Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73

Opening comments by Greengrounds

I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, HERE and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war. Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ozhistory

Thanks for opportunity to discuss. I would summarise the current crux of dispute a little differently to Deadbeef. Following his initial involvement, I went to the original sources proposed for citation in our lead. I found that the proposed text did not match the authors' works closely enough. Speer for example, could almost have been read in our lead as having believed that Hitler did not have disputes with the churches, when a full reading of his text indicates quite the contrary - similarly Toland, was not as clear cut as our lead wanted to imply. I also gathered further sources. For the information of reviewing editors:

This was the "work in progress" intro text that stood around 22 May:

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anticlerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[1] Though never formally expelled from the Catholic Church, he later had "no attachment to it" and became hostile to its teachings.[2][3][4][5] Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church.

According to Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, amid political associates, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", yet conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and around 1937, amid an exodus of Nazis from the Catholic fold, he ordered his chief associates to remain members of the church.[6] According to transcripts edited by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, in the 1940s, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "absurdity" and "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms."[7]

Hitler biographers John Toland, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock all noted that Hitler was anticlerical.[8][3] Toland wrote that Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", but said that in 1941 Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy".[8][9] While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[10] Toland also wrote that some who met Hitler were convinced that he was a committed believer.[11][12] To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, able to disguise his inner beliefs, yet he clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question" in Germany, evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility" towards them.[13] According to Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[3][14] Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, he became hostile to its teachings.[3]

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches Hitler often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[15][16] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[17] In religious policy in office, Hitler instigated an all-out persecution of Jews - based on racial rather than religious grounds - and permitted or encouraged varying degrees of interference, harassment and persecution of Christian churches.

Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise.[18][19] He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.[20] He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in a Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church.[21] He instigated an aggressive persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious objection to military service and pledges of allegiance to the state.[21][22]

Bullock and Kershaw wrote that Hitler intended to eradicate Christianity under a Nazi future.[23][24] Many historians have written that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[25][26] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible".[27] Historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion".[28]

This was the text Greengrounds reverted to on 23 May:

Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."[1] Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[2] Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism".[3] Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[4] Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings.[4]

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[5] In office, Hitler agreed a Concordat with the Catholic Church, and briefly sought to unify Germany's Protestant churches under the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen Movement, which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[6] Hitler routinely violated his treaty with the Vatican and failed in his effort to Nazisfy German Protestantism.[6]

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[7][8] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[9] According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer.[2][10] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[11][12]

Following the above reversion, and after a series of consultations on talk page, this was the last revision of an introductory paragraph proposal by me in (it is still too long, and in need of more work, but conduct issues have slowed progress on collaboration):

Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother.^[1][2] Though remaining nominally Catholic,^[3] Hitler was anticlerical,^[4][5] and became generally hostile to the church's teachings.^{[4][6][4][7][8]} In office, the Hitler regime sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted various Christian groups and organisations. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]}

Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and important conservative force. Amid church-state tensions in 1937, he ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it".^[15] In the transcripts of Hitler's Table Talk, edited by Martin Bormann, numerous harsh pronouncements against Christianity and the churches are attributed to Hitler.^[16] Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy".^[17][18][19] According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his Catholic beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god".^[20] According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest.^[4][21] Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer.^[22][23] To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".^[24]

In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches.^[25][26] Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism.^[27] In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity.^[28] Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise.^[29][30] He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.^[31] In his early political career, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a Nazi aligned movement which rejected the Apostles Creed and denied the Jewish origins of Jesus and Christianity.^[32][33] In office, he attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt split the church, with the formation of the Confessing Church.^[34] He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.^[34][35] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism.^[11] There is some scholarly debate over the ultimate intentions of Hitler towards the Christian churches.

Elements of the above have already been incorporated into current article lead, and I am not entirely sure what Greengrounds current objections to further inclusions may be. His only consistent objection has been that he wants the lead structured so as to give weight to a view that Hitler was either "a devout Catholic" or a "believing Christian" and statements of that sort. Such statements are not widely found in sources, though there are some who go some way to making the claim - as my text confirms above (see Toland statement). If I understand him correctly, Greengrounds believes that the Catholic Church (in particular) was essentially hand in glove with National Socialism in almost every respect; and he wants wikipedia articles on related topics to present this unhistorical view as the current and actual historical consensus.

My preference at this point is to shorten the above - so any advice from qualified editors would be gladly received. The sourcing attached to it is wide-ranging and useful - it would be a pity to lose it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hcc01

The article is certainly currently a shambles after the recent disputes, as noted on its talk page, and Greengrounds has been referred as a cause for concern as a result of some of his behaviour. The current situation is that I have offered to rewrite it from scratch and a neutral observer - Taigei - has created a sandbox page for me and/or other editors to do so without further damaging the article. I haven't yet responded to this opportunity because I am very busy at the moment, but I am willing to do so. As noted above, I have suggested that everyone take a break from editing it for a while afterwards to allow feelings on all sides to cool down, but as Ozhistory has pointed out, on Wikipedia such a request is unenforceable. If it could be temporarily protected after a rewrite, that might help.

In one sense I think this is less about the content of the article than about the context of Ratzinger's/Dawkins' spat on the subject a couple of years ago. Since then the historical debate about whether or not, and to what extent, the Third Reich was 'Christian' in any meaningful sense of the word has been more or less a public slanging match, and this article appears to be collateral damage. Of course, I may be underplaying the public impact of Steigmann-Gall's research on the subject, which certainly provoked quite a heated debate among historians. However, current historical research seldom filters through to public debate, and as the more sensible reviewers noted, all RSG really did was move the start of the secular phase of Nazism by five years, whereas the New Atheist movement now needs for ideological reasons to expunge it altogether. It's unfortunate, but there we are. Hcc01 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by IronMaidenRocks

I feel that both users Greengrounds and Ozhistory are applying some level of bias to the article that does not belong. Both users are lobbying based on their personal beliefs, and it has tainted the talk page. For the most part, the article well reflects the contradictory nature of Hitler's personal beliefs. There's no reason to interject a one-sided viewpoint. Greengrounds has a history of belligerence in the talk page, along with plying his POV to the article. I've seen Ozhistory make at least one recommendation which appeared to be in line with his own POV.

