Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 78

Summary of dispute by Deb

Some weeks ago, I added a section called "Factual Inaccuracies" to this article. The title was changed to "Historical Inaccuracies" after a short time, and was added to by several other users. After about a fortnight, it was tagged by User:202.81.243.196 as "synthesis". A debate then began on the talk page about whether the section was valid, with two users (the anon and User:TheRedPenOfDoom) arguing that it constituted synthesis and original research, whilst User:Paul Barlow and User:fdewaele disagreed. I was not involved in this discussion until nearly a fortnight later when I noticed that the whole section had been removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. I restored the section on the grounds that there was no consensus for the removal of the referenced material, and an edit war quickly began. I made various concessions to the comments made by the two contributors who considered the section to be WP:OR and "synthesis", including adding further references to back up each statement in the section, adding further material to include positive as well as negative comments, and changing the title of the section to "Historicity", in response to the anon's accusations that the section was an implied criticism of the series. I consider that I have been stating historical facts (all referenced) which are not reflected in the series, in keeping with the widespread public discussion of the series. I do not consider this to be OR or synthesis, I believe the section to be valid and in keeping, and I feel that the approach proposed by these two contributors would actually result in non-NPOV edits, their argument being that you should not provide a reference for a historical fact, only for the fact that someone made a statement pointing out that this particular piece of history is not reflected in the series. Thus, they not only removed factual statements, they also removed any references relating to those facts. At Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, 202.81.243.196 began a discussion of the question (not involving me), resulting in a lack of consensus either way. Paul Barlow also began a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#"Historical inaccuracies" sections, which again did not involve me and again does not seem to have resulted in consensus. In the meantime, I have made every effort to improve the section so as to achieve something that complies fully with the guidelines on OR and synthesis, but nothing seems to satisfy these two contributors.

Summary of dispute by 202.81.243.116

The section of the article originally titled "Historical Inaccuracies", later "Historicity", pointed out errors of fact in the TV series The White Queen. It did so by listing events shown in the series, then a phrase like "in fact" and then historical facts. All of these statements were clearly designed to support the contention by editors that the show lacks "historicity". Perhaps one or two of the points in the section were cited to a WP:RS making the criticism, the rest were all deductions made by editors. Which is WP:SYN. Any attempt to remove the latter, after explaining the problem, was reverted. When the original research policies were explained on the Talk page, they were simply ignored or dismissed as pedantry.

The entire "Reception" section of the article is now 593 words; the "Historicity" section is 693 words, giving that aspect an undue weight even if it was correctly sourced. It reflects only the opinions of a group of nitpicking editors who think that there is a need to point out errors of fact in a work of fiction. Only "errors" noted by reliable sources should be mentioned, and those should be under the "Reception" section.

On WP:NORN and WT:NOR, some of the "Historicity" advocates went to make their case. In every venue, they were told the same: that the list of errors they defend contravenes WP:OR. They ignored this and continued to revert any attempts to apply the policy. Unless there is some compulsion, I doubt there will be any change in this. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paul B

I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ("bureaucratic" rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were). Numerous articles have sections like this (see Les Miserables). Film versions of historical events often generate these sections, because editors who know about the history want to discuss dramatic deviations from fact, and readers who've seen the film want to know how much of it is historical fact. Often these sections expand chaotically and can end up including statements like "Prince Rupert had brown hair, but the actor playing him had black hair", which, though it may be verifiable, is pretty silly. In the end we have to decide for ourselves what's trivial and what's relevant to the article. It’s not OR to make such editorial judgements. The fundamental issue here is whether or not it is unacceptable to make statements about historical facts that do not come from critics commenting directly on the drama. This is an issue that has been raised in the past at the OR noticeboard, and there are differing views. My personal view is to favour common-sense over legalism and to recognise that WP:OR is not a Commandment, but a tool designed by the community to ensure that Wikipedia is not filled with idiosyncratic pet theories presented as fact. In cases such as these, most commentary comes from TV reviewers whose grasp of history is often hazy at best (e.g. their irrelevant obsession with "historically inaccurate" shiny white teeth, which only seems to come up when a drama is "medieval", even though there's no reason to believe that ancient Greeks and Romans had great teeth either). TV critics are not good judges of what is historically accurate or important. Historians of the period are better sources, but they do not comment on TV shows, at least they rarely do and rarely do so quickly (maybe in a few years someone will write an article on the Wars of the Roses in popular culture which mentions the show). In my view we should have a latitudinarian attitude to OR in such cases, because the overriding concern should be with what is encyclopaedic, verifiable and useful, not with blind adherence to over-rigid interpretations of rules without regard to their purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by fdewaele

Wikipedia articles should be sourced but one must not overdo the principle or it’s to become unworkable. When the subject is media (books, TV, film) and its historicity, it behooves to take a middle ground course. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion. Of course, there will always be grey areas (like historical minutiae), but a fact is a fact. It’s the kind of dogmatic adherence to strict interpretation of the “scripture”, as some editors do, which debases Wikipedia and makes Wikipedia as rigid as a paper encyclopedia, which it was never meant to be. -- fdewaele

Summary of dispute by Rosemary Cheese

Summary of dispute by You Can Act Like A Man

Summary of dispute by Gareth Griffith-Jones

The White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity discussion

I wasn't going to bother with this discussion, since I don't think the exact content of trivia lists is important. (I don't like them, but life is too short to worry about them.) But I'm really bothered by the way a common-sense issue has been blown up into a lot of obsessive rule-parsing. This is not the way to encourage people to participate as editors, and it's certainly not going to make the content better. Indeed, a lot of smart, well-informed people are driven away because of all this bureaucratic nonsense. To see how this argument violates common sense, consider the following: "In the first episode, Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped, which hadn't been invented yet." Is this too synthetic? Fine, I can get around this by saying "Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped. The moped was invented in the 20th century." That's two separate statements, both properly sourced (by the links) and with no stated inference. So I've gotten around the rule, at the expense of making the text less readable. And that's a good idea why? As the rules themselves say, Wikipedia rules are not legislation. They are guidance. They are a synthesis of how Wikipedians think we should run the show. Here's the correct way to use the rules: begin with common sense. Use your knowledge of the real world. Read the rules to make yourself a better editor, not to find ways to bully people. If you think somebody's doing something wrong, work with that person to achieve something you can both live with. Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down. And above all, do not delete material that you think true simply because you don't like the way it's sourced. Which is not only common sense, it's the rules.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:CIRCULAR wikilinks aren't proper sourcing. DonIago (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A wholly irrelevant comment, since Isaac Rabinovitch is simply illustrating a point. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find that comment highly relevant, but not the way it was intended to be. As I've already said, the rules are guidance, not legislation. Tell me, does anybody honestly think "The moped was invented in the 20th century" needs a citation? You should read WP:CIRCULAR for help in avoiding circular logic, not as something that defines the concept. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The context of the statement is important. If the line about Caesar's moped had been part of a plot description, then adding an additional note or footnote regarding real mopeds is not a problem. If however it was part of a list of "Historical inaccuracies", then it is being used by the contributing editor to advance a position, that "the show is full of errors". Which correct or not, is WP:SYN. I don't think that the desire of editors to point out errors of fact in fictional works justifies changing or ignoring this established policy. If the "un-historicity" of a story is important, then reviewers will have discussed this and their observations can be quoted. Already, this article now has a section on "inaccuracies", as observed by editors alone, that is longer then the entire "Reception" section; and was growing daily as editors pounced on more and more trivia to add. It's fun to nitpick at TV shows, plenty of forums exist for those who like to do that, But Wikipedia is not a forum: "do not use Wikipedia for ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)". To beat the example into the ground: the topic is not "mopeds" but "Caesar on a moped in this TV show" Cobbling together statements from different sources to synthesise a critique is not allowed. Also, I must state that this example is a strawman, implying that rule bound bureaucrats would prevent such a blatant anachronism being noted. If Caesar had been shown riding on a moped, every single review would have discussed it and editors would have no problem finding a citable quotation pointing out the anachronism. They however cannot find any to support all the trivial transgressions that they find in The White Queen. Because they were not important enough for critics to note. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. We're getting comments by folks who are neither listed in the DRN volunteer list nor listed as parties to this dispute and by folks who are listed as parties but who have not made an opening statement. @Isaac Rabinovitch and Doniago: Would you please clarify your roles here? If you are here as parties, please list yourself appropriately and make opening statements above (you can create your own section to do so); if you are here as DR volunteers, just say so, though it would also be well to list yourself as a volunteer on the volunteer page so the status bot identifies you correctly. @Paul Barlow: If you are going to participate in the discussion, would you please make an opening statement in your section, above, since you have been listed as a party? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you please check before posting such requests. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry TM. I've been following the filing since I've dealt with similar issues multiple times at film-related articles, but I'm not an involved party. My only intention was to point out that the claim that wikilinks provide proper sourcing is inaccurate. Other than that I wasn't planning to say anything unless/until the case was opened and it seemed appropriate. I'm not quite sure I want to escalate myself to the level of an actual DR volunteer, but I'll look into it. My apologies if I spoke out of turn! DonIago (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul, sorry, it was an edit conflict. Doniago, no problem, just wanted to be sure how you were here. It's not necessary to sign up as a volunteer to take on that role, we'd just like to know what hat you're wearing. Please feel free to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be very candid here. Paul says, above, "I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ('bureaucratic' rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were)." That may, indeed, have some validity. I think that you're going to find that most DR volunteers, myself included, are pretty rule-oriented and that those in this dispute who are taking the position that the rules ought to be ignored may feel like they're not getting much of a hearing in DR. An ideal Wiki-world would work like Isaac suggests, "Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down." But the way Wikipedia works is through consensus and the rules themselves say that the rules are the "established consensus" of the community (see CONLIMITED). I take that to mean that when the rules clearly apply to a situation, then the rules govern unless a IAR local exception to the rules is established. But since there is already an established consensus, the IAR local exception must itself be established by a clear consensus (which can be arrived at via discussion or via default and silent consensus). Paul suggests that the rules ought to give way to special circumstances such as that which results from a topic area being one of popular interest rather than academic interest and, as a result, few high-quality reliable sources exist for matters of significant interest. I disagree: this encyclopedia is this encyclopedia and the same standards ought to apply throughout unless general exceptions are made for certain topic areas. That can be done either by the community establishing rules to create general exceptions or by creating specific local exceptions for individual articles.

