Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 74

Opening comments by Erythema

In a nut shell. The actual dispute is more complicated than described by the others involved with this dispute indicate. Morgellons is a controversial illness. There are 2 POVs represented in medical literature. This is evident with a PubMed search. 1 POV is that the illness is delusional in etiology. The other is that it is not and there are publications indicating that it is caused by a bacterial infection. This bacterium, Borrelia, is related to syphilis and thus explains the psychiatric manifestations experience by some patients. The predominant POV is that it is delusional, however the POV that it is infectious in etiology represents a significant minority POV and thus it deserves proportional representation. The problems are 2 fold: One, content from the infectious POV has been blocked, even for one paragraph to be included, even while leaving the existing text untouched: Two, there is a great deal of bias in the current article. It has been carefully edited to maximize the opinion that it is delusional in etiology. The references are largely cherry-picked and do not follow WP:MEDRS policy. Over half of the references come from Popular Press, i.e. newspaper articles, TV interviews and the like. One of these is even an interview with an "anonymous dermatologist" in Popular Mechanics magazine and lacks verifiability, as do the rest. These are clearly not appropriate secondary sources. Those that are from peer-reviewed medical journals are predominantly opinion pieces -- again they are not appropriate secondary sources. The remaining few are original research. This is an area of medicine undergoing active research and as such there are not many (if any) suitable secondary sources. I have proposed to add ONE small paragraph from the infectious POV on the grounds that a significant minority view needs to be represented for NPOV. They are original research, but WP:MEDRS allows original research when secondary sources are lacking. The current article has used a few original research papers. WP:MEDRS encourages the use of on-line medical journals as they can be accessed by readers, but I have been told that they are unreliable (and numerous other things). There have been false statements made that are damaging to the reputations of the medical journals publishing papers representing the infectious POV that I find offensive and objectionable. NPOV cannot be achieved as long as double standards of policy application are applied to the two viewpoints. I have repeatedly asked for reasonable and objective justification, but have yet to receive an answer that makes sense. Mostly when I bring up a valid point there is no response at all. I am a new user and WP indicates I should be welcomed and treated with patience. Instead I have been bullied and treated with hostility. If fair and proportionate representation of both POVs cannot be achieved then the current article should be deleted on the grounds that the references used to not meet WP policy.Erythema (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Opening comments by Drgao

This dispute relates to the article on Morgellons disease, a disease involving skin symptoms and mental symptoms.

A severe non-neutrality exists in this article, as I now describe.

Amongst researchers, there are two competing views on the nature of Morgellons disease: viewpoint (1) says that Morgellons is a real skin disease manifesting body-wide skin lesions and other skin symptoms, likely caused by an infection, and also involving some concomitant mental symptoms; viewpoint (2) says that Morgellons is not a real physical disease at all, but purely a psychiatric condition called delusional parasitosis, in which sufferers self-inflict their skin wounds.

This dispute relates to the fact that viewpoint (1) gets almost no mention at all in the article, and viewpoint (2) not only dominates the vast majority of the article, but furthermore, viewpoint (2) is presented as if it is an established fact.

WP:WEIGHT requires that articles represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So in order to determine the precise prominence of each of the two viewpoints, I have performed a full scientific literature survey of reliable sources, and by enumerating all relevant studies, I counted that there is 1 secondary study, and 9 primary studies supporting viewpoint (1), and 3 secondary studies, and 15 primary studies supporting viewpoint (2).

You can the full details of all the studies I counted up HERE.

Thus from these figures which quantify the prominence of each viewpoint, it is clear that viewpoint (1) should be given around ⅓ of the article text space, and viewpoint (2) around ⅔ of the article text space. But at present, viewpoint (1) occupies only a few percent of the text space.

Myself (Drgao) and editor Erythema say this severe imbalance in the article completely flouts the NPOV requirements of Wikipedia, but all the other editors disagree with us, and they prevent us from adding new material to the article. Drgao (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

MInor updates made on July 7th. Drgao (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TechBear

I had gotten involved with the article in late May, in response to one editor trying to bring in sources from journals known to be "pay to publish." Soon after, a new editor stepped in with a different set of references, asserting that they showed the established scientific consensus to be wrong and demanding that the article be rewritten accordingly. I and others pointed out the problems in new editor's sources; rather than seek out better sources, this person fell to ad hominem attacks and accusations that Wikipedia was trying to "suppress important information" (actual quote.)

I am willing to concede that the current consensus may be wrong; it certainly would not be the first time that long-standing conclusions fell to new research. However, it is my view that any evidence attempting to overturn an established position must meet a high standard of quality, and that this is especially important with regards to medical science, where the well being and even lives of people may hang in the balance. The evidence must come from reputable research sponsors, be reviewed by research experts in the field who have the skill and expertise to evaluate the methodology and conclusions, and be published in a well respected journal. It is my opinion that the sources this editor wishes to use simply do not meet this minimum standard of quality, and therefore should not be used as the basis for rewriting established consensus.

TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

I agree with the opening comments by Scray; however I have an objection to the formulation of the dispute. It's not "new proposed content" or a "new theory". The theory was first proposed by Mary, and it's not even new to the article. It was removed from the article when no WP:MEDRS sources could be found. They still haven't been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dbrodbeck

There are simply no good WP:MEDRS secondary sources that say that any of these WP:FRINGE views have any use. If we include this material we would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to these fringe ideas. Many of us have tried, in vain, to explain these policies to the couple of WP:SPAs who want this material included. The ad hominem attacks and personal attacks in general, while they have toned down some, did not help matters. This material does not belong in the article, that is the bottom line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dawn Bard

I think the article is appropriately neutral and well sourced, and I think any objective review of the page and the talk page with WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in mind will support this. Sailsbystars below has presented some excellent points. This odd press release, which essentially alleges a Wikipedia conspiracy to keep the truth about Morgellons hidden, predated some of the contentious editing and discussions that have led up to this dipute resolution. I think what we really have here is a broad, policy-based consensus that the article should stand as it is for now. A couple of very passionate, largely single-purpose editors disagree with this consensus, but their efforts on the talk page have failed thus far to change the larger consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zad68

My view is that the sources offered to support the "genuine infestation/infection" view are insufficient to rise above WP:FRINGE and it would give undue prominence or legitimacy to a non-accepted fringe view to include in the article. There have been two groups of sources offered. The first included three sources, listed in the discussion here. The comments regarding the unworthiness of f1000research and the Dove Press journals there are accurate: the reliability of the journal articles doesn't meet WP:MEDRS and are not MEDLINE indexed, or even PubMed indexed at all. The list of sources given here is an excellent and comprehensive list of PubMed-indexed articles regarding the subject, and the editor who put it together is to be thanked, but the analysis offered is not in line with consensus interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Per policy, primary sources are not to be used to support a WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) argument. So, looking only at secondary sources, we have three up-to-date MEDLINE-indexed secondary sources stating Morgellons is delusional; we have a single MEDLINE indexed secondary source from 2006 that does not meet WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE. This leaves three secondary sources supporting delusional, zero supporting infection. (This list also does not include other sources like the CDC, which also does not support infection.) As there are no WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources supporting infection, per policy the article should not cover it. (Note I will be away most of the weekend, back maybe Saturday or Sunday night.) Zad68 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scray

I hope that this process will help us move past the current cycle, which consumes energy (and has often included ad hominem attacks) but does not seem to be progressing. The article currently addresses the minority viewpoint that Morgellon disease has an infectious etiology, with due weight considering the strong consensus in high-quality sources that this is a delusional parasitosis (rather than infection) syndrome. Primary reports in low-quality journals should not be used to refute the strong consensus in high-quality secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Garrondo

Opening comments by Judgeking

Opening comments by Sailsbystars

So I've never been to one of these before, but I think the most relevant thing I can do is quote my comparison of the proposed sources and existing sources for the article, and why the former should not have undue weight in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by BullRangifer

An important aspect of this dispute is whether advocates of a fringe idea (that Morgellons is a real dermatologic condition, rather than a form of delusional parasitosis) can use Wikipedia to promote that POV as a mainstream POV, or of at least equal worth to the mainstream scientific POV on the subject (which is that it's a form of delusional parasitosis). They believe that NPOV is violated when they are not given equal due weight. Sorry, but that's not true. They fail to understand NPOV.

They constantly use primary studies to make their point, in violation of MEDRS. This is not the place to make cutting edge pronouncements. For one thing, being on the cutting edge means you're on the wrong side of the knife. Yes, that's a joke, but for Wikipedia, it's the way we apply our sourcing policies. We are always supposed to be "behind the curve," never on the leading edge of publishing new facts. IF (that's a big IF) this ever turns out to be proven to be a new dermatologic condition, the major dermatology organizations will state that fact in unequivocal terms.

When that happens, and not before then, the POV pushed by these believers will have to remain the fringe position, in opposition to the mainstream one, which happens to be that these editors are pushing a delusional belief. Until then, their POV will be documented, but not given equal weight with the current scientific consensus. The article content and due weight balance will indeed change when large literature reviews that are not affiliated with those who make a living from pushing this fringe POV start to clearly document it as a new disease. Independent replication of research results must happen again and again. Then we'll definitely document that fact, and Morgellons will be presented here at Wikipedia as a new disease. It will happen, but a short time AFTER it happens in the real world. These editors must be patient and stop disrupting Wikipedia. They are a huge time sink and need to be blocked, or, at the least, immediately topic banned.