I would recommend the article for peer review. I don't think there's any reason to favor either user here, as they both seem to have a personal interest in the article and how its presented. Users are drawing battle lines, which is worrying, and perhaps a good sign that frequent editors need to take a break or get off the project. But there is an influx of users trying to promote an agenda for either 'atheism on the march' or deflection of blame toward religion. Users such as Greengrounds and some of the sources they've added to the article imply there's an active conspiracy to disassociate Hitler's religious views with Christianity. On the other hand, I have noted a worrying amount of users going in the opposite direction to imply that Hitler was wholly motivated by religion; a view not supported by several of the sources mentioned in the article.

User:HectorMoffet suggested splitting the article between Hitler's 'views' and 'policies', which may helpful. It could be that some users are trying to wind Hitler's political actions into his personal beliefs, or vice verse. For example, I believe that the extensive discussion of Nazi reaction to the political activities of churches, like the Confessing church, has little to do with the personal beliefs of Adolf Hitler, and could be construed as apologist deflection. Of course, Hitler's struggles with such groups does have to do with his lifetime of activity with religions, etc.

Users should be more inclined to work together without agenda, though for some agenda is the whole reason why they're editing the article. I do have a concern that the article may become a matter of 'read between the lines to see a debate which is not actually mentioned herein'. A debate which has no place in the article, because both sides are politically constructed and opposed to historical truth.

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler discussion

Pre-opening observations and requests: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. The guidelines for this noticeboard make it clear that this venue is for content, not conduct disputes, and it is well established here that we will not deal with conduct disputes or allow discussion of conduct to interfere with discussion of content. As framed by the listing editor this is indeed a content dispute, but a great deal of what is said in the opening statements, especially those of Greengrounds and Ozhistory, is conduct-related. With that understanding:

• @Greengrounds: Your opening statement, above, is nothing more than conduct allegations. If you wish to participate in this process, I would ask that you strike out or remove what you have said there and replace it with an opening statement substantially setting out your positions about the content which is at issue. Until you choose to make an opening statement which substantially addresses content, rather than conduct, the discussion of this request is not really going to be ripe to be opened.
• @Ozhistory: The volunteers here are not, with a few exceptions, administrators and we will not address the conduct issues mentioned in your opening statement, such as your suggestion of a topic ban. I would ask that you, too, strike out or remove the portions of your opening statement which have to do with conduct.
• @Other involved editors: Conduct is much less a part of your opening statements, but in keeping with the foregoing I would ask that you also review your statements and strike out or remove comments about conduct. Also to everyone, it would help to encourage a DRN volunteer to take this case if the content issues could be illustrated (and preferably circumscribed) by diffs.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: In light of Greengrounds' failure to address content issues here and in light of his heavy participation in the disputes at the article talk page, I or another volunteer will close this listing as futile at or after 15:00 UTC on June 18 unless matters change before that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 June 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 Nietzsche123

Flavil Yeakley's CV may be found here: CV. He has a BA in psychology, an MA in speech communication, and a PhD in speech communication. Yeakley was an associate professor at the University of Tulsa from 1974-1984 and a professor and researcher at Harding University since 1984. Amongst other things, he has published three books and nine journal articles, all of which concern psychological matters and are published in scholarly journals. In 1988 the ICOC asked Yeakley to administer the MBTI to its members in order to clear its name from criticism it was then receiving. The hope was that the testing would reveal that its church members showed no personality change. But when Yeakley's research showed the opposite--that over 900 of its church members changed their MBTI type--the ICOC distanced itself from Yeakley, leaving Yeakley to publish his research using the COC's own publishing house. While there is some controversy over the use of the MBTI as a reliable indicator of personality change, it's still the most widely used tool available^[2]. The MBTI is used in church and other circles^[3]. Moreover, recent scholarly research vindicates the use of the MBTI as a reliable measurement of personality change^[4]. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JamieBrown2011

Yeakley:

• Is unqualified for publishing research on the complex issue of personality change. He has a bachelors degree in Psychology. His advanced degrees have nothing to do with this subject matter, but are in the area of communications.
• Consequently the methodology used in his book is faulty. Meyers-Briggs is a popular personality test, but is HIGHLY unreliable in the test-retest area, with between 39% and 71% of people having different personality profiles upon retesting. No professional psychologist would use MBTI tests to research personality change.
• In Fortune Magazine, May 15th, 2013, an article on the test entitled "Have we all been duped by the Meyers-Briggs Test", had this to say:

  "The interesting -- and somewhat alarming -- fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test."

  The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introvert" and "extrovert" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line. ^[5]

Yeakley's Publisher, "Gospel Advocate":

• Is unqualified to publish books of this nature. They are essentially a husband and wife publisher for the Churches of Christ, producing predominantly Sunday School curriculums, along with a religious periodical and some christian books. They have no visible editorial board (according to their website) and no experience in publishing Psychological research.

Despite these glaring problems, Yeakley research features prominently on the ICOC page.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away.

I do not particularly care one way or the other how this specific content inclusion discussion washes out and I am willing to follow the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JamesLappeman

25 years ago, before the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) was formally recognized as a completely separate new church (from the Churches of Christ), a minister from the mainline Churches of Christ (Flavil Yeakley) conducted a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality profile on members of the Boston Church of Christ. His tests weren't externally verified, nor have they been redone or used in the study of psychology. His findings showed that the ICOC was changing the personalities of its members. This research alone is unreliable to substantiate such a major claim (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Reliability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_changes#Inconsistency_as_a_trait). The results were only published by a mainline Church of Christ family business publishing house (Gospel Advocate see http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about ) with no apparent editorial board and no authority or experience in the field of psychology or personality change. This research is being used in two sections of the ICOC page as encyclopedic quality information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Discipling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Members.27_personality_changes). Is this regarded as a reliable source on the ICOC considering Wiki Rules (WP:RS, WP:QS, WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:SPS etc..) and the weight of the claims being made?