While I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case, the synthesis rule is a subset of the original research rule which is a subset of the verifiability rule. The purpose of the verifiability rule is to insure that the average reader can find a source for everything in Wikipedia and the reason for that, in turn, in my opinion, is that verifiability is Wikipedia's substitute for having a board of editors to make judgment calls on content. Paper encyclopedias obtain their authority from the quality of their editors. By allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia cannot rely on that so we rely on other organizations' reliability for fact checking and accuracy. Once we verge into taking various pieces of information and drawing or implying conclusions about them, we've violated one of the most basic principles on which Wikipedia is built.

Whether or whether not this series was historically correct is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia except to the extent that the question contributed to its notability and notability is determined by reliable sources commenting on that issue. The degree to which those sources were right or wrong is also irrelevant except to the extent that their rightness or wrongness contributed to its notability due to their rightness or wrongness being discussed in reliable sources. For this article to engage in an analysis of whether the series was or was not historically accurate or an analysis of whether sources' criticism or defense of the series was accurate or inaccurate is outside the scope and purpose of Wikipedia.

If other articles have engaged in such an analysis, then those articles are either wrong and should be corrected or, equally possibly, they are examples of silent local exceptions to policy due to no challenge being raised there. However, I reject the idea that the existence of some such articles, even a large number of such articles, has created a general working exception to policy, one which is generally accepted but to which the letter of policy has not yet caught up. It's one thing to say that there's been a general change to policy which has not yet been formalized in the case of, say, hyphenization or the rules for exterior links; it's an entirely different thing to say that one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia has changed in that manner and that there is an entire general class of articles in which lower levels of sourcing are required than for general articles. To anyone contending that I would say put up or shut up: Drop the stick here at this one article and seek to create a policy which says just that, following the procedure set out in the Policy policy (not a typo). If the lower level of sourcing which you say the community accepts is in fact so widely accepted, the policy ought to be easy to pass.

If there is a question of whether a particular edits or set of edits engage in synthesis we can talk about that, but I seem to be seeing a tacit admission that the situation here — again I've not specifically looked at it to see if it does or does not — does violate the synthesis rule but that the rule shouldn't be followed. From my point of view, if the edits violate the rule, then the material should not go in unless there is a clear consensus here for it to do so as a local exception.

Sorry, tldr, but hey... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you are missing the point here. You say, "I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case". I don't think you are in a position to comment until you have looked at it. You will find that the dispute is about the interpretation of the guideline, not about the fact that the guideline exists and exists for good reason. Consensus appears to me to be that the edits I made do not contravene the guidelines. You can see RedPen's interpretation of those guidelines below, which could fairly be summarised as "a book published before the TV series was shown cannot be used to reference a historical fact portrayed in that series". Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose and value of WP:SYN is not in doubt. What is in question is what consititutes SYN. Of course policies and guidelines can and do change, but that's strictly a matter for other fora. WP:OR can never be absolutely clear because there can be a variety of interpretations of what constitutes an "original" statement, and all editing involves the choice, interpretation and synthesis of sources by editors. Let's take an example. Scholar X says "King John was bad". Scholar Y says "King John was good". Is it OR to say "scholars disagree about whether John was good or bad"? A hard-liner interpretation of OR might be that the very statement that there is "disagreement" is OR - that it is an original idea synthesised from two separate statements. My view is that that's the route to madness and that such ultra-rigid interpretations of rules are profoundly damaging to the project, as they destroy the possibility of coherent and readable summaries of facts and debates. In this case the claim is that the historical events on which the TV show is based are fully documented and that noting those is not OR.
It is not a "criticism" of the show, BTW, because almost all historical drama, including Shakespeare, involves departures from fact for dramatic purposes. It is background information relevant to understanding the show from which the reader can draw conclusions. My position is that it would only be OR if we interpreted such differences (e.g. "because they had so few extras they depicted the battle taking place in a dense forest rather than an open field" or "they put it is a forest to emphasise the feeling of confusion"). I do not think this is proper forum for discussing this issue because DR is not the place to determine the limits of what is and is not OR. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

two examples of the specific content items that have been challenged as WP:SYN on the talk page:

and

The first item is comparing the 2013 show to content from a book published in 1956. The second apparently comparing a post from the broadcast company which includes a cast list at the bottom and noting that a certain historical personage is not listed in the cast, and comparing it to the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography entry about the personage that says they played a pivotal role in the events of the times. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Paul B - I am not sure that I completely understand your position. It appears that you are stating that we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history; but it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors (because we are better than television commentators and the equivalent of historians?) But i do also share your concerns that we are basing "historicity" claims from someone who begins their commentary

"Look, I'm no medieval scholar – except on Tuesday mornings, time permitting".^[1]

If she herself doesnt consider herself a good historian, why are we using her as a source for claims about history? But that was a situation I was going to address after what I thought was the more straightforward WP:SYN issues.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand my position, I don't know how I can explain it yet again, having done so in several fora. I never said "we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history". Of course TV reviewers can be quoted, but historians are 1000 times better sources for what actual events were. That's obvious to anyone. I never said that "it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors", or anything like it, since I have repeatedly stated that I am referring to verifiable facts citable to historians. Indeed no one who opposes your position has ever said anything like what you are trying to put into my mouth here. The argument of your opponents in this matter is that we do not have to use articles that comment directly on the TV series itself. Many good, and many featured, articles footnote sources that are not directly about the topic, but about background and contextual material relevant to it. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't forget that this quote was moved into the "Historicity" section from the "Critical reception" section in response to your request that critics' comments about the historical accuracy of the series should be included in preference to verification from history books. Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My requests have always been that in this article about the TV show the minimum requirement is that the sources be talking about the TV show. Since there was such huge opposition even to that requirement, I had not even begun to address whether or not the sources that do actually deign to discuss the TV show have been used WP:UNDUE in appropriate manner or are of the quality level that we expect.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apology: I'd like to apologise to User:202.81.243.116 for implying in my edit summary that, in removing the original time stamp from his Summary above, he was trying to make it look as though he hadn't added to the summary a day after he began it. That comment was unworthy of me. Deb (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to comment here if I may. This seems to be rather simple. Should editors be allowed to mention historical differences between the fictional characters and situations of the series verses the historically documented information?