That several of them are delusional happens to be a fact, since several of them have admitted to being sufferers, and even admitted to having mental health issues. Too bad about that, but this is not the place to push a POV based on primary sources, often from "paid to publish" sources, or fringe scientists affiliated with the modern creator of the term "Morgellons". -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 137.111.13.200

The research group that released the content that is being discussed in this section was funded through a foundation that solicits donations ostensibly from Morgellons sufferers. There is therefore a financial interest in the dissemination of this particular group's content. The articles themselves are primary sources, which significantly contradict other primary and secondary sources. This is most likely due to methodological differences which are best judged through secondary sources, and thus we should wait until these become available. The author of the study discussed authored a press release targeting editors on the Morgellons wikipedia page. I am lead to believe it likely that this author is pressuring editors on the talk page to include their work on the main page, under the username "Erythema". The anonymity of wikipedia users is an important dimension, however if someone is trying to insert their own work into an article, especially when that work is challenged as a reliable source, then the potential conflict of interests should be addressed. I don't think avoiding the question serves anyone's purposes in this case.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 198.199.134.100

At this point, I no longer find it reasonable to assume good faith on the part of the editors favoring the inclusion of fringe research. One of them has now created a sockpuppet account to try and "mediate" the dispute. Erythema shows strong signs of actually being one of the fringe researchers who recently issued a press release decrying Wikipedia's policies (and did not deny it when directly asked). Drgao is operating under the idea that because the concensus of the medical community now supports the existence of some other condition that Drgao suffers from, we should include fringe research about Morgellons; Drgao also repeatedly misrepresents studies or quotes from studies that do not support his views as doing so and even claimed that an opinion piece published well before any modern primary sources about Morgellons (the other two predate the current scientific method, one predates Pasteur) was a "secondary source". Neither has contributed to any other Wikipedia article. There are one or two other editors in favor of fringe research, but they don't appear to be meaningfully contributing to the discussion. I realize the named editors sincerely believe Morgellons is a non-delusional condition, but deliberate dishonesty is not a valid method of seeking editor concensus. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Drgao does get involved in editing other pages on similar/related topics. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hitherto uninvolved editor who stummbled across this DRN. I've taken the time to read the extensive discussion on the article talk page and examone the sources, and I have to agree that all of the sources proposed for the fringe view fall far short of WP:MEDRS. In short, there is not mention of the fringe "research" in reliable medical sources. Most of it has been published in non-peer reveiwed publication that would never be read by mainstream medical researchers in the first place. The material that Drgao and Erythema would like to add to this article is thus unreliably sourced, and violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. I just see a lot of deadhorse argumentation and WP:IDHT on the article talk page, and I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. I don't see much point in further discussion unless WP:MEDRS sources are produced. Consensus on the talk page is already pretty clear that the sources produced so far are unreliable, and I agree. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note the following ANI discussion regarding this DRN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_intervention. Zad68 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please wait until the problem with mediation is sorted out, and for the process to be formally restarted. We cannot continue this discussion while the disruption continues. 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Invoking mediation controls: For the present time, in light of the controversy pending here, I am assuming the role of mediator here and invoking the rules set out at Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation to exercise the right to edit this discussion as if it were my own user talk page, which includes the right to refactor, strike, or remove any edits which I feel are inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening statements: Editors who have not yet made opening statements should feel free to go ahead and make them in their respective sections, above, and are advised to do so as promptly as possible. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: It would appear that InLoveNoi has indeed withdrawn as a DRN volunteer (actually, has ceased editing since being told by a sysop to withdraw or be blocked). I have de-collapsed, but left closed, the foregoing discussion and will await further opening statements. I have, further, redacted via strikeout all procedural discussions above so as to leave only discussions about the substance of the dispute. While the remaining discussions are premature and I will not allow them to continue at this time, they are what they are and they should not be removed from the record. If discussion does proceed, then we can give them as much or as little weight as they may deserve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Further update: InLoveNoi is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just deleted a comment by Drgao, a party to this dispute, added to the discussion here before this case was opened for discussion. I — reluctantly — retained the one by Dominus Vobisdu, though I moved it into the closed section, because s/he was not a party to the dispute. All further comments of a nonprocedural nature in this "Talk:Morgellons discussion" will be summarily deleted if made before this case is opened for discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now deleted all the preliminary edits by InLoveNoi and Rodneye9110 as both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of blocked user Ryanspir. In the process, I have also deleted some response edits by legitimate participants here, but all that were deleted were merely responsive to the attempts by Ryanspir to manipulate this process and did not make any substantive comments on the substance of this case. If anyone objects, please drop a note on my user talk page and we'll discuss working your comments back in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Final opinion and closing comments

Based on the opening and foregoing arguments and on my own personal investigation into the matter, I find that:

• The Savely 2006 article is reliable as, and only as, an opinion piece, and generally only reliable as support for what statements attributed to its authors say, if — and only if — the opinions of its authors can be shown to be be both relevant to the article and needed to support, without giving undue weight to, some point which is otherwise supported by relevant sources. I further believe, without holding in a binding way, that such a use, with that limitation, is probably unneeded.
• The Harvey 2009 article is, on its own, a reliable but very weak source under WP:MEDRS due to the nature of the study and the lack of subsequent positive citations in clearly-reliable sources. The two times it has been cited, once in the CDC study and a second one here have not been to support the theory that there is a non-psychological cause for Morgellons. Similar to the Savely 2006 article, I cannot see what it would add to the sources already present in the article (but I do not hold what I say in this sentence out to be binding). I also note that in the How do you think we can help? section, above, the listing editor says that this request is to, "Determine consensus as to whether the sources proposed are indeed authoritative WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources such that per WP:NPOV the mention of the parasite theory is warranted." I see no support in Harvey 2009 for the theory that Morgellons may actually be caused by parasites, and I do not believe that it is reliable to support that theory.
• I only mentioned the CDC study above as a foil for examination of Savely 2006 and Harvey 2009, so let me note that I neither express nor imply any opinion about the reliability of that study, pro or con.

Though some participants have indicated that they would like this opinion to extend beyond the mere question of source reliability into the issue of what weight and balance to give any sources which proved to be reliable and to the question of whether the existing sources in the article are reliable to support the psychological theory. I believe that would be beyond the scope of this request and that those matters need to be more fully discussed at the article talk page in light of this opinion and so must decline that request.

Thanks to all the participants for their cooperation and patience in this matter. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 19 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 DIREKTOR

I've written a rather detailed "deposition" on Talk:Istrian exodus (my last post) please refer to that. -- Director (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

To make my position out in brief: Silvio1973 is misquoting and misrepresenting sources. Upon investigation all his stuff is essentially from one source, whereas the others are just misquoted fluff. That would not be a problem except that the source he does follow has been misrepresented: the author (Ahonen) goes into some detail, explaining each individual area affected in the event. From this long narrative Silvio1973 cherry-picked the most negative segments of text he could find, placed them in the lede - and presented them as generally occurring. Besides undue weight and distortion of that sort, his text is biased by omission in excluding many elements of this complex event described by that source, that do not fit his POV. His edit also includes OR conclusions of his own, and just plain old misattributed fabrications.

The "positive 3O" he refers to was granted on the assumption any reasonable Wikipedian would make, namely that the refs he quotes do actually support that which they're quoted under - that is demonstrably not the case. And this isn't the first time Silvio1973 has been caught engaging in fraudulent referencing. Frankly, experience renders me incapable of trusting a single reference of his unless I have a reason to. For details please refer, as I said, to my last post on Talk:Istrian exodus (and indeed previous posts therein). The mess of misrepresentation needs quite a bit of unraveling and I don't want to clutter this page by copy-pasting stuff from there. -- Director (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Silvio1973

It is somehow sad that we have arrived here. I genuinely believed there was enough room to reach consensus. The issue is that it's difficult to discuss when the other party does not assume good faith. Indeed, my counterparty went further than this and qualified me of lier, nationalist and extremist.

From my side I can say that I do not have any special opinion about user Direktor. He has different opinions on the Istrian exodus. He tried to push his opinions and this is normal. What is not normal (and I make abstraction of the language he used in my respect) is that despite multiple requests from me and the Mediator he did not provide any source in support of his edit. Indeed he looked more interested in demonstrating first the inexistence, then the unreliability and in the end (when all other options exhausted) the misrepresentation of the sources I would allegedly made to support used my edit. The whole discussion became even more difficult when the Mediator declared to be tempted to approve my edit.

Indeed, I do not believe my opinion is extremist at all. I have posted a well sourced edit and if necessary I can source it even more (I volunterely limited myself to the best available 4 sources). --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes Direktor, you are the one being absolutely neutral. However, instead of pretending that the others are lying propose something and try to contribute to get to common compromise and consensus. Your initial edit was not sourced at all. However, until now it is your version of facts (i.e. there are no responsabilities - direct or indirect - of the Yugoslav government in the Istrian Exodus) that has not been sourced yet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. #1 proving a negative is impossible ("that there is no responsibility.."), and the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you to show the positive. #2 to quote your own source, Ahonen p106: "It does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken". And if I recall from previous discussions, Ballinger also supports this view.. yet you cite them both in implied support of the opposite.