International Churches of Christ discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. It appears to me that the ultimate question here is whether Discipling Dilemma by Yeakley is or is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and that what you're really looking for is an opinion on that point. I'm of the opinion that it is not, due to the fact that its publisher, Gospel Advocate Company, does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia policy, at least in connection with the type of psychological material for which the source is being used. Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Wikipedia-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It does make sense that "Gospel Advocate" would not be regarded as a reliable source/publisher for such material.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least three high-quality sources: (1) Michael Langone's (1994) article "The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse" (published in the Cultic Studies Journal, volume 11, pp. 88-117), (2) Langone's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Helping Cult Victims: A Historical Background" (published by WW Norton pp. 22-50), and (3) Paul Martin's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment and Rehabilitation" (pp. 203-231). While I agree the mere fact that "The Discipling Dilemma's" is published by Gospel Advocate is worrisome, I believe that we must also keep in mind the fact that the ICOC asked Yeakley to conduct the study. Shouldn't Yeakley's research be included based on this fact alone? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzche123: To answer your last question, no it should not. Nothing can go into a Wikipedia article merely because of its significance or importance to the topic; it must be verifiable via a reliable source. (You may be thinking of the concept of notability, which determines whether or not a subject is significant enough to have its own article but, as the notability policy says, not only does notability not have anything to do with article content but is itself determined by looking at whether or not there is sufficient coverage of the topic in reliable sources.) @Everyone: While the direct answer to Nietzsche123's question is no, if the Yeakley study can be reliably sourced — and the sources he's cited above may or may not be enough to do that (and I'd like your comments on that subject) — it certainly seems to me on first blush (and thus subject to additional consideration and discussion) to be significant enough to the topic of the article to be included if, again, it can be reliably sourced. Please understand that its significance cannot be attacked through your analysis of the study's accuracy or reliability. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to analyze or interpret what's said in reliable sources, but only to summarize it. In order to include in an article criticism of what is said in a reliable source, another reliable source must be found which makes that criticism. It is true that verifiability through reliable sources is only a threshold for the includability of relevant material, but once material has been shown to be relevant and verifiable then the question becomes only whether the material is so weakly relevant, so trivial, or so much outside of the mainstream academic view that it would give it undue weight to include it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:JamesLappeman seems to know more about the Anti-cult movement than I do, but I know they have been thrown out of court cases because of how FRINGE they are. The new references Nietzche123 is providing don't seem to be much better than "Gospel Advocate". See below:

In their 2009 book, Cults and New Religions: A Brief History, sociologists Douglas Cowan and David Bromley describe ICSA (Same organisation as "Cultic Studies Journal" mentioned above). They point out that the ICSA provides no indication of how many of their so-called characteristics are necessary for a group to be considered "cultic." The checklist creators do not adequately define how much of certain practices or behaviors would constitute "excessive," nor do they provide evidence that any of the practices listed are innately harmful. Finally, Cowan and Bromley criticize the ICSA list as being so broad that even mainstream organizations such as Evangelical Protestantism, the Roman Catholic Church, Buddhism and Hinduism fall within the criteria.[2]

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan – thanks for the help, as I see Wikipedia policy – the problem with using anti-cult publications would be the following:

• The basis of Yeakley’s research is the supposed psychological personality changes that he apparently observed. WP:USEBYOTHERS would require his findings to be published in notable psychology journals (like Journal Of Applied Psychology and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and not just in the anti-cult publications Nietzsche123 mentioned.
• The anti-cult institution has been heavily criticized by mainstream sociologists of new religions and is WP:FRINGE theory which does not make their journals reliable in such a weighty claim. This is discussed in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement#Controversies and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement#Responses_of_targeted_groups_and_scholars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cultic_Studies_Association#Criticism.

The fact that the mentioned anti-cult publications would themselves use Gospel Advocate as a primary source sheds light on the above points.JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked. The three sources I cited meet Wikipedia's criteria of high quality sources: their publishers have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". While a minority of sociologists, sometimes referred to as 'sociologists of religion', do criticize ICSA and the Cultic Studies Journal, that's besides the point. (Sociologists of religion get their fare share of criticism from other scholars, too.) Let's also not refer to scholarly works as 'anti-cult movement', or 'cult apologists', for that matter. Using such language does nothing but cause animosity. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all. Someone might, however, want to also consider the "methodological cavats" discussed by Langone in regards to research in this area, specifically including Yeakley, at pp. 35-36 of that book. As for the Cultic Studies Journal, this discussion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about that Journal's successor would seem to say that it is probably reliable, but must be carefully used. While I believe those may provide reliable sources for this material, I'm less certain that the references to the Yeakley book in them are sufficient to allow that book to be used directly. That's because all of those references come from or through the work of one person, Langone. Before I'd be willing to unreservedly bless Yeakley's work in his own book on the basis of the "multiple references in high-quality reliable sources" test, I'd like to see at least one, and preferably a couple of additional references, which do not involve Langone as the author or editor. If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Wikipedia principles to begin with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan (TALK) Help me understand your point on the "methodological caveats"? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I read the page. I agree.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the Langone and Martin sources mentioned previously, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least two other high quality sources: (1) Lewis Rambo's (1995) article "Congregational care and discipline in the San Francisco Church of Christ: A case study" (published in Pastoral Psychology 43:4, pp. 283-298) and (2) Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) "Cult Experience: Psychological abuse, distress, personality characteristics, and changes in personal relationships reported by former members of Church Universal and Triumphant" (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I go on leave for 10 days beginning tomorrow and won't be able to comment on this board during this time. However it would seem, given the very low quality of the source document (Yeakley's research having no peer review and his publisher having no editorial board), we would be looking for multiple endorsements of his research rather than just mentions of it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011: About the caveats: Langone expresses some reservations about the research he and others use in that book, including (but not soloing out) Yeakley. I'm not saying that those reservations do or do not bear on the way in which Yeakley is to be used in the article, but if they do bear on it then some brief, proportionate mention of them might be apropos in the article as well. Care must be exercised, however, not to engage in original research or synthesis.

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help TransporterMan, we really have struggled here and needed your assistance. Due to the nature of the discussion leading up to this point I think we are going to need help reaching a compromise on the nature and weight of the section as you mentioned above.