There are a few ways to look at this. As fiction, we are supposed to summarize the content without interpretation or analysis. The same is true with non-fiction. However, with historic docudramas I believe the community has allowed for notes to contain "explanations" of the major differences. Such explanations do not belong in the plot summary, but may contain explanatory notes to refer to. I have also seen separated sections on historical inaccuracies, but these do get challenged if not summarizing reliable sources. Generally, given time sources will begin to appear. However this show is very new and it is doubtful such sources may be found at this time. The article is not finished and I would assume no where near ready for a GA rating. For that reason editors still have the option of ignoring a policy if it improves the article and I am willing to support such an ignoring of the rules here as long as it doesn't lower the current rating and importance of the article. I would prefer notes and sources for analysis however. As a C class, low importance article...it doesn't seem as though it would do much harm to ignore a rule here and simply make note in the prose itself within the actual plot summary, however it does pose an issue when attempting to raise the rating above the C rating or for GA and FA. For that reason it is always best practice to just add explanatory notes and/or use create a section using RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding based on working with WP:FILM is that we generally do not include such lists of "differences" (differences from the novel, differences from historical fact, differences from earlier versions of the same film...the principle seems the same to me) unless sources took note of the differences. Wikipedia articles should not include trivia, and a list of differences that only Wikipedia editors took note of, IMO, falls afoul of that concept. How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Doniago, a project guide is not MOS or policy/guideline and cannot override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To what wider community consensus are you referring? DonIago (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference." No, absolutely not. Film reviewers will commonly pick up on matters of great triviality, because they are interested in entertaining readers as much as anything, so noting that actress X is wearing lipstick while playing a Neolithic peasant is typical of just the kind of thing that "third party sources" do comment on, along with "bloopers" and endless other examples of trivia. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Which may be the reason, Paul, that this Historicity section might not ought to exist at all. (Again, I'm speaking theoretically, not commenting on the actual section and sources.) The entire historicity issue, as I argue below in my note to Deb, is really only important enough to be in the article if it was significant to the notability of this show. That importance is not shown, in my opinion, by individual critics commenting about it, even if those critics' opinions are considered reliable sources for other reasons (and it could perhaps be mentioned in a criticism section). The historicity issue only rises to a sufficient level of importance to be independently discussed in the article if is is discussed as a topic itself in reliable sources, in my opinion. That is, the fact that critics A, B, and C mention or analyze or criticize it is not enough, there must be a third-party source D which says something like, "The historicity of the White Queen has been called into account by individuals X, Y, and Z." If no such source D exists, then the existence of a historicity section at all may be violation of the synthesis policy. I express no opinion about the actual section in the article, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're arguing that a critic mentioning a difference doesn't establish non-triviality for that difference, then it seems to me far less likely that a WP editor in general is in a position to state that a difference is non-trivial. I'm open to a discussion of what means we could use to establish such a difference short of relying on third-party sources though. DonIago (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should refer you to Wikipedia's definition of trivia: Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections. Deb (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Deb: I believe both of Red Pen's examples, above, would violate the synthesis policy. They both contain a comment about the show, followed by a historical comparison from a source which does not address the show. Under the synthesis policy, the historical material is inappropriate for the article because it intentionally invites the article reader to draw a conclusion about the show not made by a reliable source. SYN says, in so many words: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis added.) The implied conclusion in each of those examples is "therefore the show was historically inaccurate." To which, in any non-entertainment article, say one about dogs or buttons the reaction of Wikipedia should be so what? How is that historical inaccuracy relevant to Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the notability of that show? It is like including a "Biologisity" section in The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) describing the Munchkins and the winged monkeys and then quoting the Catalogue of Life to show that they never really existed. Does the fact that Munchkins and winged monkeys never really existed somehow make that film more notable or important? No. What makes the historicity issue at least marginally relevant to White Queen is that the show was criticized for it, at least to the extent that can be shown via reliable sources, not the fact that the show was actually inaccurate. Whether the critics were wrong or right is unimportant and the fact that people who read the article may wonder whether or not the critics were right or wrong is unimportant from the point of view of Wikipedia's mission, which is to describe — not analyze, but describe — the show through verifiable and reliable sources. Thus, it could not be plainer; indeed both of RedPen's examples are virtually identical to the first example given in SYN. There is no interpretation of SYN involved or needed. That being the case then you'll need a consensus, which you say that you have, to introduce the material into the article as a IAR local exception. Would you please say who supports that consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well - once again, I would refer you to the discussions that have taken place on other talk pages, which would give you the answer to your question. I do not think it's possible to come to a fair assessment of what has caused this dispute without doing so, and I'm disappointed that you are trying to "adjudicate" here rather than trying to resolve the dispute. It is essential to read the section on Historicity in total in order to assess whether it belongs in the article. As User:Mark Miller points out above, listing differences between historical fact and the adaptation (and note that some of these differences are introduced in the adaptation rather than in the novels on which it is based) could still be relevant to a historical drama even if everyone agreed on what constitutes "trivia" in the context of an action film. Also, if you were familiar with the reputation of Philippa Gregory, who is a somewhat controversial figure in UK history circles (especially at the moment, with the increased interest in this period because of the discovery of the remains of Richard III), you would recognise that the mere inclusion of this section has been seized upon by the anonymous contributor involved in the dispute as evidence that I have a personal interest in destroying her claim to historical accuracy in her fiction. Just as he openly questions my motives, so I may question whether he is really viewing this dispute from an impartial standpoint. My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical "accuracy" displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction. At the same time, I am not writing an essay on the topic of historical fiction or the art of screenwriting, and I have taken on board some of the less hypercritical points made by RedPen and had acted on these long before the debate reached this page; he has made it clear he is not interested in compromise, only in the enforcement of his own black-and-white view. The wikilawyering that has gone on over this issue is positively shocking, and is in danger of forcing two groups of contributors into entrenched positions. Deb (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to my colleague, Mark Miller, I disagree. While I'm so-so (for reasons too complicated to go into here) about over-vigorously removing longstanding material from Wikipedia which does not conform to policy on the basis of the "no real harm" argument article, I do not believe that nonconforming material should ever be knowingly introduced without a showing that it benefits the encyclopedia more than adherence to the rules do. To do so weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and unreliability are what cause harm. Properly footnoted and accurate information is what gives credibility to the encyclopedia. The irony is that the interpretation insisted on by Red Pen and preferred by youself actually encourages the trivialisation of article content in this area, because articles will be written on the basis of what TV reviewers say about shiny teeth and seeing zips in fake-medieval dresses, along with their often garbled ideas of what "medieval" life was like based on populist assumptions. That's what "weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm", not the position adopted by Deb and myself. What we should be basing our content on is the work of serious historians of the era, giving readers a sense of what they say about the topic. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Your analogy with Munchkins is frankly utterly silly. No-one over the age of 5 ever believed they were real, so writers do not need to explain that they are not any more than they have to do so with other blatantly fictional creatures. That's the job of parents talking to their children, not scholarship. Departures from historical fact in historical drama and literature are, in contrast, a standard topic of debate both among viwers and in scholarly literature on popular and dramatic reworkings of history. If you are not aware of the huge body of literature on this issue and its significance to understanding the way history is continually reinterpreted, you have no grasp of this issue at all. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree that if a serious historian of the era has noticed an issue with White Queen then that would be appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people consider Philippa Gregory to be a serious historian. Not to make light of your comment, though, Michael Hicks is among the critics quoted in the section. Deb (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

and your historians view? "'[ http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen As with Philippa Gregory's source novels, they've done their research]" the historian seems to be OK with the "historicity". if we bring in the giving appropriate weight to the views of the academic mainstream on top of the WP:SYN, i really dont see how ignoring the rules is going to help improve the encyclopedia, which is the requirement for doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you over and over and over, no one is advocating "ignoring the rules". The debate is about how they are best interpreted for the benefit of the project. Your link is so utterly irrelevant to the issues under discussion that I really wonder whether you are even hearing what is being said. This is not a matter of giving the show marks out of ten for accuracy. It's about noting instances of departures from fact. Such departures may be done for a whole host of sensible reasons. In The Tudors the names of some characters were changed simply to avoid having too many people with the same name which might confuse viewers. In Inglourious Basterds the whole of the Nazi leadership is killed in a Parisian cinema. We know, of course, that that's not an "error" on Tarantino's part. You seem to think this is about giving our stars for historical accuracy. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"noting instances of departures from fact", if the noter is a WP editor, is WP:SYN. It's not notable that a work of fiction departs from fact anyway, and listing all the tiny ways it does is purely a parlour game. IMDB welcomes that kind of stuff, Wikipedia does not. 202.81.243.116 (talk)

You can repeat that over and over until you are blue in the face, but repeating it dogmatically does not make it any truer. You have been given many reasons why your interpretation is disputed. Just failing to a acknowledge legitimate disagreement by repeating the same mantras incessantly is not helpful. You comment on goofs again demonstrates that you have not understood, or perhaps even read, the points made. The project is harmed by editors who prefer to diminish articles to affirm their dogmas. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge your disagreement; that is obvious since I have disputed it in detail. I understand what you want to do. You think you have a special dispensation to ignore policies because you have to tell everyone about some error you saw. You don't. "Historical errors" in a drama are no more than goofs. The article is diminished by that trivial point scoring. Really, submit it to IMDB. That's the "project" where it belongs. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deb said, "My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical 'accuracy' displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction." As I commented above, the "concentration" is not relevant to this article unless someone in a reliable source commented on that concentration. We do not get to observe that there were a lot of people saying something about a topic here and then count heads and say "many people believe". While the interpretation of history in a work of fiction may be a serious matter, it's not a serious matter for purposes of this show unless someone in a reliable source says that it is. As for wikilawyering, wikilawyering is the misapplication of policy to obtain a result not intended by that policy, not merely the recitation of policy in the way it is intended or advocating for one reasonable interpretation of policy over another. I've seen nothing here that I can clearly identify as wikilawyering. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I be frank, TM? You're not actually doing anything to help achieve a resolution to this dispute; all you're doing is adding fuel to the fire. If you have an interest in resolving it, then please go and read the discussions before making any further comments. If, on the other hand, you're here because you consider yourself to be some kind of legal expert, carry on arguing but please don't expect anyone to take any notice, because I don't actually agree with a single thing that you said in the above paragraph. There is no such thing as an expert on wikipedia policy and guidelines, and this is because they are created by consensus, a consensus of human beings. Just like actual laws, they are open to interpretation and liable to be imperfect, as indeed we all are. Deb (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what TransporterMan disagrees with me on, but I will use this analogy: Where exactly was Caesar murdered? Interesting question. Many would assume he was murdered in the senate house or the capitol from the varying productions starting with Shakespeare. Well, we do mention that Caesar was actually murdered in the meeting hall of the Theatre of Pompey and in stating this fact in the article about the production, we clarify an important encyclopedic bit of information. I do not see it as trivia or trivial. It all depends on the differences. We need not mention that the time period between when the Bad Queen landed and when she was captured was not accurate but we may want to clarify some more important points, and this is actually common in many docudrama articles. I do not see this as being against policy when done in the proper manner. In fact I believe some freedom is given summarizing some content. Let me look into that.

In trying to decide which direction to take or which to exclude we do need to verify actual MOS, guidelines and policy are adhered to, but if there is nothing that strictly rules it out and consensus cannot be determined.....editors are going to need to work together and come up with some compromise to move forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. MOS seems clear:

Real-world perspective (see WP:Real world)

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include:

• Careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
• Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)
• The presentation of fictional material
  • particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects
  • for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique
• Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
• Making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real-world perspective. However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles.

and in the exemplary articles the "real world perspectives" are brought in by third parties discussing the work and its impact and creation, not by Wikipedia editors doing so or making implications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that "real world perspective" means details of how the show was produced in the "real world". The actors, not the characters; the sets, not the places depicted, etc. Actually, analysing the events in the show as if they were real history is doing the opposite: applying "in-universe perspective", which is discouraged by MOS. And in any case, no one was saying that a "Historicity" section was impermissible per se, only that the current one violated WP:OR in the majority of its entries. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Having now been chastised at least twice by Deb for having not read the talk pages, I've now gone back and done so. Some observations:

• Nothing I've read significantly changes my opinion about anything I've said above, except that my comment at 19:39, 18 September about the historicity section as a whole (as opposed to the "show-said history-says" additional examples in that section) is more clearly off-topic than I thought.
• I see that my comments about the additional examples really only repeat the positions already taken by the opponents of the edits represented by Red Pen's examples.
• I did note that in the comments made at the NORN noticeboard and NOR talk page that everyone who weighed in who was not already involved in this dispute did so with the position that the current SYN rule prohibits this kind of material. Some (John Carter, Luke Warmwater101, perhaps Dougweller) were at least to some degree sympathetic to the idea of modifying the rule so as to allow them, but others (Masem, Someguy1221) were less friendly to such a modification. What was not there, outside the editors involved in this particular dispute, was any support for the idea that the proposed material does not violate SYN as it now stands.

"If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being 'sythesised'. It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year."

The problem is that in this particular case that assertion has been challenged by the assertion of SYN and the rule under the verifiability policy is "challenged or likely to be challenged," not just "likely to be challenged." There has been quite a bit of discussion over at the verifiability policy talk page through the years about whether an editor must justify a challenge in order to remove an unsourced assertion. The conclusion has always been, though many editors have not been happy with that conclusion, that justification is not necessary. Paul's argument can only then become the assertion that such a challenge cannot have been made in good faith, but policy requires us to assume good faith and that requirement is one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason, that a justification requirement for challenges has always been rejected.