So you see, providing brief quotations like that is really very easy. Not that the specific one above is necessary at all given that (per "#1") you have no sources for the opposing claim anyway. -- Director (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of formal recusal

As I have already described, I am already heavily involved in this dispute per Wikipedia:INVOLVED, and, in a not unconnected manner, Wikipedia:COI. Threfore, I give formal notice of my recusal from this case, save in the instance where the eventual mediator asks for details about the Wikipedia:3O that I gave. Notwithstanding the above, I will be watching this page since I have other business to do regarding Wikipedia:DRN (namely, mediation of another dispute). --The Historian (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Opening comments by Deb

I've been here many times before. It seems to me self-evident that Year in Topic articles are "intrinsically chronological" in nature. They are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years, within which the use of links in sections such as "Events" and "Deaths" is well documented as the norm. Chris Gualtieri's argument for removing the date links from one such article is that he doesn't believe they are useful. I happen to disagree. Year articles are specifically excluded from the no-date-linking guideline; it was precisely through this exclusion that the "great date-linking debate" of [whatever year it was - I'm sure someone can enlighten me] was finally resolved. Please let's not have another such rift. Deb (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 in British music discussion

Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority, but I can try and help you reach an agreement. I'm still reading up on the various discussions that have taken place about this subject, but it looks to me as though the issue is whether or not a 'Year in Topic' article is intrinsically chronological. Is that right? CarrieVS (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "Year in topic" is (to itself) intrinsically chronological, meaning that preceding and successive years should be linked in some manner. So links to 2012 in British music is perfectly acceptable; as I guess 2012 would be by extension. The primary issue is the linking of every individual date for which no relevant information exists. Take this line, "9 March - George Benjamin conducts the UK première of his opera Written on Skin at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden." Does 9 March have any relevance other then the date just happened to fall on that particular day? No. Is it a key date in the history of March 9? No. Is it even mentioned on March 9? No. Even within the article's table for "Platinum records" the excessive date linking is absent, but included on every single date of death in the following section. None of these individual dates are relevant at all to the material and should be de-linked. These date links are not even allowed on the biographies themselves because consensus advances the "not germane" aspect as I am doing so here! It is a big stretch to say that these articles are "intrinsically chronological" because the definition (synonym swapped) means "essentially chronological". There is nothing "essential" or "essentially" chronological about those dates. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is it even mentioned on March 9? No." The reason for that is pretty obvious: there is no article entitled "March 9 in music". If there were, it would be. It's not at all unlikely that such an article will be created at some future date. Deb (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a "March 9 in music" will be made because its a big stretch on the "this day in history" type. In this case, and as it stands, the de-linking is entirely appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if 'month-day in topic' articles were made, since events in music on March 9 of different years are unlikely to be related to each other in the way that events in the same year are. My personal feeling is that month-day links aren't helpful unless there's some particular reason why they're relevant in an individual case. However, there has been a lot of discussion about date-linking and we should try to follow consensus.

The MOS guideline says that in most circumstances there should be a particular reason for linking to a date. But it provides an exception for 'intrinsically chronological' articles. So the question is, was that exception meant to include Year-in-topic articles, or not? I note that the examples of what is considered intrinsically chronological are a year, a month, and a decade: all strictly chronological, and I would consider year-in-topic to be primarily about the topic. If I had been writing that guideline and had meant it to include articles that aren't strictly chronological I would have included an example of that to make it clear. But while a year-in-topic example would be conclusive in one direction, I don't know that the lack of one is conclusive in the other direction.

Am I right in thinking that this is a broader dispute than simply the content of this one article? If so I think it might be best to involve Wikiproject Years and/or start a discussion on the MOS/linking talk page. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about when to link to month-day articles, but I can't find anything that comes to a conclusion about linking from year-in-topic articles or clarifies the expression 'intrinsically chronological'. CarrieVS (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked YEARS and they have remained all but silent on the issue. The definition of "intrinsic" is "essential" - by mere definition of the word the links have to be relevant and appropriate given a "chronological" progression. This idea is already used in navigation templates, meaning relationship and other "Year in XXXX" is chronologically related, but individual dates themselves just coincidentally fell on that date. The burden falls to existing consensus on biography articles. If you don't link birth date and death date to the individual articles on "March 7" and "1980" you should not do so in an unrelated "Year in XXXX" topic. The question of germane or not germane, for relevancy and usage to the reader, is a simple one. To say it is "chronological", thus allowed, is to be deceiving of the preceding "intrinsic" requirement. So we arrive at the definition which exists in the templates, what is assumed to be allowed is: Other chronologically linked "Year in XXXX", the source "Year", other useful navigation links to "XXXX in music" or other related field. Leaving links like March 7, which does not have relevant information related to the topic, as best suited for de-linking. Chronological terms are not to be linked in general, they have to present an essential or relevant material for readers to understand context better. And last I checked, no one needs to be directed to March 7 to find out about "March 7" - it is just being used as a list of other (not related to the topic) events that occurred on that day. Most of which (if not all) are not even to be found on that page - if they are it is no different then the original article. As a result, it certainly does not meet either criteria required for linking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I honestly feel that you are misunderstanding the word "intrinsic". It is only the same as "essential" in one sense - ie. the sense of "constituting or being part of the essence of", NOT the sense of being "basic or indispensable". There are a number of users who agree with you that these dates shouldn't be linked; unfortunately none of them are regular contributors to year articles. It seems to me that this is an exercise in trying to enforce what are, after all, only guidelines, just for the sake of it, when you have no real interest in the quality of these articles. To me, following the same convention in the "year in topic" articles as in the basic year articles makes perfect sense.

I also want to point out that the article March 7 is not actually about March 7. It does have a short introductory section, just in case there is anyone reading it who doesn't know the literal meaning of the words "March 7", but it is in fact a list of things that happened on March 7, all of them in different years. Thus linking to it has the same effect as linking to any other list, and it is hard to understand why you have such a strong objection to it. Deb (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the specific use of "germane" then? It seems the definition is obvious and @Ohconfucius: has voiced his opinion on the matter before. I am active in Years topics; but that is an ad hom attack and misdirection. I have every right to work in any area I choose to. The link has to be relevant or essential for the context of the readers, if linking the dates doesn't work for biographies or other lists why should "YYYY in X" be any different? The only "relevancy" is that the event occurred on that day, most of the time the event in question doesn't even merit inclusion on said list. Why is it important to list to another set of unrelated events in seemingly apparent defiance of WP:LINK? Given the examples of WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK both aspects provide a rationale for when it is acceptable and when it is not. You cannot give me a reason why it should be linked when I can give you many reasons it should not, using existing policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your analysis of this argument. Citing the opinions of a user who has been blocked no less than eight times in the past five years is hardly likely to change my mind. Deb (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between most lists and month-day articles. Most lists are of related things so that the other list items would be relevant. With some exceptions, events occurring on the same day in different years are not related. In most cases of an event on that date, other events that occurred on the same day in different years are coincidental and so are mere trivia.

However, the question we need to answer right now isn't how relevant the date articles are for these events. It's whether the month-day articles need to be "relevant and appropriate to the subject" for specific events in year-in-topic articles. Stay on track please. Please also comment on content, not contributors; what matters is the strength of the arguments, not how often the person making them has edited year articles or whether they've been blocked in the past.

It seems that you disagree very strongly on the interpretation of the "inrinsically chronological" part of the MOS guideline, and I personally think it is unclear. So why don't we try a different tack? Let's use common sense and the general principle of when to link: that it should help the reader's understanding of the article. Deb, I'll ask you to go first. Can you explain why it's helpful to the reader, in understanding the year-in-topic article, to link to month-day articles? CarrieVS (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of subjectivity in your analysis. Whether they "need" to be linked or are "relevant" is always going to be a matter of opinion. "Common sense" doesn't exist, as far as I'm concerned, because everyone I know has a different idea of what constitutes common sense. Once you ask "why it's helpful to the reader", you have already strayed from your first question of whether the links need to be relevant. Why not ask the same question about the date links in year articles? Why is it only relevant to the year-in-topic articles? Are the date articles lists in some sense that the year articles are not?

To answer your question, I personally (as a contributor) use the date links for navigation - which is what links are for - so that I can check, for example, whether an entry is being consistently used, eg. if it has been included in a date article when the person listed was not considered notable enough to be listed in the Year in topic article. (I see this as part of the ongoing issue of US and UK bias in these articles.) I do not think it is at all unlikely that, as wikipedia expands, there will one day be an article entitled "March 9 in music" - when I first began contributing, in 2002, we could not envisage this encyclopedia with the entries we have today. As a reader, I also use the date links for navigation, but in this case to see what other things happened on the same date, which is after all what the date articles are there for. For example, when I am compiling a quiz, I can make use of the year in topic articles, the year articles, the date articles, and the month articles (eg. January 1974) we are currently building up. You can call this trivia if you like, but there is no rule against including trivia in wikipedia as long as it is in the appropriate place. I've explained all this before, but all I get in response is "well, I don't find them useful", or "well, most people don't find them useful". This will never be resolved by a vote or "consensus" discussion between contributors because the readers whom we are trying to help and who make use of these links are very likely not to be contributors and not to be consulted. However, it seems obvious to me that, since other wikipedias, including the French and German ones, still include date-linking in biographical articles, someone must be finding them useful.