Before closing, please could you give a thought to two points:

• The current wording in the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). You’ve kindly reflected on the material already and I would like to request your input on possible rewording in light of this discussion (baring in mind the weight of the claim to source-strength ratio as well as the fact that the research was done in 1985 which was before the Boston Church of Christ became independent from the Churches of Christ and was a single congregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ#Separation_of_the_International_Churches_of_Christ).
• Would it make sense to remove the quotes from Yeakley’s book that don't have anything to do with the reliably published sourced material (e.g the article quotes Yeakleys later edition "editors update" saying:

  “Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult"

This is not referenced elsewhere other than in the Gospel Advocate version.

The Gasde journal says:

Yeakley (1988) gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the BCC. He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.

Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)

This doesn't include Gospel Advocate only published material and doesn't project the actual findings beyond the borders of the articles limits. Would you suggest we just quote this as is? JamesLappeman (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since only one editor appears to wish to keep this open, doing so would be fruitless. I or some other volunteer will close this after 13:00 UTC on June 19 unless further interest in keeping it open appears before that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 18 June 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 Wetdogmeat

This is just part of the continued forum-shopping adventures of MidnightRequestLine. I may come back tomorrow and address (for the umpteenth time) the various fabrications and inaccuracies in his overview, but it really depends on whether this even gets off the ground. I'm off to bed for now though. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dicklyon

Opening comments by filelakeshoe

Opening comments by Powers

Opening comments by Epicgenius

"Deadmau5" is just a stylization of "Deadmaus". "Dead-mouse" is how it's supposed to be pronounced, not "dead-mow-five", so if you called Deadmau[s/5] by his actual name, then it would be "Deadmaus". The 5 is really another stylization of the "s" and so it should be "Deadmaus". We don't call the pi article "π" just because that's how it's stylized, or the Kesha article Ke$ha.
Well, I don't really know if this dispute is even going to be resolved, because now we have a never-ending dispute. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lientinge

Opening comments by Insulam Simia

Opening comments by MidnightRequestLine

Well, from the looks of it, the current RM will likely result in a move of the article to Deadmau5. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by bobrayner

It might be a good idea to rephrase the opening statement. By definition, issues that get brought to DRN are usually contentious and people are keen to get the right result (as with many requested moves), but we should really try to open DRN threads with a relatively neutral description of the problem. I sympathise with the concerns, but it's difficult to get everyone to sit round the table whilst saying "You're wrong!". Anyway, just as "better" is the enemy of "good enough", sometimes aiming for the right result can be a wild goose chase - better to aim for a result which most people are comfortable with, or at least a compromise which stops most people shouting. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Moxy

Opening comments by Andy Dingley

Opening comments by Capscap

Opening comments by Obi-Wan Kenobi

what is this doing here? And who opened it? Is the IP one of the participants? There's a current move discussion (that I disagreed with even starting, but whatever) happening now, so I see no reason to open a new forum here. suggest speedy close. Proper forum is RM, then move review, then ANI, but dispute resolution? THis issue is not framed in a way that this forum can handle. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by (uninvolved) Ohconfucius

This one looks like heading to the dogs. The central tenet polarises the dispute, situating the requester on the "righteous" side, and everyone opposed to them on the "malevolent" side. The opening request therefore does not seem to be a good faith attempt to submit to DR. I'd recognise this as displays of WP:SPIDER, WP:POINT or WP:SOAP. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by

deadmaus, deadmau5 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 null

Opening comments by

First Battle of Fallujah 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 Ryulong

ChrisGualtieri, where is this RFC where there's an 8-to-3 majority in recreating the article? Lucia and I have been raising our concerns with your proposed version at Talk:Dragon Ball but you have been dismissing them because of your insistence that passing WP:N and WP:GNG is all that is necessary. You created the article announcing it on its talk page rather than posting it on the Dragon Ball talk page where everyone was discussing it after another editor basically told you to ignore me and Lucia Black. You won't let anyone touch your sandbox version, even after I clearly made it my intention to fix things. This article you made is not about "Dragon Ball Z" as a general topic. It puts undue weight on the American dubs and franchise which you cannot seem to address. And we should not be basing our decision on recreating the article just because you successfully overthrew a 5 year old addition to one of the manuals of style.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lucia Black

I refuse to be part of this, mainly because others have already made it clear of consensus.Ai couldnt have summarized it better than ryulong. That is exactly what the issue is. But thats all im saying. Im done arguing with this editor, theres no consensus, so he shouldnt push an edit just because he wants to. I honestly dont know what this editor was thinking when he made that edit because he knows its going to get reverted.Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z discussion

Pre-opening notes and inquiries: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here I am not opening this for discussion at this time or "taking" this case. (Indeed, I cannot take this case as a volunteer because I have had previous dealings with several of the editors involved here which might be seen as biasing my responses.) However, I would like to ask whether or not this listing is still needed. It appears that the furor has settled down and editors have, since this request and responses were made, begun to work cooperatively together. Moreover, Tokyogirl79 seems to be doing great work at providing a calm, neutral voice at the article talk page and elsewhere. Could we close this listing without prejudice to refiling it, perhaps on a very narrow or focused point or two, as needed? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Close; if Lucia Black doesn't want to be involved or discuss it at DRN anymore and Ryulong is now open to discussion on the talk page. Also, because other editors are active and attempting resolution as 3O's then this DRN is not necessary for the reason that a DR process has begun on the page there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 21 June 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 2.30.51.94

My point with this is rather simple - if a particular effect of a compound on the body has not been demonstrated then it is speculation to imply that it has said effect. The fact of the matter is that the body is a complex system and that novel compounds like these may have mechanisms which we are not yet aware of. Therefore, given a very limited set of information, one may loosely tie together several facts and infer that said compound has effect X but given a more complete picture, one may reach the conclusion that effect X does not happen because effect Y does something to prevent or otherwise modify effect X. I.E. there is no concrete science demonstrating the claims which I removed - just an interpretation of several loosely connected facts. Not to mention that there is a requirement for reliable sources in wikipedia's guidelines - an interpretation pieced together by some internet randoms most certainly does not qualify as a reliable source.