Still, in a case like this where there is no reasonably possible doubt that the assertion is accurate and true, the fact that an unjustified objection is enough always feels very thin and unsatisfactory and wikilawyerish, but examined in that light the bare objection is indeed enough. It is not a matter of interpretation or wikilawyering, but, instead, years of discussion at V has established the right to make the unjustified objection.

Dispute resolution volunteers are not free to negotiate whatever compromise which will settle a dispute. We can only assist reaching those compromises which are in the best interest of the encyclopedia or, at the very least, those which are not against its best interest. In this case, the established consensus of the community in the form of the verifiability policy, as particularized in the synthesis section of the no original research policy, leaves no room for a compromise which would allow the additional examples of non-historicity to be included except through an IAR local exception derived through consensus. If the proponents of the material believe that such a consensus already exists, they may apply for a consensus evaluation through the administrator's noticeboard. If they are less than certain about that outcome — as they should be, in my opinion — they may file a RFC at the article talk page to try to confirm such a consensus or simply continue discussion there toward that end. Either way, it must be bourne in mind that verifiability is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee, and I believe that there is a further and substantial discussion about undue weight which must follow even if they should succeed in obtaining a local exception against SYN. It might be well to combine both issues into an RFC.

Unless the disputants want assistance from DRN in negotiating the terms of such an RFC, however, I cannot see any further reason to continue discussion here and feel that this listing should be closed as resolved against the inclusion of the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I too feel that the listing should be closed, as it has been a complete waste of time. However, there is no justification whatever for your statement that it is in any way resolved. You state that "that assertion has been challenged". No, the assertion has not been challenged at all; it is merely the inclusion of that assertion in the article that has been challenged. I am very surprised that you can't see the difference. Perhaps it is due to your relative inexperience as an editor of articles. Deb (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, perhaps I did not say it clearly enough, but that is exactly what is challenged in a verifiability challenge: the inclusion of an unsourced assertion in an article. The substance of a challenge is that the assertion in the article cannot be sourced through a reliable source, not that the assertion is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, because the purpose of the verifiability policy is to avoid discussion about those matters. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The example "If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate" is bogus, in the same way as "Caesar on a moped", mentioned earlier. Important, blatant, anachronisms ARE noted by reviewers. They will be citable without WP:SYN. Here is a real example, not a made-up one: Ip_Man_(film)#Historical_accuracy: a film with many completely made-up events. The article notes these, without synthesis, simply by quoting a reviewer. Those who want to confirm that errors are "factual" as well as verifiable can easily do so by looking at the linked articles on the real history of the period. That's how it can and should be done, without any need to ignore existing WP:OR policy. Instead of looking at fake examples, look at the actual "inaccuracies" that this is about. A minor character (Jane Shore) is portrayed as several years younger than she should be. Other secondary characters were in the wrong place. A plain has too many trees. Most absurdly, "Baron Rivers ... and Anthony ..., a real life sophisticate, appear naïve, even a little crass"? How a critique of an actor's style relates to "Historicity", I don't know, but any objection is swiftly reverted. This is fiction, drama, not a documentary. These quibbles aren't notable and certainly not notable enough to justify making the "Historicity" section larger than any other section of the article, and of course, ignoring WP:SYN to do so. This is a group of WP editors saying "The writers of the show made a bunch of mistakes that only we noticed, and we're going to list every single one", and that section is now the focus of the article. This sets a terrible precedent. Every editor who notices a character with the wrong coloured hair will feel empowered to add it to the list. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

given that there does not appear to be any consensus that by ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia by the inclusion of of the two examples above, i have removed them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

and since they were immediately reinserted by an editor who did not participate here with an edit summary that declared that the discussion was not settled, I have taken TransporterMan's advice for the next steps and opened an RfC on the SYN and UNDUE issues. I guess we are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 21 September 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.

Summary of dispute by Ryulong

I simply think that they should be capitalized as they are unique to the work of fiction. If its officially capitalized we should not rely on 4 English language academic papers to define how we format the words "Death Note" and "Shinigami (Eyes)" within the context of the work of fiction.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robsinden

I came to this somewhat impartially, to try to break the deadlock but I am unfamiliar with the source material - However, as an outsider I think the terms in question are probably proper names in the context, and thus should be capitalised, but willing to be proved wrong. "Death Note" is more of an clear case that "shinigami" mind you. One thing I will say is that we should not be following the outside sources for style - this is why we have a MOS. "Shinigami" should probably be italicised as it isn't a loan word though, especially if it isn't treated as a proper name. I have sympathy for both of the editors involved - it is a little difficult to know what to do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question discussion

This is not an easy answer because the official English manga is written in an "all caps" format and secondly, the introduction of the "death note" is given a proper noun by context as the "THE DEATH NOTE... IS THE BOND BETWEEN LIGHT THE HUMAN AND RYUK THE SHINIGAMI." Is that a proper sentence? Doubtful, but the context of "the" versus "a" is pretty clear. The usage is consistently a proper noun despite numerous "Death Notes" existing at once, while it is a macguffin, it is used in a context as a proper noun and should remain one. Swap the term with "Gun" and you arrive at the same place, but the proof comes from the scripts themselves, even the earliest draft (nod to Gwern) shows explicit proper noun usage. Also, proper nouns can be both capitalized and plural, given that no item bears the same name and is not "common" the word should remain capitalized. Many "Enterprises" exist, real and fictional, but "A Enterprise" or "The Enterprise" can be both proper nouns owing to its identification. As silly as it seems, a "Death Note" is a proper noun because its identification is not "death" and "note", but "a Death Note" and its later usage as "the/a notebook/s" is indicative of the former's status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a slap in the face. I was hoping the uncapitalised peer-reviewed sources would carry the day, but it seems not. I do appreciate your help, though - that spat at MOS can't have been fun to wade through. Any input on "shinigami" so we can get this wrapped up? Vashti (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The usage in the official materials often wins the day, but in Death Note's case Shinigami is defined as a race and imply capitalization like "Chinese" or "Arabic" or "Korean". They may be shinigami, but the race is Shinigami. In the official materials, the choice for the author's notes is "Shinigami" not shinigami. All of this can be found in Death Note: How to Read 13 . With that being said if it doesn't sit right with you, make a note about the names and explain to the reader why the words are capitalized as a footnote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. I'll follow your advice. I do regret this decision, though, as I genuinely feel this call is going to make the pages awkward to read and unencyclopaedic in tone. Vashti (talk) 18:30, 18 September 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.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

You could have waited a bit longer for discussion to develop on the talk page. I see that Binksternet has now responded with basically the same reference to concerns about WP:UNDUE as I had. The party in question is attracting a lot of promotional contributions and several experienced editors are regularly having to amend the excesses. If and when the official list of candidates is published then we can insert all of the names for all of the parties. Until then, adding info for just the one party is undue and it should be noted that even their list is incomplete and all proposed candidates are subject to scrutiny via the affidavit system prior to the election, ie: it is far from settled. We are not a news website and there is no urgency here. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping the claim of violation of WP:POLITICIAN made on 09:12, 22 September 2013 while reverting the edit history & many more thanks for using a sober language while responding back. Your point relating to 'proposed candidates are subject to scrutiny via the affidavit system prior to the election' is perfectly valid. It is noted down & therefore I withdraw my support to candidate list inclusion at this juncture. We can add it later when major parties have declared their candidates.--ratastro (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Iamgauravkumar

Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Saddhiyama

To keep it short, Justicejayants massive edit was a mess of unattributed copypasting from other articles (including unidentifiable citations only stating author surname and pagenumbers), undue weight and WP:SYNTH. I am not sure which "3 suggestions" that JJ has accepted, because I made several (as can be seen from the talk page) and I have yet to read a response from JJ adressing or even acknowledging any of the issues I raised. The standard reply from them seems to be "it is a legitimate edit" and nothing further beyond that. It is btw funny that you mention the Volney-issue. I vaguely recall discussing that particular author in a similar edit in connection to another article some time ago, I forget which article it was, but I assume it was the article from which JJ copypasted that particular segment. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism and other religions discussion

Once again Saddhiyama, the article is simply not "copy pasted", because it's original, not a duplicate article. You figured out 1 book source of Mary Boyce, and i had given the title of his book at talk page, but still you didn't agreed about the edits. But now it seems like you didn't read it, or you are in denial. The 3 suggestions of you, were related with income, a quote of Zaehner, it already clears that there's no more WP:SYNTH in the page, and the last one, the quote of Kushwant Singh. None of the theories of "Volney" are refuted, or he's disrespected that his arguement can't be counted, his references has been used in over 110 articles of wikipedia, which speaks enough, but if you still have issue, you can bring the sources that would prove the his theories wrong in the sense that he never wrote them, that may work instead, not any unknown claims "i forgot which article" that you just made. Justicejayant (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit most certainly does contain numerous parts copypasted from other Wikipedia articles, you have yourself admitted as much (though most likely much less than the actual truth). That you provide the titles of the sources mentioned in the copypasted cites does not remedy the situation of the copypasting itself in anyway. I think you should once more read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which I provided on the talk page.

And no, Volneys theories are certainly not representative of contemporary scholarship on comparative religious studies, and it really doesn't matter whether he is used in "110 articles in Wikipedia" (though I would very much like to see that list) as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. But again, we have been over this some time ago on some other article, which you could perhaps be so kind as to point out, with regards to investigating the extent of the copypasting going on. I can't check the amount of synth still present, since I have problems identifying many of the citations. You linked a book by one Shalomim Y. Halahawi, which is a self-published book and thus not a reliable source (and the claims made in that book so outlandish that it is obviously WP:FRINGE).

You have yet to provide identification of the "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110", instead you provided yet another copypasted citation (""Dundas, Paul: The Jains, second edition, London 2002, p. 160; Wiley, Kristi L.: Ahimsa and Compassion in Jainism, in: Studies in Jaina History and Culture, ed. Peter Flügel, London 2006, p. 438; Laidlaw pp. 153–154.") from God knows which article containing a repetition of one of the unidentified sources ("Laidlaw"). I am really amazed at the lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and the aforementioned copyright policies going on here considering that you should by know have had plenty of time and opportunity to familiarise yourself with them, not least when they were pointed out to you during your many disputes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are repeating same nonsense now, and wasting time. Because you have already failed to proved that the article is copy pasted or not. So it's not even a point, go on calling any article "copy paste" and never show the real article, what type of gibberish that is?