I agree that the views of other contributors should not quoted here to support the argument one way or the other, regardless of how "strong" their arguments are, which once again is going to be purely subjective. It should be enough to note that the guidelines specifically excluded Year in topic articles from the general de-linking. Deb (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actions should be made on the strength of the arguments, and you dismiss that rationale. It is a misdirection to use other language Wikipedias as reason for inclusion, because their policies are very different than our own. What rational you provide is "compiling a quiz" suggests a personal need that goes against the rational put forth by WP:LINK. The only reason you provide for these links is that it helps you find "other events which occurred on this date/year in history"? Is that not what List of historical anniversaries does? I do not see how this extremely niche usage, which is filled by other pages, is suitable explanation for linking every date and year to find other unrelated events which just happened to occur on that date. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am Amadscientist. I am a regular volunteer here at DR/N. I don't understand why this case was opened as it appears there is very little discussion. I recommend that the case be kicked back to the article talk page and ask editors to continue to find common ground based on the guidelines and policies. Since it is open and there is a volunteer handling the case I will not object if left open and continued and will attempt to assist where I can. If this case is to be left open I do need clarification on the original use of the specific wording of "they are not intrinsic to the article ", "They are not intrinsic and should be removed" and "Because it is not relevant - specifically intrinsic - it should not be included". You see, it is not a matter of intrinsic value, but encyclopedic contextual significance. Intrinsic value is "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ". I think this argument may be overstating our guidelines and policies. I have not reviewed the entire discussion at length but I do think we have to ask ourselves what the specific reason for exclusion is from a policy standpoint. Anything less simply arguing opinion and we don't edit in or out content based on what we like or dislike.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not want it back at the talk page because Deb does not want to compromise and asserts something not backed by WP:LINK. No offense, but the definition of "intrinsic" and "germane" is the root of the problem. For dates to be linked the MOS states that it should be relevant (germane) to the topic or essential for the chronology (intrinsic). I see no reason that Deb's desire to interlink "British music" for trivia or quiz-making purposes is justifiable for linking every date on the article. The content is not expanded or even included on the links. I want DRN to help resolve this issue because Deb seems to have had problems in the past in this area and will not engage in consensus building. So I brought it here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse Chris. It's been going on for a long time, and it's not just 2013 in British music. I detect ownership of this walled garden. Any link removal is usually reverted with minimal or no discussion123456. Please also refer to these actions. I'll try and dig up more stuff if I have time. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Deb has summarily undone edits by Hmains (talk · contribs), Sven Manguard (talk · contribs), DBD (talk · contribs), Tony1 (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) Dl2000 (talk · contribs) – simply do a browser search for "undid" or "revert" on her contributions. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The decision to kick this back to the talk page rests with CarrieVS as they are the volunteer that opened the case however, I should mention that your reasoning for it not going back is simply not a good argument. If you do not even want to try to handle thison the talk page and wish to rely on others to decide for you, you may not be happy with the outcome. If you both attempt to work together towards common ground and demonstrate a willingness to try, there should be no reason the case cannot return to DR/N when extensive discussion has taken place. I will look further at the MOS, however please be aware that as I see it so far, theuse of specific wording seems overly strong. Remember that MOS is only a guideline and content still requires a consensus. If two editors cannot come to a consensus, an informal RFC can be created to attract larger community input. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IF the issue, as you say, is: [T]he definition of "intrinsic" and "germane" is the root of the problem." then it should be easy enough to understand that the two words do not mean the same thing. Intrinsic is not used in the MOS but "relevant" is. Germane:

1. obsolete : closely akin

2. : being at once relevant and appropriate"

The MOS does not state that the use of year date links must be essential to the nature of the article. It need only be relevant and appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK:

• "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Both opening pieces for the two sections are:
• "Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject."
• "Year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year."

I am using these statements as the basis for my argument. Both are expansions of WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDERLINK. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• My take is this: only articles about dates are and can be considered "intrinsically chronological". '2013 in British music' is a subset of 2013 and British music. That intersection virtually strips it of its intrinsicness [sic] to chronology. Linking dates in these is as nonsensical as linking all elements of a timeline, where at least some common thread usually exists. In terms of "navigation", the flow of clicks is illogical. People will visit '2013 in British music' only if they want to, duh, know what happened in British music in year 2013. They wouldn't go there to find out what happened on a given date; if they already knew the specific date of a certain event, they would go to the relevant event or date article instead. OTOH, it's quite logical for the reader, looking through '1980 in British music', to click over to the John Lennon or Death of John Lennon articles. Having a sea of blue dates in this case distracts the reader from such important information. Assuming the coverage is exhaustive (ie all dates in a year have entries and links), navigation is utterly destroyed just like the haystack obscures the proverbial needle.

  Without even dwelling on the rather inconsistent linking of dates therein, the linking of death dates in the article is rather quixotic and is purely a result of relics of history and the deliberate continual actions of one or two editors and maybe the unwitting actions of a few more. Dates are not linked in any biography per overwhelming consensus. In fact death dates are generally regarded as incidental or coincidental because people generally don't choose auspicious dates to die on. If they did, there wouldn't be any modern birth or death entries on April 20 or April 30 (hint:birth and death date of a certain mass murderer). The date itself has no relevance beyond this. Forget germane. The fact that other language Wikipedias indiscriminately link their dates isn't a valid concern. What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, as the saying goes. I like to see it as "enlightenment" on our part.

  Now looking at some events in the article:

  9 March - George Benjamin conducts the UK première of his opera Written on Skin at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden; 18 May - Bonnie Tyler represents the United Kingdom in the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest, singing "Believe in Me", amassing a total of 28 points to finish in 19th place; 16-23 June - BBC Cardiff Singer of the World 30th anniversary competition takes place in St David's Hall, Cardiff.

  In the articles linked to, I'd say the dates are rather pedestrian and their notability is low and not exactly key dates for the topic at hand (ie British music) – truly pivotal dates are few and far between, and these are all dates (eg. 8 December 1980, 24 November 1991), not days.

  I quite understand the statement "I do not think it is at all unlikely that, as wikipedia expands, there will one day be an article entitled 'March 9 in music" although I believe it's a trashy concept that could potentially fill the 'pedia with increasing volumes of mindless trivia as the drill down gets more specific. It seems that Deb is the author of many such articles, and almost all are linked as defined in WP:WALL. That way, the reader can happily go around like a butterfly, floating from one random sweet-smelling flower to another without having to go elsewhere to find non-coincidental or non-random nectar. I'm just hoping that Deb doesn't go extending the bankrupt practice ofis more transparent in her edit summaries when expanding any more of these articles – Of course, there's usually some expansion to these articles. I find misleading edit summaries labelling simply "expand" when the primary change seems to be inserting links for all day-month month-day dates. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding input, however if this is little more than a criticism of Deb, I will be shutting this down and moving back to the talk page as no longer a content dispute but a behavioral conflict. I feel much of the above should be collapsed as personal attacks and will be doing so after I notify the editor and give them the chance to respond.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Madscientist, this forum is to politely find solutions to content–behavioural disputes; it's not possible to draw a line between them, and that is why we're here. There was an edit-conflict, so here is what I was trying to post:

Tony, this noticeboard is to resolve disputes and find compromise and common ground. It is not for finding solutions to every issue or problem and I remind editors once again that dipute resolution is not for discussing editors. It seems this was a premature opening and this case should never have been brought here. This is likely to be better for a formal RFC and continued discussion on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What a weird definition of dispute resolution. You wonder how it could ever do anything useful. "to politely find solutions to content–behavioural disputes" ≠ "to resolve disputes and find compromise and common ground". OK, I'll remember that. Tony (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a definition of dispute resolution, it is simply what the goals of this noticeboard are. We have consensus for such if you wish to review them.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A few remarks:

Deb performs a lot of valuable gnoming work. In addition, she is a devotee of chronological articles and the so-called intersecting year in X articles, almost all of which have had their month–day and their year links removed, except in cases of special significance. But she is determined to put a military moat around certain sets of year in X articles she has selected. Maybe there's a bit of ownership going on here, probably arising from her (laudable) editing investments in past years.

While this might be in good faith as self-defined, the resistance to seeing the bigger picture—in particular the community's overwhelming endorsement in 2009 not to blanket-link chronological fragments—is stretching the definition of collegiality. There are block reversions of entire edits that include the unlinking of these fragments in the selected categories, and an unwillingness to go along with the community's decision; when discourse is entered into, it is framed by an argument that year in X hybrids are defined as "intrinsically" chronological. Ohconfucius has presented a compelling argument against this, above, and other editors have done so on talk pages over the past few years.

The walled castle includes year in anglophone country, year in literature, year in music, and year in art. Everyone has learned that if you want to avoid a fight, you have to stay away from them; the more accepted/normalised the consensus has become over the past four years, the more frustrating the resistance has appeared to numerous editors. Paradoxically, and regrettably, the acceptance seems to underpin Deb's feeling that there's a moral imperative to "holding out".

Yet it's obvious from the examples cited above—the carefully worded and agreed text on which the consensus decision was based—that year in X articles were not intended for exception. To top it off, there are nav-boxes displayed prominently at the top of these articles; they present clear, convenient, systematic links to both related articles on the same theme, and related themes (year in art from year in music). IMO, it's time to harmonise practice in these remaining citadels.

I'll conclude by saying that Deb's ultimate plan to fractionate the empire of year in X into twelfths brings into question yet more sharply the matter of thematic utility—call it the opposite side of the triviality coin: why do we care what happened in music in March 1956? Because it was my birth-month? Minimising triviality does matter on the English WP—not nearly as much as the German WP, but all the same trivia sections have been removed from articles, and wikilinking is now done more selectively to maximise thematic utility for readers. The fact that no other WP has raised the skill with which wikilinks are applied is neither here nor there. They're generally a mish-mash of scattergun linking, without much guidance for editors. Take a look at other WPs to see the result. We live in hope. Tony (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I did not want to bring behavior into this, because it is purely article content. We disagree, but there is nothing wrong with that. The date linking is not used on a majority of articles, including 2012 in Japan. I think it is weird that 2012 in Britain does not exist, but 2012 in British music, 2012 in British radio, 2012 in British television and 2012 in British music charts do exist. Strangely enough, all except Deb's "in British music" type adhere to the MOS as expected. And that includes the seemingly related "British music charts" pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. I believe you have the best intentions. What I think all editors are failing to see here is that the MOS is not an absolute and is simply not appropriate to argue such. What I see missing is your reasoning why this must be excluded and an argument why it should. I am sorry to tell editors, but this is not cut and dry, but I do appreciate the good faith post to clarify.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, MOS compliance is not the be-all end-all of Wikipedia, but some of the WP:LAMEest edit wars have been over less. If anything certain standards exist because the community has spent its time and effort to resolve the problems in the past; if any consensus can be rejected by saying "I disagree" than it makes such discussions worthless and done in vain. I like consistency, and many fixes are fine. Things like punctuation before ref, bulleting external lists, bolding the first instance of the article title in the lede; they are all minor but bigger battles have been fought over a endash or a hyphen. The point of this was to try an build consensus with some third parties. And I do not think Tony or OC are "third parties" in this case; while their input is enlightening, I see that at least OC has had issues with Deb in the past. With that being said, if Deb does not want to engage in the consensus building matter this DRN has no obligation to do so. I won't be filing a RFC or anything because this is not a huge deal to me. I wanted clarification and perhaps some uniformity on the related articles; walled garden or not, I'm not out to make war over someone else's pages. - I've already got my own problems with an editor out to delete my pages enmasse so I know that this is not a pleasant situation for Deb. I think the option to continue rests with Deb, and at this point, I'm leaning towards closing this myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have hit a few nails on the head there. Just remember (it is not always something we keep in the forefront of our minds as editors) that each article has a local consensus that determines how to handle a situation. Where our guidelines give us wiggle room is where most disputes seem to occur. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gives us many options yet still allows DR/N as a first step. This is not always the right venue, but we will always suggest how best to proceed. In this case I feel that further discussion is important, but that this venue is certainly not the best route at the moment. I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion as the dispute is between only two editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