Speculation on novel compounds is fine - it's a good thing to consider possibilities and try to understand the underlying mechanisms and their potential implications. My only argument is that wikipedia is simply not the place for this given that the whole point of an encylopedia is to be factually correct. Speculation is far from fact and does not belong here.

In regard to the argument that this putting users in danger - it quite clearly stated that there are no human studies on this compound. That alone should deter people and stays in line with the article being factually correct.

2.30.51.94 (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sunifiram 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 AmericanDad86

Opening comments by DarthBotto

I personally do not see much merit in indulging the subject of this complaint, so much as I would like to remind the two central parties to settle their differences, as the unclean resolution approach on both sides have not benefited the article. I only wish to see more civil discourse, but the content of the article is of no consequential significance to me. DarthBotto _talk•cont 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Darkwarriorblake

Opening comments by CTF83! Alt

Opening comments by Kww

Talk:American Dad! discussion

Aye carrumba, what a mess O_o. Something as simple as whether or not to include the rating in the page of a TV show definitely should not spawn a heated conflict such as this. But hey, that's what DRN is for, so I'm glad to try and assess this situation. My approach for debates on whether or not to include certain content is whether or not it will help the article conform to the standard of how similar articles are structured. I'm looking at the pages for Family Guy, and other shows associated with American Dad and I do not see any obvious references to the rating. It is, therefore in my opinion, that we do not need to include it in the American Dad article. As an experiment, I'm entrusting all users involved in this to refrain from focus on personal differences in discussing this. What in your opinion, should be done with the rating system info? Please make your argument without any references to any grievances you have with other editors. Let's keep this a dispute about content. Thanks; I'm looking forward to hear everyone's arguments.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My argument remains essentially the same as it's been throughout the course of the discussion. If this were a film article, WP:FILMRATING would apply. While it's obviously not a film article, I believe the same principles should apply. I don't believe a compelling case has been made for why this article should be treated differently, and it's my opinion that the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should we be including parental guidelines info? has supported minimizing the ratings information if not eliminating it entirely. Doniago (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a trivial point. The rating of a particular episode of a particular show in a particular country doesn't merit discussion.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Comment: Im another DRN editor, and I am amazed this discussion has gotten this far. A television show's parental guideline rating in one country (or even multiple countries) is in no way notable content, every episode of every tv show has a rating of some kind and wikipedia , and unless there is or was controversy around it, theres no reason to include it. Look at the pages for other tv shows. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate assortment of facts. I may comment on this case further as it progresses but it will be lead by User:EnglishEfternamn -- Nbound (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I second Nbound's opinion. Film articles may include the ratings, but they are films, and thus, a whole other ball game. Saying that the article should include rating info on the basis that film articles include it is not a compelling argument, in my opinion. Unless you can cite a realiable source that has discussed this information at length and how the rating relates to the show as a phenomenon, I am leaning towards its omission. Cheers.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FILMRATING actually argues against the inclusion of ratings in most cases. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my earlier comments. In other words, I'm arguing that both film and tv articles should have minimal ratings coverage. While there's a guideline for films, there isn't one for tv articles at this time (though I've asked for one per the conversation I linked above. Doniago (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were saying, I'm sorry. I agree though, I don't see any reason why the article needs this reference as it is a trivial one indeed. And per Nbound's statement that WIkipedia should not be treated as some indiscriminate aggregation of facts, I would say that the solution to this problem is rather simple: omit omit omit. In all honesty I think we're close to done here. I am a little confused, though, on whether this debate, or the one regarding personal attacks, most compelled you to file this claim. If the incivility persists, I would encourage you to take it up with WP:ANI. As for here, I think consensus is leaning towards omission. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

He did take it to AN/I and nothing came about from it. I do think the incivility is what was the driving force behind this, but I think there has not been enough focus, which is why this situation makes me scratch my head. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Before we get to that, Darth, where do you stand on the issue of including or not including the rating?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much merit in including excessive rating information, to be honest. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to call consensus in favour of omitting the info at this point, unless significant opposition with good reason arises, and thus far, I've seen no such thing. The incivility issue should be treated an an altogether different issue. And to be honest, I'm a little confused as to what to do about that, as Doniago started this with primary focus on content. Doniago, I think you may have to start a new claim here, focusing on that aspect, or again take it to WP:AN/I. The fact the issue has been discussed here may get someone to actually listen.

As for the page, I'm going to mention on its talk section the goings on here and instruct editors not to re-incorporate a reference that consensus has decided against.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I had hoped/expected the ANI filing would go in a different direction and never expected the matter to be considered a content dispute. I only came here because that seemed to be the consensus as to what I should do if I felt the matter wasn't being handled well. I'm willing to take the initiate in removing the appropriate material once the Talk page has been updated accordingly, and I guess I'll go back to ANI if problems persist. I hope you can understand that this has all been rather frustrating for me. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback here for thir time. Doniago (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just updated the talk page. I would go and make the appropriate edits. You have my support, and if you take the issue back to AN/I i'll vouch for you. I'm not sure how much that will help, but I and the other editors who have commented on this thread are convinced you're in the right.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, what is normally done unless there is a very severe breach of civility, is that once a consensus or policy/guidlines are established which deal with the content issue, if any editor does not go with the flow, and continues back to performing reversions or whatever. They can then be mentioned in regards to WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR at AP:ANEW, or for other breaches at WP:ANI, or even WP:SPI in the case of sockpuppetry [they can even without even without the extended discussions, but they usually help :) ]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbound (talk • contribs)

Thanks again to everyone who participated in the discussion. I've removed the appropriate material; I guess we'll see what happens from here (hopefully not much). Doniago (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel obligated to ask whether anyone here really feels that this is an appropriate contribution to the discussion. Seriously, if everyone feels the best course of action is to simply let this slide, then I won't take further action, but I very much believe that all that's really occurring here is that an editor's pattern of violating WP:NPA and misrepresenting the situation after being blocked for such previously and being asked repeatedly in the conversation to knock it off is ultimately being permitted. And I apologize if I'm being less than objective here, but I don't imagine that anyone who'd been attacked in this manner multiple times would be feeling especially objective either. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'd let it slide at this point -- Nbound (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well AmericanDad86 has agreed to leave the ratings information out and no edit war has ensued. There is still the issue of the incivility, which I'm sorry to say, Doniago, I will not take sides in. I know I said I would before, but whatever dispute you have with A.D.86 is an extensive one and I can't get caught up in that. All the same, though, I think we can call the situtaion resolved as far as the content dispute is concerned. Thanks for your cooperation everybody!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 05:41, 20 June 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 Friginator

While I appreciate that 71.228.233.195 has decided to try other means of resolving this issue, I feel like I've said all I can say about this relatively minor subject here, on my talk page.

