed by Wikipedia policy. Continued unsubstantiated reverts to include the information should be posted at the editwarring noticeboard WP:ANEW -- Nbound (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I will leave the discussion open for now incase there are important points from the opposing party that need to be stated, which could sway the discussion - Nbound (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DanDan0101 (talk · contribs) has reverted the changes again, and again without cause. I would suggest taking the matter further to the edit warring noticeboard. WP:ANEW -- Nbound (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And now re-reverted it back? Might be worth assuming this is a good faith move for now, until any further related edits occur -- Nbound (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Post closure comment: This is a good faith move, Chris857. I understand now what the editwar actually meant and why you kept putting up-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by David Fuchs

User:Sikh-history primarily edits and advocates for topics related to Sikhism. Where this comes into play is his insistence that the article on fictional character Khan Noonien Singh prominently feature the character's (supposed) Sikh ancestry, and that merely describing the character in the lead as Indian (which is not in doubt) as opposed to North Indian (which is said by a character but never verified as true in the canon) is "on a personal level [...] quite insulting and verging on racism". Likewise, mentioning in the lead that during the character's development he started as a Nordic character is somehow problematic (although we have a specific reliable source stating that; the facts are not in dispute.) I cannot address the user's deep-seated concern that somehow saying just "Indian" is problematic and insulting, despite the fact that we cannot describe him as otherwise without going beyond what the primary source says. There's other issues, such as trying to use articles referencing Wikipedia as sources that show how Wikipedia should reference it, but my main concern is that the user is incapable of constructive, source-based editing when they have decided on an outcome promoting Sikhism. If I'm not described as insensitive and borderline racist in my conduct, or of somehow abusing my adminship, I'm likened to a person with autism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 99.192.74.156

Comment: Multiple IPs can be confusing and are generally frowned upon, whether or not the user is using them to gain an advantage or not. If possible get yourself an account. This will also allow other users to contact you on your user talk page. -- Nbound (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Khan Noonien Singh

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. Sikh-history, can you please clarify on your views on the character description of "Indian" and what you believe is incorrect about that label? smileguy91^talk 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My only request is that in the Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1. Episode 22. 1967-02-16. NBC." the charachter Khan Noonien Singh is described by Marla McGivers as "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.". This description should be used in the lead of the article i.e. something along the lines of "he is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". My learned friend above David, wished to shorten this to "Indian". I say this is not accurate. This doesn't reflect what was said by the charachters in the series. I think we should strive to be as accurate as possible. All this argument about cannon is a non-argument (we're not talking the Theory of Relativity here), because we're talking about a TV series, and the best evidence we have is charachter interaction. Marla McGivers in the context of the TV series is an expert Historian. Thanks SH 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand from the comments made so far, David Fuchs believes that the only appropriate conclusion from the source is that the character be described as "Indian", and believes that Sikh-history wants to prominently feature the "supposed" Sikh ancestry of the character, and that labeling the character as Sikh will undermine the neutrality and factuality of the article. That label of "Indian" is considered by Sikh-history to be an insult, and Sikh-history wishes to label the character as "Sikh". The character is almost definitely Sikh in name, and it is, according to David Fuchs, confirmed by another character in the series, but the fact is not verifiable enough to be put on Wikipedia. I did take a look at the Big Bang Theory comment that Sikh-history posted, and I did find the statements a little vague, and may or may not be insulting depending on the intentions of the comparison. Please clarify on that, Sikh-history, if you can. Regardless of the situation, Asperger syndrome insults aside, Sikh-history, David Fuchs, is there a compromise that both of you possibly can agree on? Please state your ideas on compromise below. smileguy91^talk 16:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Smileguy91, I am a volunteer here at DRN. Wouldn't the best solution simply be to not mention his ethnicity in the lede at all? It's not a major plot point in any of the movies or TV series, after all, so there's not much reason for it to be there. I'd suggest:

...he is played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman Sikh from the Asian continent[1] who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s.[2] After being revived from suspended animation in 2267 by the crew of the USS Enterprise, Khan attempts to capture the starship, but is thwarted by James T. Kirk and exiled on Ceti Alpha V to create a new society with his people. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, set fifteen years after "Space Seed", Khan escapes his exile and sets out to exact revenge upon Kirk.

The character was originally conceived of as a Nordic superman by scriptwriter Carey Wilber before his ancestry was changed in script revisions. Harve Bennett, executive producer for Star Trek II, chose Khan as the villain for the film. To reflect the time spent marooned on an inhospitable world, Khan was given a costume that looked as though it had been scavenged from different items and showed off Montalbán's physique. Montalbán's portrayal has been positively received by critics and fans; Khan was voted as one of the top ten greatest film villains of all time by the Online Film Critics Society.