These clauses were added to MOSNUM by a supervising ArbCom clerk after a massive RFC in 2009. They are not normal MOS guidance; they arise from fully tested overwhelming community consensus. One of MOS(NUM)'s key functions is to forestall talk-page arguments and edit-wars over style and formatting. Even if this notion were tenable that it's up to local editors whether to say "stuff you" to such resounding community consensus, it seems that it's Deb and her instant block reverts, against everyone else. Is that local consensus? Tony (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The strength of the consensus doesn't have any relevance. One would assume any community decision that is appropriate has strength in having been decided by the community and having ArbCom add it doesn't seem to clarify how that is a stronger consensus nor how that makes this a "special MOS guideline". What such a consensus does protect, is anyone coming along and simply trying to make a bold edit to change it. A simple local consensus would also not be able to override it. But it doesn't mean it is special in any other manner. The very wording is clear. There is not requirement to subject editors to. This is the Manual of Style not a policy or brightline rule.

No consensus has been formed from this discussion. It is the opinion of this volunteer that the dispute may have come here prematurely and that the best option still remains a calm and concise discussion on the article talk page. There, editors may begin an informal RFC or a formal RFC. Third opinion is available for disputes between only two editors and we also have the noticeboards and projects. If an extensive discussion still produces no consensus, editors are able to re-file here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all. I've read over this thread as it popped up on my list. I disagree that this is a dispute that should have gone back to the talk page - as a dispute with a sole dissenter to the local consensus, further discussion on a talk page is unlikely to bear fruit. Policies and guidelines are important, and in this case, there are two things I see here. One, a consensus at the talk page seems to exist opting for the dates to not be linked. Two, this passage of text, key parts bolded: "Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date." When I look at the article, I do not see how, for example, 7 March is relevant to the death of Kenny Ball, apart from the fact this was the day he died. It seems others see this too, and this is the reason this dispute has started. My recommendation here would be for an RFC to be started, to get wider input on the matter. I can give some guidance on setting this up to ensure it is framed correctly. For now, I will close this DRN thread. Please feel free to approach me directly on my talk page. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:59, 21 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 Yobol

Luigi di Bella 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 The Banner

The filer has done nothing to reach a compromise. He just get hammering that we did not understand the policies. Now it is clear that the discussion is not going his way, he turns to DR. The Banner talk 19:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

With the user taking user warnings as threats and removing them, I have no hope filer will be willing to compromise or negotiate. The Banner talk 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gandydancer

This editor is not correct when s/he states that I want to put the name of the dead woman into the article and that should be clear since I was the first one to remove her name when he used it on the talk page. I thought that I could help him/her by explaining that in a previous discussion I brought up the possibility but through group discussion I agreed that we should not use her name. That turned out to be a mistake because now s/he continues to repeat that I want her name in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lukeno94

I don't think I've got much more to say than what Soni said - their viewpoint is pretty much mine. What I will say is that TransVannian has used both edit summaries and the talkpage as a soapbox for their views, and any time they are informed of this policy, they either ignore it, or claim "harassment" - as they've done here. No one has claimed that adding the victim's name is an "insult" - we're following BLP and keeping it out of the article, as per the family's wishes. Frankly, this DRN shows yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by TransVannian, and should be closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the user has taken to attempting to troll my talk page, it's clear they're not here to be constructive at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Khazar2

Sorry to be late to the party; as noted below, I'm on a bit of Wikibreak. I actually don't have strong feelings here, since a reasonable case can be made for both sides. So far as I can see, most news stories are declining to use her name, while a few are. The name actually appears in the article's references twice just in headlines, as in this Australian article: . TransVannian got off on the wrong foot with their approach here, but the idea of including the name isn't wholly unreasonable. My personal take is that there's little harm in revealing a name already so widely available and little encyclopedic good in including a name most sources still aren't using. So I think the stakes are low here, and I probably won't be participating much beyond this initial statement. Thanks, though, to everyone working on this, and thanks to Scott for mediating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TheOriginalSoni

This is a relatively simple case. The editor in question, TransVannian, started by making a change to the article with an Edit Sumary which was considered bad enough by several editors that I had to contact an admin who revdelled it. After which, they have been posting long tirades on the talk page accusing everyone of POV pushing and not knowing Wikipedia guidelines and related matters.

The primary issue being contended is whether or not a rape victim's name be published in the article. Long standing consensus, based on discussion, previous examples of similar cases and policies as well as the national and most of international media judged against having the name on the article. The editor here failed to note that consensus in this case was more important than verifiablity.

In light of the long and pointless discussion, I had closed the discussion on the Talk page, after which the discussion and accusations shifted to User talk:The Banner, before being closed again and brought to DRN. The case seems pretty straightforward to me.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case discussion

Hi there everyone. I volunteer here at DRN and am willing to take on this request. Once Khazar2 has made a statement we can begin. I am aware that Khazar2 has stated he is on a wikibreak and can't really be involved so if we haven't heard from him in 24 hours we will proceed without his statement. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Cabe,

I dont think a full DRN will be required because the editor in question is very unclear on policies and refuses to listen to us when we try to explain them. If possible and appropriate, I request you to look through the matter and explain the issues to him so we all can go forward with what we were doing. In case you find that not the best thing to do, I'll be willing to co-operate with whatever steps you deem appropriate to deal with it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The editor has now tried to take the discussion to Luke's and my talk pages. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read over most of the interactions between the editors regarding this subject however DRN is not for discussing user conduct, rather, we should focus on the content. I left this case open because it's an interesting one. To play devils advocate here: can someone explain why not including the victims name is not brushing up against WP:NOTCENSORED? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC

• Standard procedure is to leave the victim's names of these cases out, especially when the family express that wish, as I believe is the case here. Whilst NOTCENSORED may be a valid argument, local consensus always takes heed over such things; and the consensus, which TransVannian has ignored/refuses to accept, is to leave the name out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me where the policy says that's standard procedure? Or is this a case of 'it's always been that way'. Also, local consensus "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". To be clear here, I'm not taking sides, TransVannian reasonably valid point although he hasn't delivered it very well hence my current 'devils advocate' style comments. Additionally, I don't have access to the sources right now but I've been lead to believe that the father publised the name of the victim himself, is this correct? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello thereUser:Cabe6403. First of all I'll like to point out that the victim's family has actually granted permission to reveal her name. User:Lukeno94's statement is incorrect. The victim's father himself directly requested media outlets to reveal her name. It can be easily be seen the requirement of permission has already been met. TransVannian (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi TransVannian, I'm another DRN editor here, if you want to make the claim that permission has been given, its much easier to give your claim more weight if you link it to proof. -- Nbound (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Nbound. Here's the proof which states that the victim's father not only granted permission but himself revealed her identity. This is the proof ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 ). Her name is given there. Users can check it. TransVannian (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's not even close to a WP:Reliable source... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh so you're calling a reputed media outlet as unreliable. The source is perfectly reliable and besides you'll find multiple reliable sources on Google that will state the same thing. The website Mirror is a perfectly reliable source. You do not even know what a reliable source is. TransVannian (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Daily Mirror a reliable source? Excuse me whilst I burst into hysterical laughter... Did you seriously just make that statement? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of the obvious unreliable nature of a TABLOID newspaper, the actual discussion about the inclusion of the name was here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright laugh after you read this. The Daily Mirror has said that they have received permission from her father to reveal her name. Also all news websites are regarded as reliable on Wikipedia if you did not know. Stop spreading lies and misinformation Lukeno94. You're making an embarrassment out of yourself. Last of all Wikipedia is not a place to laugh at others. TransVannian (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact the father denied he had requested the victim to be named. Surely, the BBC is a reliable source for that denial. The Banner talk 11:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you now going to claim that the Daily Mail and The Sun are reliable sources as well? The Mirror is about the same level as they are... NOT all news websites are regarded as reliable on Wikipedia; that's a ludicrous statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the policy which you yourself mentioned "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The Mirror or The Daily Mirror is a globally reputed news outlet. And as such it can be regarded as a reliable source. Also since the father has directly revealed her name to them there is no chance there might be a factual error. I leave it to the volunteers to judge the comments forwarded by me. TransVannian (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I should mention this. All the Wikipedia articles about currently happening events or events that happened some time ago always contain mostly news websites as sources. Even the article we are discussing about uses news websites as sources. TransVannian (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all I should say this is not the place to talk about someone's behavior. Additionaly, why are you ignoring User:Lukeno94's aggressive and insultive behaviour. Please tell me what type of editor call so other comments as bullshit and says wait before I laugh hysterically to them ? That's why said Laugh after you read this. It was a passive remark yes but is due to Lukeno94's insulting behavior. But just a passive remark doesn't mean I can be blocked. I will not repeat this mistake again and will now completely focus on the discussion rather than remarks of other users. But please I request you to do something about Lukeno94's behavior and tell him to stay civil. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure Qwryxian's comment has little to do with "laugh after you read this", and is more to do with your downright false accusations of "bullying" and stating that I am "spreading lies and misinformation" - both are bullshit (and that's not incivil or a personal attack; that's a statement of fact.) The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper, as you yourself have remarked upon previously. Tabloid newspapers are not, never have been, and never will be reliable sources, period. If you can't understand why that is, well... I'm concerned for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, lets drop all 'he said, she said' fingerpointing and focus on the content. As an aside, tabloid simply refers to the size of the paper the media is published on although, these days, it can be informally used to label things like the mirror and the sun due to their more sensationalist and gossipy reporting styles. Regardless, the BBC is much more of a reliable source than either and that source states, quite clearly, that the father did not wish the name published.