Basically, 71.228.233.195 recently began listing video streaming services that the show is made available through on top of the preexisting (and bloated) list of various DVD and VHS releases. I've pointed out on multiple occasions that the only episodes of the show available through "Instant Video" services have already been released on DVD by the same distributor (Shout! Factory). The episodes being streamed even use the same cover artwork as the DVDs. I see no reason to add the words "Amazon Instant Video" over and over again next to every episode available online. Especially considering the fact that as of now, 71.228.233.195 hasn't provided a single source.

At this point, I have informed the user (who did not respond on my talk page before opening this discussion) that I have removed the "Home Video Availability" Column from the article altogether. This is something that, in my opinion, has been needed for a while. First of all, because every single home video release of the series is listed on a separate article dedicated to that subject specifically. This means that any information listed in the column could already be found in its own article. My second reason for the removal was that for years it seemed to attract violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Every time an episode was scheduled for a future release, someone would almost immediately list that release next to its respective episode. There is also the issue of this becoming a case of WP:FANCRUFT. Who besides diehard fans of the show is going to care whether or not the episode featuring Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues was released on a VHS tape or not?

And I can't say I appreciate the fact that this user has begun reverting all of my edits to the page, even if they have nothing to do with home video availability.

List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes discussion

I would strongly recommend refering the edit warring behaviour to WP:ANEW -- Nbound

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 Orangemike

Opening comments by Fat%26Happy

User talk:Fat%26Happy (Lundeen and Cartoon sections)) discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but want to ask the involved editors to clarify the dispute. I'm not sure whether this a dispute over whether or not the links are linkspam or whether is it a discussion over whether or not they are proper external links independent of the linkspam question, or both. It seems to me that they are pretty clearly linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." My opinion is that rule isn't really open to appeal. It exists so that we don't have to continually get in difficult-to-resolve fights over the quality of the links and the motivations of the introducing editor every time this happens. To allow an appeal in the form of discussion of whether or not the links really are or are not linkspam would defeat the purpose of the rule, which is to avoid that very discussion. However, once the links are removed it doesn't seem to me that the fact that they were once procedurally linkspam doesn't forever brand the links as linkspam, nor does it settle the question of whether or not they are appropriate for the article. Just because the motive of the original introducer was spammy (and I do not mean to imply that was or was not the case here), doesn't mean that the link is not appropriate for the article (as is clearly implied by WP:EL#ADV; third party editors can decide whether it is or is not. So it appears to me that there are only two possible issues here:

• Are the links linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."?
• Are the links appropriate for the article, as decided by the consensus of parties other than the original introducer?

As to the first question, I don't believe that there's really any room for discussion, but I could be wrong; please clarify if I am wrong. As to the second question, the discussion appears to have raised that issue in reference to one particular link in one particular article, but that the question has not been discussed at any length at the venue listed above. This noticeboard is, per its guidelines, only for content issues which have received extensive discussion at a talk page. Unless someone either (a) can give some particularly good reason that the rule in the first question should not apply or (b) can point to a place where extensive discussion of the second question has taken place between editors other than Jghapher it is my intent to close this request after 20:00 UTC on June 25. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 24 June 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 ÓCorcráin

The individual in question strong identifies with being Irish and with being born in Ireland, in interviews he has confirmed this numerous times and may other sources which validate this. The whole edit war originated when an edit without consensus was made just to change his nationality English when attempt to reverse this were made there was entrenched and uncompromising opposition until it was reminded that there was no consensus for their change. The fact is however that Michael Gambon also identifies as English so I think it is only suitable to also make a reference in the lede to that. Irish-English is a possibliyu.

It is frustrating to see editors who were heavily involved in edit-warring not engaging here or participating in any discussion just because things didn't go their way. If they see this I ask you to please show some maturity, be civil and get involved, you know who you are. ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments bay MarnetteD

Opening comments by Jon C.

Opening comments by 93.107.203.0

Opening comments by Allthestrongbowintheworld

Opening comments by 109.76.180.162

Opening comments by Gareth Griffith-Jones

Opening comments by Ukexpat

Opening comments by Dmcq

The person was born in Ireland but brought to London when they were five, given British nationality and grew up and learned their craft there. I don't think it is right to just say 'Irish' in the lead with no qualification but then again just saying English or British isn't quite true either. I would go for something like English actor born in Ireland and leaving the rest of the article to say what that means. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scolaire

I see two problems here. First, as I said in my contribution to that discussion, self-identification is one of the the least useful criteria of nationality in most cases, especially with somebody who says "I am Irish" or "I am not Irish" depending on the interview or the time of year. Second is the notion, as one participant put it, that "an interview from 2010 trumps one from 2004." Gambon had said in 2004, "I had a slight Irish accent - because, you know, I am Irish..." but when asked in 2010 did he "feel Irish" he answered, "No, been here too long." I can't see how the idea that the later trumps the earlier meets any Wikipedia policy, or indeed how deciding a person's ethnicity by what the person said about himself meets any Wikipedia policy. WP:V requires only that content be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. WP:UNDUE requires that no view be given undue weight. There are comparable numbers of sources saying that he is Irish, English, British, Irish-English, Irish-born English etc. It seems to me that "Irish-English" or "Irish-born English" is the most balanced under those circumstances. Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Τασουλα

Opening comments by JAJ

Opening comments by Billtheking

Opening comments by Filastin

Opening comments by Blue-Haired Lawyer

Opening comments by Noleander

Opening comments by FormerIP

Although nationality on bios can be tricky when it comes to the UK and Ireland, there's a well-established principle, set out in WP:LEAD, that we should not confuse nationality with ethnicity. In this case, it appears to be well-sourced that the subject of the article has dual nationality (Irish and British), so this is the information to include in the lead. We should do this using a full clause, not a hyphen, since this style may be subject to confusion with a description of ethnicity. Where he lives, how he feels, what his voice sounds like and so on do not change the basic fact regarding his nationality(s). Formerip (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Spanglej