All the stuff I've struck out seems far too detailed for the lede. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

smileguy91^talk how else do we verify charachters in TV series ? Either from the book or script? Is that right? furthermore I am happy with " described as northern Indian" or "probably Sikh and described as northern Indian" but not just "Indian". I'm also happy with him being described as Nordic in earlier scripts. The Sikh thing is not an issue. It's accuracy to the script.

Also I didn't mean to be insulting to David, but his comments and manner is insensitive. There is being WP:Bold and then there is just plain insensitive. Sheldon Cooper from BBT is insensitive but he's a nice guy at heart. Thats all I was saying. I was'nt talking about learning difficulties or mental health issues, I'm sorry it's been interpreted like that. It's a bit like WPOR to derive that from what I said.

Thanks SH 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the WP:Verifiability according to this is not in question of this source. It's more to do with WP:UNDUE and David saying it is not "canon" . I and many watchers of the episode Space Seed disagree in News articles:

1. http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n92436.htm
2. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/bay-city/index.ssf/2013/05/star_trek_into_darkness.html
3. http://theurbanwire.com/2013/05/17/star-trek-into-darkeness/
4. http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-hollywood-premiere/
5. http://nerdreactor.com/2013/05/16/a-trekkie-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness-with-spoilers/
6. http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-thrill-ride-till-the-end/article4705910.ece
7. http://www.justpressplay.net/reviews/10684-star-trek-into-darkness.html
8. http://www.film.com/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-khan

Thanks SH 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sikh-history, please check your comments starting from "Also I didn't mean to be insulting..." You, probably on accident, put "I was talking about learning difficulties" instead of "I wasn't". Please correct that to prevent any possible offense stemming from that. "Probably Sikh and described as northern Indian" should be acceptable to both parties, in my opinion. smileguy91^talk 20:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Transporter Man's comments above, I think gutting that section the lead means that it does not adequately cover the development of the character; the latter section probably needs to be better worded because all the previous accolades were for one portrayal of the character and that's no longer the case. The section covering the character's development in Into Darkness does need to be cleaned up and expanded with out-of-universe information, but that's tangental to the issue. The primary reason I wrote Indian in the lead in the first place was because it contrasted with the original conception of the character, which I think is a relevant point to lead out with.

As to Sikh's comments, if you read through the sources above you will note that some are not reliable, some are simply reader/anonymous comments and then some appear to be using Wikipedia as its source of information in the first place, meaning it's hardly useful as a source (violating WP:CIRCULAR). For example, from the above source, : seems to crib its language from the last sentence of the lead ("voted as one of the top ten greatest film villains of all time by the Online Film Critics Society"). This isn't the first example of this, and there are even more blatant ones (such as ).

Finally, there's the matter of Star Trek canon. As mentioned above, the character only guesses that he's from Northern India, and probably is a Sikh. The northern India bit is thus speculation, and it doesn't really matter if a New York Post writer cribs Wikipedia and writes it as such—it's still wrong, elevating in-episode supposition to fact. We can, however, easily cite Khan's origin as India, generally (for instance, from the official site.). Thus, I see no reason why saying the character is Indian in the lead, and providing McGivers' description in the relevant subsection of the article, is not appropriate or acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true that "we can...easily cite Khan's origin as India" and have that properly cited, and would be an acceptable solution, but we do need to consider Sikh-history's opinion in a final solution to this dispute, since he opines that the label "Indian" is offensive, and can be compared to this, as Sikh-history said: "It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, people describe it as a duck, but because the duck did not call himself a duck, therefore it is not a duck". Yet the official website labels him as, and forgive me if this is offensive, Indian. Any further opinions? smileguy91^talk 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more, "It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, people describe it as a duck, but the duck called himself a mallard, therefore it is not a duck". Correct me if I'm wrong but surely any Northern Indian person is Indian. Just as I tend to think of myself as English but you could call me British and it would be equally true. Nor would I object. Of course, there's lots I don't know about India and Indian people, Northern or otherwise, so perhaps there is something I don't know about. Could Sikh-history please explain why it's offensive to use a less specific description? CarrieVS (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to make sense of SH's claim that it is either offensive or insulting to refer to a northern Indian as simply an Indian, but I can't. On the Khan talk page he wrote, "Ok, if you called an Englishman a European, I bet you he would take issue with that. In that same way many northern indian tribes take issue with being called an Indian." This contradicts both my experience of knowing many people from England and many from India. SH has been asked many times to explain it, but it still does not really make sense.