Regarding the inclusion of the name, the name of the victim is sourced, in multiple places. I see people referring to the law in India but Wikipedia is not affected by these laws. This is also the English Wikipedia not one of the Indian ones. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure why this is being continued, to be honest. It's not just local consensus, but quite a general one that rape victims' names are left out, particularly when the family wish it to be private; there's a highly reliable source stating that the family wish it to be private, so the name should be left out, law or no law. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I had earlier mentioned that even highly reputable sources can be incorrect. Not only that there's only one source even.though highly reputable claiming he did not grant permission. Also see this news source which states ( http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=161252 ) that Lalu Prasad Yadav, a high class politician revealed her name and that too on January 18 while the BBC article's date is January 7 although the source hasn't revealed what her name is. Now both sources cannot be correct. Multiple sources say that the father granted permission and only BBC is saying he did not. The case that his father did not give permission very weak. If you can bring more reliable sources which state the sane as BBC perhaps you can make it stronger. But still it has to be determined which source is correct. Reliability cannot be determined on the basis of reputation alone. Also in January I read the same thing thing in an English newspaper The Tribune that her father had asked media outlets to name the victim. Perhaps BBC or The Mirror might have committed factual errors although it's difficult to tell. TransVannian (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Too much has happened in the hours while I was away, but I'll just jump in to say Lalu Prasad Yadav is not a high class politician. There are plenty of politicians who would resort to such gimmicks and he is one of them. He will be a very BAD reason for any sort of inclusion on here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look closely in this article ( http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20925164 ) BBC itself states that it was the Indian media saying that he had not granted permission. While The Sunday People newspaper says that he has granted permission and even carries his picture, The Hindustan Times on the other hand says he had not. It seems that BBC did not conduct any original research into the matter that whether the father granted permission or not. I request the volunteers to help and advise what to do since the matter has become very confusing. As I've earlier said even reputed news websites can commit mistakes. TransVannian (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the inconsistency in the sourcing is why we are erring on the side of caution and leaving out the information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying there is no inconsistency in the victims name but only in whether her father stated he wished it to be known? This is a complex issue in which there is no 'right' way of doing it. As such, we must defer to consensus. I would suggest to the original filer that he raises an RfC on the issue to gain wider community consensus on the matter. For now, I would leave the name off and use the suggested RfC to establish a consensus to include it. For what it's worth I'd be in favour of including the name as I believe it's encyclopeadic and suitably sourced as the correct name. I'll leave this open for another day or so before closing it in case there's any further comments. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Rape shield law: As a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes such a law also exists inside the US and even UK and even Australia and even the Arab countries. However this law does not prohipit the name of victim. I'll give you a very famous example of why Wikipedia's editing is not under any nation's laws. You might know about Scorpions album Virgin Killer. The album art of that album supposedly showing a nude minor girl and also a crack at the place where the private parts are supposedly implying about taking her virginity or raping her. That Wikipedia article was blocked by UK. However Wikipedia did not remove the album art simply because Wikipedia is not responsible for it and it supports uncensored information nor does it support child pornography at all. So your saying that just because there is no permissions from family the name cannot be included is completely incorrect. Laws of any government of any country do not apply here. And yes that means even murdrers, thiefs, rapists (I'm not insulting anyone but just trying to prove a point) and terrorists can edit Wikipedia as long their edits are constructive. Also I've already said there is no complete proof and by thus including the name which some sources say is JS (you know the name) it can't mean we are including her real name. My edit is not going to be that her name is JS. It is instead going to be while some sources say that the father of victim revealed her name as JS, it was later reported by many media outlets that father did what not grant permission to reveal her name putting the reliability of the name reported earlier under serious question mark. It is still not clear what is the victim's actual name. This still protects her identity and I see no problem with this. However I would like the volunteers to advise. TransVannian (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which is completely unnecessary. And is STILL against a general consensus. Dude, I haven't yet seen anyone who actually agrees with you, so just drop it and move on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you need to stop your pathetic lies. The volunteer is actually with me. You of course do not kniw how Wikipedia works. So I ask you to learn that first. Volunteers might not have more power than you and I but admins do. And I'm willing to take this matter to them that is after volunteers say there is no problem with my edit but you stop from making that edit in the article by undoing my edits or deleting it. No matter how much lies you can craft they won't work in front of them. TransVannian (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cabe clearly stated this: "For now, I would leave the name off and use the suggested RfC" - cut the bullshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cable only stated about not including it as her name. Also one more thing all edits do not require consensus. This comment was made before I asked if it is OK to make this edit. While some media outlets stated her name as JSP, it was later reported by some outlets that he had denied giving any permission putting the credibility of that name into question. I ask Cabe6403 if it is OK to make this edit without consensus? TransVannian (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Cabe's solution--holding an RfC on the name issue, and leaving the name out in the meantime--is a sensible one. I'd very much oppose introducing the name in the meantime until that consensus is clear. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It really saddens me that this seems headed for an RfC. Really? Is this really necessary? We should not be printing the name of a rape victim. Full stop. I know we're NOTCENSORED and printing the name in this case may well be BLP-compliant. So the fuck what? It's basic human decency. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. I stated that ages ago, and I still don't think TransVannian knows how Wikipedia operates, given that the majority of their comments don't fit up with Wikipedia policies. They're even flat-out misrepresenting what people say, and then having the gall to tell others they're being "disruptive" and "lying" - ironic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An RfC will get the opinion of the community at large, of which you are a part of. At the moment its fairly limited to a small number of editors. I suggest those with strong feelings take a read over WP:TIGER, its an interesting read. I believe that, as an encyclopedia, we should strive to have all encyclopedic information included and not be swayed by emotions. We also shouldn't decide for our readers what information they should have access to, we should provide them will all the reliable, verifiable and sourced information we have access to written in a neutral tone without giving undue weight to any one aspect. I'm aware that not all editors will feel this way, I respect this, which is why I have suggested an RfC.

If this discussion continues to not focus on content then I will assume that aspect has finished and close this DRN. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am saddened by the ongoing disrespect that TransVannian shows for the existing community consensus and for the disrespect he shows for the victim and her family. Although behaviour should not play a role in this mediation request, I think it is necessary to look at his trolling, PAs and POV-pushing. He wants the name in it and he does everything to reach that goal. The whole time he claims that WP:V is enough to mention her name. Every other policies and consensus that backs up the claim not to do it is bluntly ignored and every Wikipedian coming up with them does not understand the policy. I see no willingness from his side to compromise, just a troll eating up time and resources. The outcome of an RFC is quite predictable and will only confirm the present consensus not to name a victim. The Banner talk 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask TransVannian: If an RfC is undertaken, would you be willing to respect the outcome regardless of which way it goes? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all I'll request Cabe6403 to explain what is an Rfc since I'm still somewhat new and can't understamd some Wiki terms. Second of all, if thr volunteers think it will be better to have a consensus in all instances then alright it's no probkem.eith me since you have a better judgment thsn me. Even the discussion didn't go in my favor it's good to see that it was because there were real proofs against me and not because some disruptive editors were trying to strong arm me but still I forgive them. The volunteers can close the discussion anytime they want but before that I request them to please explain what an Rfc is. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFC should answer your question. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I'll like to say to The Banner that I don't need anyone to tell me whether I respect her or not. I myself have an elder sister and somewhat understand the problems women go through everyday. You might think that revealing her name is a disrespect but I on the other hand hiding her name is actually disrespect to her and revealing her name is a respect to her. There are millions who might think the same as me but then again there are also millions who think naming the victim is a disrespect. That's because everyone's opinion is different. We live I in a world with large number of people with different personalities. So not everyone has the same thinking as you. I respect your views but you should respect mine too. TransVannian (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm willing to take a wider community consensus or RFC regardless of the outcome. I don't care that much about the outcome as much I care about having a fair discussion. Wikipedia advises avoiding victimization of victims which might include not revealing the name if there is no permission. However it only refers to those victims only who are alive not those who are dead. Also it's just an advise and not a policy since it itself says it is advised. However only for victims who are alive. I ask the volunteers whether I should file an RfC right here or someplace else? TransVannian (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You care about a fair discussion????? The Banner talk 19:14, 19 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 Roscelese

I've already explained this to the user, but there's obviously a language barrier and I'm not sure a) what he's trying to say or b) if what I'm saying is getting across. For the Varanasi thing, the issue is a disagreement over what the article's scope should be (does "conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques" mean "former temples and churches that became mosques," or also "mosques built on the same ground where other things used to be") - I have one position and I would be delighted if he would articulate another. The Kaaba issue is separate; it's a wildly WP:FRINGE claim and the sources he's adding for it are self-published books from iUniverse and Trafford (one possibly his own?) and an op-ed from noted pseudohistorian P.N. Oak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case or opening it for discussion at this time, but merely offering this recommendation: @Capitals00: It would very much encourage a volunteer to open and take this case if you were to list in your opening statement the 6 sources to which you refer, preferably in the form of inline references so that a volunteer doesn't have to go searching for them in the articles. If you use inline references, then put {{reflist-talk|close=1}} on a line by itself at the bottom of your opening comments so they'll show up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not opening this for general discussion, but I do want to comment and ask a couple of questions about the sources Capitals00 has listed. The numbers, below, correspond to his listing, above.