Michael Gambon discussion

Greetings; I have self-assigned myself to your case. At this time, I am merely writing this to inform you that I am going to help resolve this dispute. To start with, I would like parties to briefly summarise their arguments, with specific references to the diffs and/or other evidence that they wish to cite in that brief statement. I would prefer that this be done sometime tonight, and I will return to this topic sometime in the morning. Obviously, if you are unable to provide brief summaries by tomorrow morning, please drop me a message on my talkpage, telling me that you have seen this comment, and that you will be posting the requested summary soon - this is just to make sure that I know that you know what's going on. --The Historian (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Historian, I'm a volunteer here at this noticeboard. Not much can be done here unless all involved editors choose to participate. Therefore, in light of the lack of participation here by most of the listed editors, this listing will be closed after 14:00 UTC on June 28 unless the other listed editors choose to join in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case since most of the editors who were edit warring refuse to engage, we will be reverting it back to the version it was before the discussion seeing as they are unwilling to cooperate with the project. ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:43, 28 June 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 178.61.44.13

Coat of arms of Syria 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 Andy the Grump

I think I'd better start by apologising on behalf of Wikipedia for making editing and communicating so difficult - it can be daunting for a beginner, especially if things start to go wrong.

Regarding the article itself, it will certainly be useful if you can confirm that you are indeed Corina - I'll check up on exactly the best way to do this. There are however a couple of things that you'll need to understand about the way Wikipedia works, and why there are problems with the article beyond copyright issues. Firstly, this in an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to present a balanced account of the subject matter, rather than being written as promotional material. Secondly, and related to this, articles are intended to be based on published material, and unsourced self-authored content is unlikely to be acceptable. We strongly discourage writing autobiographical articles, and we have a conflict of interest guideline which makes clear the issues that this raises. I can see no reason why the article cannot be expanded upon beyond the state it was in prior to your edits, if suitable sources can be found, but I'm afraid that the content added by you is likely to be seen as far too promotional to be accepted.

Returning to the image copyright issue, we would need to see confirmation that you do indeed own the rights to any images uploaded, and I think I should probably point out that it might possibly not be in your best interests to upload them - the creative commons license allows such images to be reused elsewhere (subject to certain conditions), and you might well find them being used in ways you didn't intend.

I am sure there are other things that will need explaining, but hopefully I've given you some idea of where we stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bbb23

Just two comments. First, the IP has a registered account: User:‎Yes Behind The No. She should be editing from there only and not using an IP address (in other words, always log in to your registered account when accessing Wikipedia). Second, based on the history, she should probably confirm that she is indeed Corina. She should look at the procedure at WP:IDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Amaury

TALK pages for CORINA (Singer) discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. It appears to me that this really wasn't a dispute so much as a cry for help and better communication which has largely been solved by the foregoing discussion and the balance of which, which is mainly informational, could be worked out on the article talk page without help from this forum. Unless someone expresses the need to keep this open, I or some other volunteer will close it as resolved after 14:00 UTC on June 28. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 27 June 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 pluto2012

1948 Arab-Israeli War discussion

Comment: Biased content can an should be removed where it is getting undue attention, and/or the sources are also biased. (I havent read the page or previous discussion), but there are plenty of reasons why blocks of biased content can and should be deleted. Im not making any judgement on this material as I havent seen it, but the premise that it cant be deleted is incorrect.

For volunteer taking case: previous discussion

-- Nbound

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 Blackknight12

Firstly as Coppercholride always avoids to do, he has not engaged in discussions on a talk page. Neither with me or as far as I know with any of the other users listed. He is currently involved in 4/5 edit wars with multiple editors, yet the one think he avoids to do is start a discussion instead of reverting ones edits. Although I am somewhat relieved he/she has brought this here, instead of holding the page hostage or edit warring. My role in this article has been making sure it is of neutral point of view and is well sourced with reliable references as the topic is highly controversial and attracts many vandalizes and editors (not just in this article) who edit based on emotion, traditions of myths and legends and war time propaganda (as Sri Lanka has just come out of a war) as opposed to those who edit based on reliable facts and sources. I intentionally have not involved my self more than that with this article.

User SriSuren however has been involved from the very beginning of this dispute, which I have been following closely. SriSuren has literally provided nearly 100 reliable sources, which can be seen here and here. SriSuren has engaged in discussions with multiple editors answering all their questions, seen in Talk:Tamilakam, which prove Sri Lanka was not part of Tamilakam yet all SriSuren's constructive edits have been reverted in favor of the limited sources that claim NE Sri Lanka is part of Tamilakam, (including TamilNet a non NPOV and pro LTTE website for the founding of Tamil Eelam, an aspiration state).

Opening comments by SriSuren

Opening comments by Avedus

Tamilakam discussion

Hello!

I am Thehistorian10 (but refer to me as "Historian"). Whilst I am happy to mediate this dispute, I am going to refer it to another volunteer to get a second opinion on whether it should be a "quick close" case. In the meantime, however, I would like Parties to please provide links to the parts of the talkpage where they have - allegedly - discussed this issue before referring it to the noticeboard. I should inform Parties that one of the criteria for a case to be judged a "quick close" is that there has been no detailed discussion on a talkpage. I see no specific discussion of this issue, and would like Parties to provide clarification on where they have actively discussed this matter.