Simply you just said that you don't like Volney, so he should not be added, but point is, that's a childish argument. You can use the search bar of the wikipedia anytime to know, that how many refs mention Volney and his literature. And in fact there are number of reliable sources, that certainly says the same thing as he did. So what's your point now? As about the self published book, instead of criticizing source, you can better try to figure out that how common the info is, as the same information can be backed by multiple sources, , and especially , . And these are reliable source, not self - published either.

WP:FRINGE can't be applied either, because WP:FRINGE would be when some claim has been made which is just opposite or 100% different compared to the official statement(for eg. 9/11 inside job). Here, nothing is official or prove any of the statement of these known writers, such as Osho, Steven Rosen, and others to be incorrect, as they only wrote the similarities.(similar to china and japan are asian countries)

As for the source, how it's a "copy pasted citation"? And how it's violating the policies? You can definitely find alternative sources, and the same information that the book of Laidlaw, Jindal, Tahtinen is backed by numerous sources, . Your attempt clearly shows, that if you read some fact like "Washington D.C. is capital of USA", you would simply blank the whole summary, just because you don't like the source, instead, you can add the better source, or just use common sense. Justicejayant (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That reply pretty much speaks for itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How? Well, you hardly know about these matters like it can be seen and it's hard to assume that you are having any good faith, as you remove the content(almost 80% content), about which you never even discussed. Justicejayant (talk) 05:50, 21 September 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.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

Summary of dispute by Maunus

Summary of dispute by Aurorian

Summary of dispute by Pectore

Summary of dispute by Gmcssb

Narendra Modi 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.

Iggy Pintado discussion

I know that normally we wait for a volunteer to open, but I want to jump in here quickly. Kerry, I see that your name has already been removed from the article; I've actually gone in and removed the entire section it was in, because it didn't have any sources. However, the reason why nothing happened earlier is because Iggy Pintado has nothing whatsoever to do with that page; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by volunteers, and the subjects of articles we write usually have no connection to them (and, actually can't exert any special influence over them anyway). In any event, what will/should go into the article depends strictly on what we can verify in reliable sources; since I saw no source for your name or anything else about his family I've removed it.

To the relevant DRN volunteer, it would be nice if this were kept up for a little bit (a couple of days, or until the OP replies again), even though it's malformatted; the initiator did so on an IP, and it's the only edit that IP has ever made, so I'm expecting that if they check back for an update, they'll do so here first (I hope). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on the IP's talk page (if they come back) with a link to WP:AUTOPROB; and I have the article on my watchlist as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 24 September 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.

Summary of dispute by Markblohm

Summary of dispute by leeweijoo

The Shaolin Wahnam Institute Page should be given a chance to be edited to meet Wikipedia's standards instead of getting deleted or redirected straightaway without constructive input from all parties involved. Leeweijoo (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jmcw37

Summary of dispute by PRehse

The history of the discussion and reasons for the AfD are clearly given in both AfD discussions as was the reason for the blocking (by an administrator). The case for notability is clearly not being made and that is the primary reason (not the lack of secondary sources). The fact that other articles do not have enough secondary sources is their own problem and has no bearing on this discussion. The discussion should remain in the AfD where a consensus from the overall community is becoming clear.

I would also add that quite a bit of help as gone into improving the standard of the article (please go back in its history) but the underlying issue remains. The school in no way operates at the significance of any of the examples listed above (ie. Kendo and Judo).Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Shaolin Wahnam_Institute discussion

As a side note this seems premature and not likely to be able to "resolve" anything as we are 6 days into an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute (2nd nomination) which seems likely to end in a delete or redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that the editor bringing this here and 2 of the other parties are WP:SPAs, 2, including this editor, with very few edits, the third being the creator of this article. Outside canvassing has been a problem here, see . Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As above, there is nothing to mediate here. Off-WP canvassing resulted in the AFD being semi-protected. The initial redirecting was being done per consensus from a prior discussion. The rest is WP:OSE. Stalwart111 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has no remit to "resolve" differences in opinion on an AfD, which should be allowed to run its course. I suggest that it is been brought here because the editors are afraid the article will be deleted again by a consensus of editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 27 September 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.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

Too early for DRN. First there should be a WP:Request for comment held on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nihil novi

I concur with Binksternet (please see above). Nihil novi (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Future Perfect at Sunrise

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. This may take some extra time, because the case was filed with a nonexistent name listed. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, here is a list of previous interactions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=572168878#Hello_from_Keeby.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=572471517#I_have_a_question.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&oldid=570134061#Would_you_be_interested_in_addressing_this.3F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_list_article_that_you_deleted_a_month_back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#My_final_attempt_at_reviving_an_article_before_I_officially_move_on_to_others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#Diving_into_the_paleontology_articles_soon_and_thinking_of_reviving_my_first_article_under_a_different_name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#Your_list_article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#My_final_attempt_at_reviving_an_article_before_I_officially_move_on_to_others.
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours, so I am opening this up for discussion with whoever is here. It is possible to resolve a dispute without everyone involved participating.

Keeby101, I have a homework assignment for you. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive and write up answers to the following questions:

How many editors thought it should be kept?

How many editors thought it should be deleted?

What was the best argument for retaining it?

What was the best argument for deleting it?

What, exactly, would List of species rumored/believed to still be alive do for our readers that List of cryptids isn't already doing?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone still participating, or should I close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still here! Sorry if it's been a while. I haven't had time to respond to anyone lately because I have been really busy. Allow me to give you the information that I have gathered:

12 editors voted to delete it.

3 voted to keep it.

Best argument for deleting it was from IRWolfie and Kansas Bear when they said "Pure rumour mill and of no encyclopedic value. Sources are rubbish." and "Besides being an obvious POV fork, this is just another "list" article made up of personal blogs[1][2], opinions(ie. deadlinks) or no sources at all(ie. Glaucous Macaw). No, this is not how you create an article!"

Best argument for keeping it was from JOJ Hutton and jbignell when they said "To add this list under List of Cryptids would take away the science behind the intent of this article. I do think it needs a new title and a focus description of what this list is and the goal of the article." and "This is a very interesting and long needed topic. Its cited. And describing rumors that are cited is not taboo on Wikipedia. Seems to work on other articles, why not this one?"

What jbignell and JOJ Hutton said was exactly what List of species rumored/believed to still be alive would do for readers that List of cryptids is not already doing.

List of Cryptids has mythological creatures as well as creatures such as the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp.

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive takes a much more realistic tone and focuses solely on animals that have actually existed at a certain point in time and lists those very species that could very well still exist today.

As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive:

No one take cryptids seriously! Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists.

So there you have it! Keeby101 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is something the dispute resolution noticeboard can help with - the deleting admin doesn't take sides on things like this, just evaluates the consensus of editors. I would recommend asking if they will undelete the page and move it your userspace so you can work on it a bit more. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:11, 29 September 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.

Summary of dispute by PantherLeapord

I saw Neo's continued edit warring after the ANI thread and decided to stay out of it until this revert which to me demonstrated a continuing WP:IDHT problem that ultimately led to Neo's 24 hour block and will lead to more blocks unless they stop edit warring. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Seric2

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Summary of dispute by Kintetsubuffalo

Neo just keeps bloating the article and inserting his own POV, and what now six other editors say about it be damned, he's going to get his way because the rest of us are somehow not as smart as he is. I would support a complete topic ban of Neo until he cleans up his act.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Neo's edits here and on Commons, ownership issues aside, it looks like there is a real feeling of persecution for him. Nobody really is, but to shoehorn him into compliance is going to take a lot of work, and be very painful for him. I just had a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenians_in_Cyprus and just with renames and the fact that most images are clearly not his work (though they may well be in his collection), this is going to be a long process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ishdarian

Armenians in Cyprus discussion

I sincerely believe that instead of just 2-3 lines regarding the monuments, the churches and the schools, the basic minimum (a small paragraph for each) should be there. Anyone who is interested for more, can go to the main articles. However, some users disagree. Neo ^ (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a small clarification and a small expansion on another section (none of which are disputed) and immediately one user (PantherLeapord) reverted my changes, stating "STOP trying to put in your POV edits that were rejected already!". He didn't even bother to see what they were about and, as I repeat, they have nothing to do with the disputed sections. I think this is harassment, plainly telling me "no more editing the article"... Neo ^ (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even factual corrections are not liked by certain users, such as PantherLeapord. THis has become ridiculous. Please someone fix it. Neo ^ (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• With Neo^ indef blocked, I think we're done here. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:57, 1 October 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.

Summary of dispute by No such user

The issue is not just on Novi Sad article, but on any article of Category:Municipalities and cities of Vojvodina, where Adrian was bold to add {{Location map Vojvodina}}, created by himself. Take, as an extreme example, article Ada, Serbia: the infobox starts with a tall image, then pushpin map of Serbia, then pushpin map of Vojvodina, then come the contents. This is contrary to any usability guideline; imagine a poor reader on a mobile device who opened the article just to examine basic data (the purpose of infobox), and ended up scrolling four screens down. Not any piece of information on the topic is worth including, and particularly not if it is already presented in a slightly different manner. We are currently having an arbitration case on infoboxes, due to the dispute where some editors tried to impose infoboxes into articles whose primary authors didn't want them. I don't reject the infobox, I only reject two near-identical maps in it, which just produce visual clutter, and I particularly reject the arguments that it's needed because "everyone does it". I haven't seen, like any other editor but Adrian at Talk:Novi Sad#Vojvodina pushpin map, any added value in that template, and I have a strong sense that Adrian pushes that template recklessly into articles just because it is a creation of his. Thanks, I believe in your good intentions, but it is superfluous.No such user (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad discussion

Please bare in mind that users opening wikipedia by a mobile device open a specially optimized version of the wikipedia that is optimized for phones, tablets...etc.... so this argument doesn`t really apply in this case. Adrian (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Closing as this has gone quiet on the talk page. For what it's worth, I would suggest keeping just one of the maps, three that show very similar info is probably not needed. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:01, 2 October 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.