1. Is clearly not a reliable source and cannot be used in Wikipedia. It's a website without an established "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the verifiability policy. Since this is not a reliable source the Varanasi issue is moot until a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia can be produced and discussed on the talk page. That issue is closed for purposes of this discussion.

2&3. Are also not reliable for the same underlying reason, but specifically because they are self-published works from vanity publishers. They cannot be used to support information in the article.

5. Due to its age, I have grave suspicions about the reliability of this work. It cannot be regarded as reliable unless it can be shown to have been cited in a positive manner multiple times in modern works which are themselves clearly reliable. In any event, the page number given does not correspond to the open source editions of that work that I've been able to find. @Capitals00: Could you perhaps find the same passage in this Google Books edition of that work and provide the page number? Can you provide evidence, of the nature I just mentioned, that this work is reliable?

4&6. These appear to be reputable publishers and though the Google Books links to these works do not provide full page views of the passages in question, searching on "Kaaba" or "Mecca" bring up snippits which suggest that they might support the assertion that there is at least a Hindu tradition that the black stone in the Kaaba is a Hindu lingam. @Roscelese: Do you have access to those two works so you can see the references in context? Why do you not believe that they are not reliable?

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

4 and 6 are ones that Capitals00 never attempted to cite in the article, so all this discussion seems very hypothetical to me. Now that I look at them for the first time, they support the idea that a belief exists that the Kaaba is a Hindu lingam, but Capitals00's "according to numerous sources, the Kaaba used to be a Hindu temple" is obviously inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 18 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.

Comment by Noformation

I think this DRN request is premature. A talk page discussion was opened just yesterday and many editors haven't had a chance to respond. This is a dispute between a new editor (not that there's anything wrong with that) and multiple experienced editors and can probably be handled on talk given a day or two. If that doesn't work out then DRN would be appropriate. N^oformation ^Talk 08:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by kashmiri

Opening comments by Alexbrn

This request is premature. At the very least allow 24 hours to elapse so that editors from all different time zones get a chance to comment on the Talk page. Also, from comments on the Talk page I am not sure the new editor appreciates the basics of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, in which case DR might not be that useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

Most of the new editor's changes reflect the sources, which, however, are not reliable, or, in the case of the ACS source, was previously determined by consensus to be misleading. As there are 4 archives here to search, and also archives of the related merged articles, it would be unfair to expect a new editor to be familiar with the consensus. I think it's premature, but that, if a DRN volunteer accepts the case, he/she would find that the proposed edits have already been considered and rejected by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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 BlackCab

Holden's comment is presented as the observation of an unbiased academic who is widely cited in academic literature for his work on the religion. It is clearly labelled as his viewpoint, and is not presented as a "fact". It is not presented under the "Sources of Doctrine" section as criticism per se, but as part of an editorially-neutral presentation of exactly what JW beliefs are based on. JWs in their literature state that the Bible is the final authority for their beliefs, but Holden, like other academics, has noted that where the Bible may provide a shade of grey, the Watch Tower Society provides a black and white. In cases where the Bible provides no absolute directive, individual JWs are generally not permitted to arrive at their own interpretation: for the sake of "unity", a definitive answer is provided in church literature, which would most certainly "carry almost as much weight as the Bible", as Holden concluded. It is therefore appropriately presented and appropriately positioned. BlackCab (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Corjay, who continues to rant at the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page, has indicated he is not interested in contributing to this discussion. Since it was opened on his behalf, to discuss the objection he raised, there seems little point in furthering it. BlackCab (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jeffro77

Holden's statement is accurate. Watch Tower Society literature frequently provides interpretations about matters not directly stated in the Bible, which must be accepted by JW members. When new doctrinal 'understandings' are published in Watch Tower Society publications, the new views must be accepted as 'Bible truth'. Dissenting members may be subject to shunning. See my other comments at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Corjay

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 Werieth

This is just yet another attempt at intimidation in order for SoS to continue to ignore Non-free content policy. They have threatened to take me to Arbcom Enforcement multiple times. Every issue that I have raised is completely valid and is in order to bring articles into compliance with NFC. A lot of editors do not like NFC and try to ignore it, or attack the person enforcing NFC. This is just yet another example of that. Werieth (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not see any discussion between these two editors on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. I also only see 2 edits in the article history by editor Werieth since the first of the month. If these discussions have happened elsewhere, please provide the information. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 13:59, 18 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 DragonflySixtyseven

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 Sitush

They're getting frustrated, I understand that, but they've become virtually a single-purpose account after a lengthy absence from Wikipedia and the best thing they could do here is spread out a bit and/or take up genuine offers of explanation rather than going around like a bull in a china shop. I've said that they seem to have a large investment in AAP-related articles: the presumption would be that they are one of the many supporters of this almost-messianic movement but I don't think I've ever said that they are biassed, merely that not putting all their on-wiki efforts into one thing might be more rewarding in the long run. I am not the only one who has tried to explain how things are done but there is a limit of tolerance and the problems that have occurred have been both numerous and wide-ranging. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. I would like to comment, however: @Tall.kanna: It is a bit unfair to say "Just take a look at all my and another editor's edits, figure out which ones are in dispute, and help me with them." Because of that, you may find that no volunteer — and we're all volunteers here — is going to be willing to go to the effort to take this case. Let me suggest that you supplement your "Dispute overview" overview with a specific list of edits which have been thoroughly discussed between you and the other editor and which have stalled out. If possible, provide diffs as well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been cooperating with the other user in many instances such as santosh koli section in [] and [talk:Sitush] but without understanding my point or explaining properly, the other user takes everything personal.

Take for example Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 page, its history and talks regarding it above in form of Delhi/need clarification subheading. I worked hard creating a table, which with one click our friend reverted. Then also removed "AAP as main contender" from it suspecting it to be biased. I never reverted them, as I too agreed to his/her objections. then I added AAP as a Spoiler effect party, which again he removed. But this time It was well sourced and Valid Edit. And failed to give sufficient explaination above on [talk:Sitush] page. - Tall.kanna (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict 1-Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 Page. It is a very new and simple example to understand the conflict. Its history clearly show how brutally he attacks others. And without discussing anything on its talk page he/she reverts every edit showing prjudice towards AAP. -Tall.kanna (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll Stop this Dispute for Once and leave the Page for some time. But next time I shall come with full preparation with Wikipedia Policies as a support. This is my last closing dispute dialog.(no more comments please)-Tall.kanna (talk) 22:24, 19 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 goethean

Opening comments by Bbb23

The filer couldn't come up with reliable sources to support the assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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 Lyoness expert

Dear volunteer,

Thank you for spending your valuable time on this matter. For a while now, I have been involved in the construction of an article on Lyoness, the world's largest shopping community. As persisting companies are a sensitive topic, most of my contributions to the article have revolved around keeping a balance between various opinions, while clearly stating (through references) where these opinions can be found. As you can see in the article, 99% of those opinions come from reputable, independent third party sources such as newspapers, government entities and television shows. However, with the development of the internet, blogs are getting more influential in these matters too. Therefore, in the 'Internet' section of the article, I have incorporated a reference to Mr David Brear and his blog (a widely accepted influential source in this field). The reference was simply built up as Mr Brear's opinion of Lyoness (clearly stated as a personal opinion) and a reference to his blog. Hence, the reference to Mr Brear was in no way used to purvey authority, but rather to provide the Wikipedia audience with yet another influential opinion on the company Lyoness, which is an essential part of the 'controversy' section of the article (the company has been under quite some scrutiny around the internet).

For a while now, LyoNewMedia has been making small edits to the article, usually with a somewhat misleading qualification provided in the edit summary (e.g. 'updated figures', while actually removing a few paragraphs). This, combined with the insistence to remove essential parts of the controversy section, make me doubt whether LyoNewMedia is an independent editor, rather than someone tied to Lyoness - which would be a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Consistently removing these important parts, without convincing argumentation or evidence that Mr Brear is indeed 'defaming living people' (quite a harsh statement, in my humble opinion), is in my humble opinion an act of vandalism which clashes with everything Wikipedia stands for.

I thank you sincerely for your time and effort,

Lyoness expert (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by LyoNewMedia

Regarding an edit on the Lyoness article which deleted a short passage, Lyoness expert asked LyoNewMedia to provide evidence for the claim that the linked blog that was used as the source is attacking and possibly defaming people. Therefore passages of the blog were posted on talk to prove the argument that attacking and possibly defamatory things are posted on the blog (for instance calling someone "self-appointed führer"). Lyoness expert replied that posting random sentences of the blog does not prove anything. From then it went back and forth. Another problem with the source is the fact that it is a personal blog and therefore not a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore it would be appropriate to delete the passage referencing the blog.

Thank you for your time

Discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Due to the urgency of dealing with a BLP issue and preventing its reoccurance, I partially responded to this at the article talk page and Lyoness expert then responded at my talk page:

(Copied from those locations.)