--The Historian (talk) 19:07, 30 June 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 Jayakrishnan.ks100

Opening comments by Dawnseeker2000

Opening comments by Ponyo

The Hindu 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 137.111.13.200

Opening comments by Brangifer

Opening comments by Drgao

Opening comments by Erythema

Opening comments by Judgeking

Opening comments by Sailsbystars

Morgellons 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 Darkness Shines

Chudurbudur Is the article, someone may want to fix the links above. All I did was add a prod per DICDEF, and as the guy who created the article also removed the prod I am now going to AFD it. BTW, I cannot help but notice that the talk page to said DICDEF is a redlink. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another observation, the OP has not made a single talk page edit since registering. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by John of Cromer

Opening comments by

Chudurbudur 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

Glenn Greenwald 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 Mainjane

This dispute began when NickD removed this entire section claiming: “No effort was made to present the government's case for this change”. Nick-D clearly didn’t read the rest of the article - which covers the Availability of legal aid, Government’s concerns about the growing cost, the impact of Waitangi claims, a review of the entire legal aid system by Margaret Bazley (which is mostly about costs but is also critical of the legal profession for rorting the system) and Government’s response to the Bazley review . To suggest that ‘no effort was made to present the government's case for this change’ is ludicrous. The bulk of the article is about the government's case.

The section NickD deleted expressed concerns by the legal profession about the changes. It provided balance to the article by showing that there was more than one perspective. I then substantially shortened it so it looked like this. Clarke43 then deleted the new version saying: “removed once before by Nick-D for the same reason.” In other words, Clarke 43 has also not understood that the article mostly contains the government's perspective. I reverted his edit explaining: “A valid reason has not been supplied.”

Half an hour later Stuartyeates came along and deleted it again saying: “POV pushing”. It seems all three editors only want it to present the Government’s perspective. This is a breach of WP: NPOV which says: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. This means an article about legal aid which does not contain any comment or opinion from the legal profession does not meet WP policy.

The problem is these three editors have been canvassing each other which is a breach of WP:CAN and “compromises the normal consensus decision-making process and is generally considered disruptive behavior.”

Opening comments by Stuartyeates

• In my most recent comment on the talk page I said: Legal aid in New Zealand is ~ 80 years old, but 4/5ths of the current article is about the political / lawyers unions games of the last 15 years. This is not a sound approach to building articles, which are meant to be balanced (see Wikipedia:Recentism)... And proposed a way forward. I stand by that 100%.
• I believe I am editing in consensus with the majority of other editors; I am disappointed this may be perceived as tag teaming, but they're really two views of the same thing.
• In an edit to User talk:Mainjane I suggested there may be issues there. I'm happy to disclose the identity in confidence as necessary (but I'm not sure of the process for that).

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Offender9000 in connection with User:Mainjane. If the investigation clears User:Mainjane, I will withdraw/cede from this DRN, unwatch the article and move on. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nick-D

I removed the material as it was blatantly biased and included material not supported by the references provided, or where the reference was to an opinion piece which the article then presented as a fact. I explained this on the talk page, receiving no response from any other editor at the time. I haven't edited the article since. To characterise this as tag team editing is rather silly. I note that there is general support for the removal of the material on the talk page in the subsequent discussion, but JaggerAgain keeps edit warring it back in. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainjane and JaggerAgain have just been blocked as sockpuppet accounts of Offender9000 (talk · contribs): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Offender9000. As such, I think that this should be closed. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Clarke43

• The whole article needs work to get things back into balance and to a NPOV. Unfortunately this article was heavily edited by a now banned user 'Offender9000'. He spent a lot of time editing articles to push a POV that he supported and removed balance. Due to this there are many articles that need major work and only a few editors around who are chipping away at them.
• As a result, adding another large section like this isn't going to help things. Perhaps if someone was to sit down and write up a great couple of paragraphs condensing down the modern material then that would be a sound addition. And yes... a sentence on the fact some lawyers don't agree with the changes should be included.
• This isn't tag teaming to remove material. This is 3 editors who agree and are editing in good faith and trying to do their best to get articles back up to standard so that tags can be removed. We need to ensure that WP's 'voice' isn't being used to push POV's.
• Reverting the same material over and over, not modifying or taking advice on isn't helping - it is trying to start an edit war.
• What I find weird is that this almost identical section was placed on the page originally by Offender9000. It was removed during a clean up, only to be re-instituted by Mainjane, who after it was removed; quickly reverted it; but instead of Mainjane entering into any type of dialogue about the edits JaggerAgain leaps in. Seems kinda strange...

Clarke43 (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal aid in New Zealand discussion

FYI for those involved, I have fixed the template error by the initial poster and notified the editors he indicated are involved manually Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but thank you Cabe. smileguy91^talk 14:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the uninvolved admin and CheckUser who dealt with the SPI case. The two contesting accounts, JaggerAgain and Mainjane, are incontrovertibly Confirmed socks of an indefinitely blocked user. This case can be closed immediately. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 3 July 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 76.92.148.191

TV Land 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 Dominus Vobisu

Like Tippy, still waiting for solid sourcing. Right now, all we have is synthesis based on patching together different sources. Furthermore, the statement is redundant and adds nothing to the article. I see no point in continuing this deadhorse argument here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TippyGoomba

This pretty much covers it. I'd still be interested to see some sources, I love being surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Herbxue

The proposed edit is justified by common sense alone as it is accurate and reasonable. Beyond that, Mallexikon has worked towards consensus by qualifying the sourced "medical procedure" as "alternative medical procedure" and has provided several reliable sources. Herbxue (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture discussion

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer, that alone confers no special powers and I am another opinion, I cannot make binding decisions. What we strive to do here in most cases is to find an outcome that is acceptable to both parties (assuming their arguments are valid). It may not be an outcome you love, but hopefully we can find one that all involved can live with. How about we just change the sentence, and we instead state that "Acupunture is a form of alternative medicine that involves penetration of the skin with needles in order to stimulate certain points on the body." (or something similar). The medical procedure part is extraneous, and introduces unneeded ambiguity; just stating what it is (alternative medicine), and what it involves (penetration of skin with needles) gets the same point across. -- Nbound (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time and input, Nbound. I prefer "alternative medical procedure" much over "procedure/form of alternative medicine" because it keeps the whole sentence from sounding clumsy... but this might be a good plan B. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There have already been legitimate issues claimed about your "Plan A" by editors in that thread, so excluding any change in opinion on their behalf, its unlikely to used as it currently stands. As I started in my original post, we need to work towards a result all parties can agree with. -- Nbound (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

True. I started a new proposal with new sources at the acupuncture talk page. Thanks again. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:10, 5 July 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.