Having tried to understand what he is saying, this is the best I can come up with: If you are trying to say something about Khan's citizenship, then saying he is "Indian" would not be insulting. India is a country and the citizens of that country routinely identify their nationality as "Indian". But if you are trying to say something about Khan's ethnicity, to say "Indian" is to fail to do so and shows a lack of understanding of the ethnic diversity that is contained within the country of India. So, to take a different example, most people might find it odd (to say the least) or perhaps even offensive to describe Wendie Malick or Charlize Theron as "African-American" even though Malik's father was Egyptian and Egypt is certainly a part of Africa while Theron was born in South Africa and her ancestry goes back several centuries there. The term "African-American" is generally understood to be a term referring to race, not merely continent of heritage.

So having said all that, if saying "Khan is Indian" is meant as a description of his nationality, then it is impossible to find it insulting or offensive. If saying "Khan is Indian" is meant as a description of his ethnicity, then it is inaccurate in a way that demonstrates ignorance of the ethnic diversity of the country of India. When the character in "Space Seed" says Khan is "from the northern India area, I'd guess" she must be commenting on his ethnicity, not his citizenship. Otherwise there would be no need to specify "northern" or to generalize with the word "area" (which suggests she allows for the possibility he is from outside India, but near northern India). When the official Star Trek website (that David linked to) says Khan is from "Earth's India in the late 20th century", the only charitable reading of it is that it must be commenting on his nationality, not his ethnicity. Which means we have a definitive source on Khan's nationality, but only a "guess" as to what his ethnicity "probably" is.

If SH comes along and tells me I have it all wrong here, then I give up. This is the best I can do to understand what his concern is. 99.192.53.166 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.156)

I must agree with 99.192.53.166 on the issue of understanding Sikh-history's concerns, and I must add that the concerns, according to him/her, was not adequately taken into consideration by David Fuchs. However, I must doubt the fact that David Fuchs was abusing administrator privileges per se as Sikh-history was saying; he was just not taking Sikh-history's opinions into account adequately. On the contrast, factually, I believe that David Fuchs is correct that it is already established with 100% correct sources that Singh is from India, and is, and again forgive me if this is insulting, Indian. You can't get any better sources of characters' nationalities than the official website of Star Trek. That's just my opinion, but I maintain that this dispute must be handled neutrally. smileguy91^talk 03:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Purely as a drive by comment since I can't get myself enthused over this, there is a difference between "Indian" and "Sikh" since Sikhs are from a very small and very specific part of India (though why it is offensive to be one or the other escapes me for the moment!). Sort of like Spaniards are Europeans but, if someone is specifically identified as a 'probably spaniard', one wouldn't say he was a European. Unless it is clear that this person of genetically engineered magnificence is either a Sikh or an Indian, I'd suggest going with TransporterMan's formulation. --regentspark (comment) 03:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The real mystery in this case, the one for the ages, is why this Indian/possible Sikh speaks with a Hispanic accent and smells like rich corinthian leather. Perhaps the answer is here. ;-) TransporterMan (TALK) 00:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, just couldn't help myself.)

Ok without going to much into the history of partition and citizenship in India, many of my Pakistani and Kashmiri friends will say, if people don't know where they are from, they will not say India, but say "northern India". Many Sikhs will deny they are Indian and say they are Punjabi (northern Indian). I've already gone into the history of India on the Khan talk page viz a viz, India is an artificially created country that has only come about under British rule. It was never united before that because it is so ethnically diverse. If you wish to make a generilisation about Indian ethnicity, then there are two.

1. Indo-Aryan - Northern Indian
2. Dravidian - Southern Indian

Moving onto the duck analogy a Mallard is still a duck, so in other words, people from secondary sources who have watched Space Seed, see Khan as northern Indian, because he looks Northern Indian, acts like a Northern Indian, but he doesn't call hismself as specific type of Northern Indian (a Sikh). The WP:Circular argument does not hold here because the assumption is that journalists have got there information from Wikipedia. They may have simply watched the episode of Space Seed (like me) and formed their own opinion. As far as I'm aware Journalism is WP:Reliable.

regentspark in Europe there are many people who are offended at being called European. I know Danes, Swedes, English etc who insisit on being refered by their Nationality, but that is not what I am saying here. This is a TV series, and the best way of identifying a charachetrs origin is through screenplay, imigary and script. I go back to the interaction between Khan and McGivers (an expert Historian in the script). Now if I was saying "he IS a SIKH and Northern Indian" that would be WP:OR. What I am saying is put down what they say in the TV series i.e. "probably Sikh" and "identified as Northern Indian"? Can we get WP:Consensus on this? Thannks SH 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)