Summary of dispute by TippyGoomba

Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations discussion

Hi I am Flat Out and a volunteer here at DRN. I have reviewed the article talk discussion, and it seems that this dispute is essentially about (a) the quality of a source that links fluoridated water to adverse outcomes and (b) the weight given to that source. From a review of the talk discussion and the source being discussed it would appear that the source is in fact not a systematic review (Fails WP:RSMED) and to include it in support of adverse effects of fluoridation would be giving it undue weight. Can the parties please respond to this summary of the issues to make sure I'm not missing something. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am involved in the content discussion at the article Talk page. Would it be too late to add myself as an involved editor? Zad68 15:10, 30 September 2013

Which citation were you refering to, when you said that it was not a systematic study? Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Claudevsq

List of current world boxing champions discussion

It looks like there has been a little bit of discussion between you over the past few days. Please let me know how things are going - I'll pop in to their talk page and encourage them to comment here tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately "a little bit of discussion" is barely the case. There has been no discussion whatsoever—1, 2—but rather a whole lot of reverts sans edits summaries, including reverting the edits of another user who tried to help out. As it stands, User:Claudevsq's edition of the article remains rife with inconsistencies and pointless redirects. Sergio Martínez is not widely known as Sergio Gabriel Martínez (neither mainstream boxing press nor the article title itself uses his middle name), nor has Oscar De La Hoya ever been referred to as Óscar De La Hoya (with an accent). The way User:Claudevsq insists on labelling them is flat out inaccurate, and refusing to discuss it is unconstructive. Furthermore, having both international flagicons—{{DEU}} rather than {{GER}}—and English language flagicons—{{GBR}}—together in the same article creates needless syntax inconsistencies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As the other editor hasn't come and commented them, I've sent them a reminder. Let's see if we can get this going. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:27, 29 September 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.

Summary of dispute by TParis

After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.

Summary of dispute by Goethean

It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.

The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....

...

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:

This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....

The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.

A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.

The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arzel

There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.

McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".

This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.

I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DD2K

RealClearPolitics discussion

• Any volunteers yet? We're all reasonable people, there hasn't been any name calling by the parties, this should be an easy case.--v/r - TP 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, I'll take this one on. I'll need to look over things and comment in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, did you ever get a change to review this?--v/r - TP 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bumping again so this isn't closed, we still need this addressed.--v/r - TP 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, this week was flat out. I'll comment in the morning. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I've had a read of the talk page and think I have a clearer understanding of the situation. Can someone please send me a copy of the source ""Conservative Spotlight: Real Clear Politics". Human Events 59 (11): 16.". Thanks. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. — goethean 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will read over it and comment tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• @TParis:, @Goethean: (and please notify others), sorry for the delay. Thanks for sending it through. From what I gather, the dispute is whether to call RealClearPolitics "conservative" based on a quote from the source, which says "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." Now, looking at this, if this is the sole basis for referring to RealClearPolitics as "conservative", I wouldn't. I would consider Having a frustration that all conservatives have is not saying we are conservative. I agree with TParis, for us to write that the subject of the article is conservative requires us to infer the meaning of their statement, which is indeed original research. I would ask the participants here to consider the value of this addition, and if there are any other sources where the subject, or others describe RealClearPolitics as conservative, but until that time, it shouldn't go in. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the question is whether the founders can be referred to as conservatives. — goethean 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request for clarification, I won't bicker about it. @Steven Zhang:?--v/r - TP 12:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. My comments still stand though. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: So does that mean the founders can or cannot be described as conservatives?--v/r - TP 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Should not. It's not clear enough from the source. Steven Zhang (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Steven is correct -- I have placed some additional sources on the article's talkpage which support the stance that 'conservative' is an imprecise label for the founders of RCP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Closing. I think we are done here. A compromise can be discussed on the talk page, but based on more than the provided source. Cheers, Steven Zhang (talk) 06:15, 12 October 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.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

Placeholder: apologies but I did not get notified of this thread & have only just spotted the notification on another contributor's talk page. I'll replace this placeholder with a comment tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving my note above in situ because it is apparent to me that the notification bot is not working properly, eg: I was named in a recent report for Narendra Modi which was closed as "stale" when it got no responses at all. Like here, I got no notification.

Regarding this case, I agree with the comments made by Qwyrxian. I further note in relation to Ashwin's opinion that we do not record things that might become significant and then remove them if it turns out not to be in a couple of months' time. For fairly obvious reasons - people's movement, new political party, elections in a couple of months - the article is at present subject to a lot of almost-messianic and usually policy-naive promotional contributions. The party has four main agenda items per its own website and those are covered, along with brief mentions of some of the many other protest pies that it is involved with. If we begin expanding on one particular campaign then we'll have to expand on all the others to avoid imbalance: that is unfeasible and will ultimately mostly be trivial, bearing in mind that the party intends to publish 70 separate constituency manifestos in the coming weeks.

If an issue becomes a part of the post-election psephological analysis then we can include it at that time; until then, we need to be careful not to become a soapbox, especially for an organisation that seems basically to be trying to stand on as many diverse soapboxes as this. Finally, it should be noted that protests and legal applications are two-a-penny in India: most are vociferous, most get some headline-type impact initially and most ultimately fizzle out or are overturned/bogged down in a notoriously slow appeals process. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Binskternet

Like Qwyrxian, I believe that the conservative path is the best for this article. If and when the election results are analyzed such that the erickshaw issue is seen as having been important, we can tell this to the reader. Before the election it is too soon to know. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian

In policy terms, the dispute revolves around WP:UNDUE. Myself and others hold that this protest in question is of a limited duration, and no lasting effects from the protest on either India or the political party in question have been (yet) demonstrated. It is certainly possible that this event will have a lasting effect, but our long-term, encyclopedic approach (encapsulated in WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) is that we need to know first that the event is of lasting significance to give more than passing coverage in the article. Should there turn out to be long term significance (say if a political scientist dubs AAP's connection to the protest a major factor in their polling results, whatever those are), then we would definitely expand the coverage. But until that happens, I (and others) want to take the conservative route, and believe that is what our policies ask of us. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rayabhari

Summary of dispute by RouLong

Summary of dispute by Ashwin147

I would go with version B, but better phrased and slightly shortened. In the next couple of months as Delhi goes to the polls, the rickshaw issue could have an impact and I assume people looking at the article in the meanwhile would like greater details on AAP and its stance than a couple of one liners about these. In the longer run, as the article evolves if the detailing seems unnecessary, it should get edited out.

Aam Aadmi Party discussion

These are not at all election issues. Election issues are those for which parties put forth their action plan/intentions if they come to power/win elections.

Issue related to ban on Advertisement (June 2013) on auto rickshaws was protested & contested in Delhi High Court by Aam Aadmi Party. Based on the argument, Delhi High Court put a stay on the ban & government has not appealed against High Court order. So In short, this issue was taken to logical conclusion by Aam Aadmi Party.

Issue related to battery operated rickshaws (September 2013) was supported by Aam Aadmi Party. They not only asked government to draft a proper policy but also asked government to give subsidy on its purchase. Till this moment, government was hostile towards e-rickshaws & also banned sale of e-rickshaws in capital(Delhi) a month ago. However post these protests, Delhi Chief Minister constituted the committee to review the situation & asked it to come up with guidelines. So again, Aam Aadmi Party was a catalyst in bringing change in Government's attitude.

So in my opinion these two protests show 1) Work Done by Aam Aadmi Party & 2) views of Aam Aadmi Party & hence warrant inclusion in this article.--ratastro (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Qwyrxian has hit it right on the head; undue weight is the issue here, and upholding neutral point of view is critical. If the impact of the protests is shown later down the road, then it can potentially be expanded, but for now, keep things as brief as possible, so I'd recommend to go with option one. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• • @ Steven Zhang: Thanks for taking this issue up as volunteer. I do not think that Option Two will make it WP:UNDUE. Aam Aadmi Party has conducted many protests. But only few of which have been contested at High Court. And only above two cases, party was instrumental in taking issues at its logical conclusion. Moreover no other party assisted Aam Aadmi Party in this. So how can this issue be WP:UNDUE? Also the article we are discussing is Aam Aadmi Party so how is not including these two protests in the article justified?--ratastro (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can't really add much to what Qwyrxian said. I'd just be regurgitating his words, to be honest. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Putting a 24 hour notice on this one. Steven Zhang (talk) 10:06, 6 October 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.