The blog mentioned in the removed discussion cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, not because it may be defamatory, but rather because blogs of that nature simply cannot be used in Wikipedia as reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, see WP:SPS, and that is particularly true about controversial information such as this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear TransporterMan, I sincerely apologise for the trouble we made you go through and I respect your decision to deem the referenced blog as an 'unreliable source' according to the Wikipedia guidelines. However, I can somehow not wrap my head around the fact that you consider the usage of this blog, in the way it was done in my edit, as a 'reference'. Rather, it was clearly stated that Mr Brear is of this opinion - and this is the blog where he expresses this opinion (to prove that it is in fact his opinion). So, the blog was not used to prove a fact about Lyoness, but rather that a certain opinion exists. I think that simple, but essential distinction should cause it to be exempted from the guidelines you reference. Thanks again and have a nice day, Lyoness expert (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To respond to the question posed by Lyoness expert, above, everything in Wikipedia must, if challenged or likely to be challenged, must be supported by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Inclusion in a reliable source is the test that Wikipedia uses, rather than a board of professional editors such as a paper encyclopedia will have, to determine if information is both important and reliable enough to be considered for inclusion here. (Why "considered for inclusion"? Because being present in a reliable source is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion.) Wikipedia has decided via policy that personal blogs, along with other self published sources, are simply neither important nor reliable enough to be a reliable source, with a few exceptions which do not apply in this particular case. Because of the reliable source standard, there is information in the world which is Absolutely True and Urgently Important which cannot be included in Wikipedia because it is not reflected in a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 25 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 arzel

Opening comments by Anonymous209.6

Opening comments by Roscelese

My work in the article has been sporadic - I'd be happy to comment on individual issues, but am not sure I have much to say about the dispute as a whole. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Thargor Orlando

I do not have a ton to say, either. The article is unlikely to be improved as it's more a coatrack than anything else, but it can't get deleted. The only issue I feel strongly about at this point is the polling information, where some editors would prefer not to use information from 2008 and 2012 to contrast a certain vote total even though we have reliable sourcing to do so. I don't have a big dog in this hunt, so my concerns mostly end there.

Opening comments by A Quest For Knowledge

I'm not aware of being a part of any dispute over this article. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited this article beyond minor edits and WikiGnoming. I do offer my uninvolved advice and comments on discussion boards and talk pages (as I do for lots of articles). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Goethean

Opening comments by Milesmoney

I guess I'm here because I edited the rape article to put back the Steve King quote. The edit comment from Anonymous209.6 said that he or she (they?) removed the quote because "BLP again - King responded to a very specific question - never said he never heard of rape or incest - no WP:RS say he did". Thing is, that's just not true. There were *four* refs for that quote, and they confirmed that he spoke exactly those words. Gotta say I don't really understand what the objection is or why they keep removing it. There's just no question that it's a legit quote. MilesMoney (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

24-hour closing notice: In light of the fact that this has been listed for five days without some participants choosing to join in (no criticism implied, participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary), this request will be closed as futile by a volunteer after 16:00 hours UTC on 25 July 2013 unless the remaining participants join in, or indicate their intention of doing so, prior to that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 24 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 BöriShad

He using iranian sources for perso-turkic war. his sources totally nationalists. for example numbers of armies shows as 300.000 Turks vs 12.000 persians. 280.000 Turks killed in battle. and I said you must add impartial sources. also, I added 2 non-Turkish and non-iranian sources but he keep removing my sources. so, what can I do?

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have. also, told him on discassion page. "lets leave this page to other wikipedia users" but he didn't say ok, and kept remove my sources.

How do you think we can help?

I've already shared my sources and he shared his sources. my suggestion is; block both of us to access that page and leave that page to other users. I believe other users will be more objective than him.

Discussion

I don't know what he is talking about, i never added those sources where it said 300,000 Turks, and the source that says that is not even Iranian, and it don't matter what nationality it is, it matters if it is reliable or not, something this guy has not learned about, he haven't even read the Wikipedia rules and accuses me of many things i don't have done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

see first and second perso-Turkic wars. you added them, didn't you? also, in russian page they show Turkic army number 40.000 in third perso-Turkic war. but your source says 120.000. why? because your kinsmen love to exaggerate enemies' numbers.BöriShad (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"accuses me of many things i don't have done." if this is true, name it.

Stop changing the subject to third Turko-persian war, and there is actually nothing wrong with that, sources are sources, it don't matter what nationality, and don't try to create a ethnic fighting by insulting my ethnicity, stop acting like a kid. And i only reverted the edits in the other Turko-Persian wars because some Pan-Turk had removed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pan-Turk? lol I'm not even nationalist. I support freedom for all people. but this isn't our subject. you run out of your lies and come to defamation? BöriShad (talk) 18:27, 26 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 Pluto2012

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.

Dominican Republic discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I would ordinarily wait for Enciclopediaenlinea to weigh in before opening discussion, but I believe that a clear-cut solution exists to this dispute which has been overlooked by the participants in the discussion.

Most things in Wikipedia are decided by consensus: If someone wants to introduce something into an article or remove something from an article (at least something that was put there by consensus or has been there long enough that it was there by implied consensus) and someone else opposes it, the Consensus policy says that the burden is on the party wanting to make that change to obtain consensus to do so. If they cannot, then the change cannot be made. But that process does not apply when there is a policy or guideline which says that content should or should not be in an article since the Consensus policy also says that policies and guidelines are the "established consensus" of the Wikipedia community.

In this case the rule is set out in the guideline Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names which says that the foreign language alternates following the name of the article in the first sentence are not pronunciations but "significant alternative names for the topic ... [which] ... may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages".

In light of that, then the French name should not be included unless it can be shown to be significant as a name for this country. (The fact that there may be other articles which do not adhere to this rule is irrelevant: there are many places in Wikipedia where things have been done incorrectly and simply have not been corrected or challenged or, when challenged, the proper standard was not understood or applied. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE for a fuller explanation.) That being the case, then the inclusion of the French pronunciation is inappropriate unless it can be shown to have been used in a significant way as the name of the country. That cannot be simply presumed from the fact that the nation was once under French control. Since it has been challenged, it must conform to the rule and that conformation (like all other material in Wikipedia) must be demonstrated by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Unless I misread the parties' positions, I believe that only Gabby Merger advocates the insertion of the French version so: @Gabby Merger: Can you provide a reliable source of that nature?

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. Thank you for taking time to go into this matter. I read over what you wrote. Your point, if I understood it correctly, is that there may not be "significance as a name" in this situation. My point was that since France was heavily involved in the very formation and existence of DR...not just that French people ruled it for some period of time...and since DR was soon after (maybe not right at the time of French rule, but soon after) known in French by that pronunciation, and since there's a factual sourced and solid point of fact that French both ruled and helped form DR in the first place, then why not? It seems it's something that could go either way. Not something to dogmatically say "it definitely no way no how should be there". The fact that France both ruled and helped create DR to begin with would seem like things that make the inclusion of the French pronunciation at least a little relevant, noteworthy, or significant. Plus, this pronunciation has been on the article for a while now. Only people who are ultra-pro-Spain or Spanish seem to be opposed to it. (That's not a supposition, but some editors in question have actually indicated that.) I'm pro-Spain myself, but it should be made clear right off the bat (the lede) arguably that the "French" had a big part in it too. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"France was heavily involved in the very formation": my opinion on this supposed fact is that it is both untrue (from the article the French ruled from 1795, long after the 'very formation', to 1808) and in any case it's irrelevant, as 'République Dominicaine' is an anachronistic name, so it should not be included in the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Gabby Merger: I understand your argument, but I'm afraid that it is all pretty irrelevant and nonresponsive to the matters I raised, above. Let me repeat my conclusion: "the inclusion of the French pronunciation is inappropriate unless it can be shown to have been used in a significant way as the name of the country. That cannot be simply presumed from the fact that the nation was once under French control. Since it has been challenged, it must conform to the rule and that conformation (like all other material in Wikipedia) must be demonstrated by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia." (Let me also note that the motivations of your opponents are also irrelevant and inappropriate for discussion: here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors.) Do you have a reliable source which shows that the French version was once used as a significant name for the nation?

@Underlying lk: The fact that it is anachronistic is not a reason to exclude it if if can be shown through a reliable source to once have been a significant name for the nation.

I probably won't online much for the next couple of days. I'll come back afterwards to see if a reliable source for the name has been proposed. If not, then I'll probably close this request as resolved against inclusion of the French name. If so, then we'll take a look at what's been proposed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last post was confusing, it is anachronistic precisely because it was never used as a name (never mind a significant name) for the country, it's just the modern name in French, just like 'Dominikanische Republik' is the modern German name for example. In any case, have a good wiki-break.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A similar case to be considered is Australia, where the continent was originally found by the Dutch and therefore got the name "New Holland". This name had very significant usage from the 1600s, up until the mid 1800s (even in government correspondence), after which Australia, which had been an alternative name, became the preferred. New Holland is not mentioned in the lede at any point. And only mentioned in following sections, where applicable. A similar approach may be of use here -- Nbound (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing note to other DRN volunteers: This case has been closed, but one of the participants has reverted the closing, being dissatisfied with the result. See closing and closing reasons in this diff. I am not going to revert that reversion, but would recommend that you not deal with this case further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Christian Council of Britain

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed for no extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. (I will make some comments on the article talk page, however.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Christian Council of Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JRPG (talk · contribs) RevRMBWest (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Firstly my interest is as a wp:npov editor of political organisations and I only got involved due to an article merger. I'm an atheist. The dispute has been conducted de facto via wp:bold and now consists of a single point. RevRMBWest, the other user is a wp:spa and may lack the experience of talk pages and I want to be fair. The title Rev appears to me to be misleading to UK readers -the primary audience. We can't agree. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested admin help on my talk page in an effort to get a response from West and Ron Jones suggested I contact you. How do you think we can help? This is not my favourite article. Could someone please advise of whether his religious title is misleading. I'm more concerned about getting it right than WP:COI Advice on the talk page I hope will suffice. Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Christian Council of Britain discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.