Summary of dispute by Virgosky

There is only one source that suggests Carole Middleton is the direct descendent of King Edward IV. There are no other sources to back the claim. The statement 'possible descendent' is not POV as every article which discusses the Duchess of Cambridge in relation to her Fairfax ancestry states 'possible descendent'. I am only suggesting that we find more sources and until then the question of it should be noted. I removed the user warning from my talk page because if both parties are guilty of an edit war why would only one receive the warning? Should not both users? I hardly think that the way to resolve a dispute between two users is to give edit warnings to those you disagree with. Apparently, HelenOnline sees it differently. Virgosky (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FactStraight

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I've looked at the content issue in question (we do not discuss conduct here at DRN) and I'm afraid that I cannot agree with either side. One side wants to qualify the material from the Child article with "possible" and "further research is needed" comments, the other does not, but the actual problem is that the material is inappropriate because it is not from a reliable source and should not be included, whether qualified or unqualified, at all. Reliable sources are, per the verifiability policy: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While American Ancestors may (or may not) be a respected journal from a prestigious society, per its own terms and conditions it does not vouch for the accuracy of its articles. On page 4 of the issue where the Child article appears, this statement appears: "Opinions and statements expressed herein are attributable solely to individual authors and are not endorsed by American Ancestors or the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)." That being the case, the journal is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The articles which appear there are, therefore, for all intents and purposes self-published and the Biographies of living persons policy strictly forbids the use of self-published materials in articles about living persons, including groups of living persons such as a family. All material based upon the American Ancestors article should immediately be removed from the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan, I have added a secondary source today. Is that acceptable? HelenOnline 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, letters to the editor are also self-published and non-reliable. The section is still inappropriate. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan. Removing that material is what I had suggested from the beginning, but I was still willing to compromise. I am glad that you are agreeable to that instead. Hopefully the issue can now finally be put to rest. Virgosky (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am placing on record that I was unaware of this discussion and have changed the article in question. While I agree that in general letters to the editor should not be treated as reliable, this one is different - the author of the letter is writing about his own refereed article. As such, I believe that Wikipedia should either cite both article and follow-up letter or cite neither, but not one without the other and accept that the letter was an early notification to the genealogical community that he was amending the conclusions that he had arrived earlier. Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be one without the other, but the correct answer is that neither should be used. Self-published materials such as letters to the editor may be used in non-BLP articles if written by recognized experts, but may not be used in BLP articles per WP:BLPSPS even if written by a recognized expert. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found another possible source for the Edward IV descent, written by another genealogist and published by Channel 4 News. Would this be an adequate source on its own for a BLP? HelenOnline 09:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: I'm sorry for the slow response, I've been away for a few days on real world issues. I've looked at channel4.com and they do have a policy requiring fact-checking and they do, at least on first blush, appear to be a reputable news agency. Though an in-depth review might prove otherwise, they would seem to be a reliable source. Be careful to distinguish between what the article reports as a direct fact — "The sky is falling." — and what it reports as being said or held out by someone — "Astronomer Charles Skygazer says that the sky is falling.". If it's the latter then it's only a reliable source for an assertion that Skygazer says that the sky is falling, not for the fact that the sky is falling, and the assertion must be qualified in that manner. Whether Skygazer's assertion is important enough in the context of the article so as to not offend WP:UNDUE is a matter to be worked out through consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much TransporterMan, I appreciate your time and wisdom. HelenOnline 18:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: It would appear that we're done here. Unless someone objects, I or another volunteer will close this as resolved after 19:00 UTC on 11 October 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I object. That is still not a good enough source. Once again we are back to where we started. Channel 4 has claimed in the past that the Duchess of Cambridge descended from Elizabeth Knollys, as did the Daily Mail and other media outlets. That proved to be incorrect. Clearly, Channel 4 did not check all its facts. I am open to the suggestion that the Duchess descends from Edward IV but when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be vaild or these sorts of edit wars will continue in the future by other editors. It should be noted that Cracroft's Peerage states, "There are times when we miss a piece of information or the sources we use are misleading." Therefore the person running the site, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, is not a genealogy 'expert' as Channel 4 has claimed. Real experts do not put up sources that mislead. I would also like to point out that Patrick Cracroft-Brennan's site is new and it is difficult to find the sources that assisted in his conculsions. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan says that the Duchess of Cambridge descends from King Edward IV but that is his assertion, where is the research to prove his assertion as fact? Virgosky (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing notes: The fact that a reliable source makes mistakes does not cause it to cease to be a reliable source. If that were the standard, then we would have precious few sources to use here. Most major newspapers, for example, are ordinarily accepted as reliable sources but they also regularly make mistakes. I stand by the idea that — again at least at first blush — Channel 4 is a reliable source for either what it says outright or for the fact that someone said something. You can feel free to challenge its status as a reliable source, but the fact that it sometimes makes mistakes or relies upon someone who isn't so much an expert as it says is not a reason to challenge it as a reliable source. When reliable sources report something, then it can — not must, but can — be included in Wikipedia so long as all other considerations such as UNDUE are met. If that is the case, and you believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong. But you cannot do so by researching and attacking the credibility of what it says yourself: that's prohibited original research. Note that I'm not saying that the information in the Channel 4 article should go in the article, that has yet to be determined and is beyond the scope of this particular case, I'm just saying that the article appears to cross the threshold; whether it makes it into the parlor is yet to be seen. To say this differently, you say, "when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be valid or these sorts of edit wars will continue," but the way that we determine validity at Wikipedia is whether or not it appears in a reliable source, if it does then it is verifiable and, as it says in a footnote at the verifiability policy, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." In any event, the dispute upon which this case was filed is resolved since it has been conceded that that source, as opposed to this new one under consideration, was not reliable. I am therefore going to close this case. A new case may be filed if a dispute on the new source or on some other matter cannot be resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 11 October 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.

Summary of dispute by BaSoroka

Ajaxfiore (or Ajax F¡ore) recently created an article (BLP) on Mexican writer and scholar Jorge Erdely Graham and stated that he is a fugitive wanted by the Mexican police. The statement was very poorly sourced so I removed it. It resorted to guilt by association or to what seems to be gossip picked up by Mexican media 4 years ago. Not a single authoritative source (The Police or The Courts) was quoted or cited by Ajaxfiore to support the allegations of criminality. The user would just revert my edits, saying that his/her sentence on Erdely's alleged fugitive status were properly sourced and cited more squalid sources echoing the same to try to account for the lack of quality sources.

Controversial or not, Dr. Erdely is a widely respected best-selling author in Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA. His research on human rights and religious abuse, both within Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism, has been published in peer-reviewed sociological journals. His books have been published by Random House, Ediciones B (Spain)and Editorial Unilit ( Miami, Florida). He belongs to a host of professional associations like the American Academy of Religion and the International Association for the History of Religion (funded by UNESCO) and has been interviewed and regarded as an expert by mainstream media like The San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian (London), UNIVISION (USA), The London BBC and The Times (London.) Revista Proceso, one of the most influential Mexican political weekly magazines, regularly quotes him and regards him as a specialist in religions and human rights.

All of these information is readily available on the web and easy to find and link. One would expect to find some of it in a biographic summary. Instead, Ajaxfiore initial BLP on Erdely Graham curiously omits most and chooses instead to focus on poorly sourced highly contentious material that is possibly libelous, or what seem to be outright fabrications. At stake are the meaning of BLP guidelines but also essential neutrality when creating and nurturing an article of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSoroka (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AbuRuud

Ajaxfiore has added the same poorly-sourced allegations on three different pages: Jorge Erdley Graham, Casitas del Sur case and La Luz del Mundo. As I originally wrote on the talk pages of Jorge Erdely Graham and Castias del Sur:

"Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. (http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring."

Ajaxfiore also added this to La Luz del Mundo: Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.^[2]

Now, as Ajaxfiore pointed out himself, he made the Jorge Erdely Graham article. He should well know that the Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009, not 2005. I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he clearly and gratuitously added a clause about Erdely being involved in the trafficking ring using a source from 2005. I would assume someone as interested in the subject as Ajaxfiore would figure out that the source doesn't work, especially when someone like myself--who knew nothing of the situation before I stumbled upon the page--figured it out.

Erdely is a living person and therefore information on his page is clearly covered by wp:blpremove. wp:exceptional also should apply. The information Ajaxfiore tried to insert four times is poorly sourced. I'm not sure how I can prove a negative (that Erdely isn't a wanted a fugitive) when there should be an overwhelming amount of reputable sources quoting the judiciary, police, or a tribunal. There simply isn't. user:Bbb23 clear agreed, as Ajaxfiore was banned for edit warring and the very same wp:blp issues I brought up.

I'm incredulous as to what dispute needs to be resolved. Three people agree that the information should not be on the page. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a continuation of the edit war that Ajaxfiore got previously banned for.

Jorge Erdely Graham discussion

Just to clarify, although the Casitas del Sur case exploded in 2009 when the government finally intervened, the accusations were there for a long time (as far back as 2005). The article is titled "Those responsible are backed by the government", because at the time the government refused to get involved, i.e. it took 4 years for the government to finally do something.

I don't think AbuRuud can say that Bbb23 clearly agreed, and I will now request his input. Ajax F¡ore_talk 03:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I determined that Ajax's conduct warranted a block, both for edit-warring and for BLP issues. Since expiration of the block, Ajax opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RidjalA. A CU determined that the technical relationship between AbuRuud and BaSorka (the new account) was "entirely inconclusive". At the same time, the CU admin said there was "a lot of suspicious editing going on here", although they weren't specific. I have no comment on the content dispute except to the extent that it spills over into editor misconduct or clearly affects WP:BLP policy. Here, I thought that the BLP violation allegations were sufficient to at least WP:BLPREMOVE the material pending a resolution of the content dispute. Some of the content issues might better be addressed at WP:BLPN. AbuRuud opened a discussion there on September 30, and other than one procedural note on October 2, there have been no additional comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able to verify all the claims made by BaSoroka in his second paragraph. In 1999, Erdely claims his book Pastores que abusan 1994 is a bestseller having sold "over 40,000 copies". I have not been able to verify this claim with independent sources, and doubt that a book that sells 8,000 copies per year is a best seller. I doubt Erdely "widely respected" in "Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA". Univisión, the largest Hispanic network in the US has a forum filled with the controversy regarding Erdely and Casitas del Sur because there was an user named daxan who actively promoted Erdely in the forum. Revista Proceso also identifies Erdely as the leader behind the Casitas del Sur kidnappings and cites arrest warrants from the Attorney General. Ajax F¡ore_talk 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: BaSoroka has been blocked indefinitely and AbuRuud has been blocked for one week. I will be taking a short Wikibreak. I think the DRN case should be closed for now. As Bbb23 suggested, the matter can be brought up to BLPN at a later time. Ajax F¡ore_talk 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the suggestion by Ajaxfiore This thread will be closed in 24 hours as "Deferring/Referring to other venue until such time that parties come back from various wiki-breaks." and marked as failed Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 9 October 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.

Summary of dispute by

Marina Oswald Porter discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Erachima

While going on my usual patrol of the Bleach articles for vandalism and lousy edits (series usually gets a new batch every week after the latest chapter lands), I noticed a merge tag on Bleach (manga). I read the linked page, Bleach (anime), discovered it was a purely redundant content fork made out of content copy-pasted from the main Bleach article, and redirected it in accordance with guidelines and standard editorial practice. Then Chris showed up with his usual cocktail of bullying, paranoia, and lawyering. Oh, and he accused me of being a sadist. Overall, I think this is more of an WP:RFC/U issue. --erachima talk 17:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ryulong

Chris's split was contested by myself first, and later by Erachima. He then claimed, as he does here, that because I made these edits to the page ( ), none of which were reverts of his content that he would be breaking WP:3RR with another edit. His proposal is now completely contested on the redirect's talk page as well as at WT:MOS-AM. I don't know why we're here, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleach (anime) discussion

Comment ChrisGualtieri unilaterally decided to split Bleach (Anime) from Bleach (manga), while it had been set up as a redirect ever since its creation in 2005. The action was opposed a first time by Ryulong, who was then reverted by ChrisGualtieri. Following that, Ryulong refrained from further reverting and opened a talk page discussion regarding a split or a re-merge, in which five (myself included) of the six total participants were unanimous against ChrisGualtieri's split, and one of them, Erachima, proceeded to restore the redirect to Bleach (manga). In short, ChrisGualtieri did not have a consensus to force a split of Bleach (Anime), and his move to open a thread at DRN is all the more pointless: he argues WP:BLAR as a justification to force his opposers to open an AfD instead of just restoring the redirect, but the page specifically states that an AfD should be submitted only "if editors cannot reach consensus".
ChrisGualtieri being the only one in disagreement, there is no question that a consensus does not mean unanimity, and that one was obtained at Talk:Bleach_(anime). Therefore, the issue is pretty straightforward and for all intents and purposes, already resolved. I concur with Erachima that there might be ground for a user conduct complaint against ChrisGualtieri for an abusive procedure, but as far as the DRN is concerned, I recommend that the thread be closed without further notice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This user is involved and supports a refusal to abide by WP:BLAR and WP:BRD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was anything unclear in that sentence: "WP:BLAR specifically states that an AfD should be submitted only "if editors cannot reach consensus". ChrisGualtieri being the only one in disagreement, there is no question that a consensus does not mean unanimity, and that one was obtained at Talk:Bleach_(anime)." WP:BRD was followed to the letter because Ryulong opened a discussion, which resulted in a consensus against you. Therefore, I reject any accusation of "refusal to abide by WP:BLAR and WP:BRD" and warn you that anymore unfounded accusation from you will be followed by a user conduct complaint on you. I maintain that the editorial dispute was resolved, if you keep on refusing to abide by consensus, that is a matter for ANI, not DRN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. If you WOULD like to become involved though, I'll note with a wink and a nudge that Chris is one return to redirect away from being forced to follow consensus via 3RR, which appears to be the only way to get him to listen to anyone. --erachima talk 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Whether the discussion happens here or elsewhere I don't much care, but the article in question has been userfied to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that he can keep working on it without continuing the edit war. Hopefully this will also force him to engage in discussion rather than attempting to ignore everyone he disagrees with. --erachima talk 14:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  I assume this answers that question.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Close this thread. The underlying issue will be resolved at mediation. In order for mediation to continue, this unrelated by page, but related in arguments must be closed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 7 October 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.

Summary of dispute by QueerStudiesRS

The User:23 editor is promoting an extremely biased POV, removing referenced data (indeed sometimes three references pointing out to the same fact of extreme homophobia -- as the topic in question is specifically about inappropriate and indeed criminal according to the Serbian Criminal Code action, to wit a homophobic statement by a person who happens to be makingit in the role of a Prime Minister).

Why that would be an issue that the User:23 editor -- who has already been in an editing war about the same Ivica Dačić before, as seen in the first topic on the Talk page of the Ivica Dačić article is hard to understand unless s/he had a vested interest, perhaps as a person employed by Ivica Dačić. That would be no surprise as there is already another person who, on the very same Talk page, admits the ground for a COI -- working for an agency hired by Ivica Dačić's government -- so the question is legitimate and not a reason for a personal attack by User:23 editor

Eventually s/he is expounding his/her animosity by making silly unsubstantiated claims e.g. viz. my English (mother tongue), so obviosuly this is not just an issue of the accuracy of the article for him/her.

Summary of dispute by Jreferee

QueerStudiesRS's first Wikipedia post was 2 October 2013, and appears to post with little regard for Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:OR due to his/her newness to Wikipedia and apparent strong feelings behind text QueerStudiesRS posted. Looking at QueerStudiesRS's use of "you" in an example reply from QueerStudiesRS to 23 editor shows: "you ARE homophobic," "your ilk," "judging by the way you edit," "you seem to be in the employ of the horrible individual about whom that article is," "if you cannot read English," "your competence". Merely avoiding using the word "you" in a discussion message goes a long way in demonstrating the WP:AGF assumption that the person receiving the message is trying to help the project, not hurt it. QueerStudiesRS has replied in discussions, so there is a willingness to communicate. QueerStudiesRS has been clearly warned, and the article protection now in place should provide time to help the situation. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivica Dačić discussion

Now that this dispute has spilled over onto Tomislav Nikolić's article, I must emphasize that this thread should focus solely on Ivica Dačić, per the heading above. With that being said, I would like to address User:QueerStudiesRS's claim that I am "working for an agency hired by Ivica Dačić's government", that I am "expounding [my] animosity by making silly unsubstantiated claims," and that I have "a vested interest" in Ivica Dačić. First off, I am not involved in any political organization anywhere in the world, nor do I live in the Republic of Serbia or on the European continent. I mostly edit Wikipedia articles related to the former Yugoslavia because I am interested in Balkan history and because I am partly descended from this location. Second, I possess no animosity towards anyone (be that a LGBT person, or otherwise). To say so is argumentum ad ignorantiam and Proof by assertion, and does not even fall within the bounds of logical discussion because I have never expressed animosity towards any group. The next statement claims that I have "a vested interest" in Ivica Dačić. The truth is I couldn't care less for Dačić, Nikolić or any politician from the former Yugoslavia. I merely saw non-neutral comments being added to the article and I intervened like any good Wikipedian surely would have. Other users intervened as well, including Jreferee, who has been invited to this discussion. Overall, on the article in question, as well as Tomislav Nikolić's article which has been given a similar treatment to that which Ivica Dačić's article has experienced, six unrelated users have reverted User:QueerStudiesRS's edits and three, including myself, have warned him/her to refrain from pushing his/her non-neutral, non-encyclopedic ideas. QueerStudiesRS subsequently responded by erasing these warnings from his/her talkpage, calling them garbage sent by vandals . In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that I take great offense with QueerStudiesRS's claim that I am a "homophobe" . This personal attack is clearly in defiance of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have not said anything remotely homophobic to this person and yet I am labelled as such. I look forward to a civil discussion. 23 editor (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am tired of this nonsense. As for homophobes denying their homophobia, there is a Google Search result list of over 9 million such mentions:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=homophobe+deny+homophobia&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

I have very many much better things to do than to illuminate the bigots on how and why they are bigots, unless that is directly putting me at peril. And even though homopohobia overall does hurt me too, I have done my share. There are about 400 million LGBT people in the world to fight User:23 editor and his/her ilk. I will just disregard his/her existence.

So, Over & Out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator note Because of the continued edit warring, I have fully protected the article for three days. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, that should give the parties in question time to talk things over. As for QueerStudiesRS's link, that is a groundless Ad hominem which has nothing to do with the Ivica Dačić article or the comments that the person made. 23 editor (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I told you I had enough of you, but you just won't stop, will you? OK, I'll waste a few more minutes on you, with utmost disgust for havign to do so:

To the contrary to your lies above, it is you who has been acting Ad hominem since the start. I didn't even know you existed and it would have been better if it had stayed so. If this were Facebook, you'd be blocked and out of my sight and everythign would be fine.

As for your homophobia, there is nothing "groundless" in showing you are just like 9 million other homophobes listed on Google Search alone who deny that they are homophobes.

Moreover it was you yourself who brought the idea that you as a person were a homophobe. In the first comment I said your edit was homophobic. Which it was by and through. But you said it sounds to you as if somebody accused you you were homophobic and that was unacceptable to you. Tough luck. I was civil enough not to call you a homophobe until you yourself identified you felt as one, even though I did think you were before that, continue to think you are, and with every stupid edit you do, I am even more assured of it.

This especially applies to your vandalising the article Divine (performer) by removing the [Category:Serbian LGBT people] from the Article even though the person (Divine (performer)) has the follwoing categories in the Artcile: [Category:American people of Serbian descent], [Category:Gay actors], [Category:Gay musicians], [Category:LGBT singers]], [Category:LGBT Christians] which more than justify the inclusion into the [Category:Serbian LGBT people], and even though Divine is indeed 50% Serbian through mother an 50% a Heinz 57 mixture of Unitedstatesian origin through father, ergo: primarily and mostly Serbian.

Eventually, why are you going after my edits and vandalising them? Why are you bullying me? Because you are a homophobic criminal or because you are just a criminal about whose obvious homophobia we are supposed to keep tacit and turn a blind eye and deaf ear? Well, if your eyes are blind and your ears are deaf, not all of us are crippled like you are.

So I am telling you: bugger off. It is easy for me to close this account and make a sockpuppet and pester you equally if not more. I do not wish to waste my time on the likes of you, though, as you are not worthy my time, but I might do it if you persist.

your only option of this ending here and now, is -- I repeat -- to bugger off and get away from me and my edits and mind your own business of working for Ivica Dačić on more improtant projects than editing Wikipedia (which, BTW, is a blatant COI on your part).

Capisci? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerStudiesRS (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Because of this utterance, the editor has been forced take a leave from the discussion for the next 48 hours. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: I've been away for a couple of days and will be away for a couple more, but I want to put everyone here on notice that no further discussion of conduct or one another's COI, biases, motives, or other characteristics will be tolerated here at DRN. Any further such comments will be deleted by a volunteer in accordance with this section of policy. Talk about content, and content only. If you feel you must discuss conduct, then make a report at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, do not raise it here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: It appears from this edit that QueerStudiesRS has either abandoned Wikipedia or chosen to begin engaging in sockpuppetry. Either way, it would appear that this listing is probably no longer needed and I or another editors will close it as being moot after 17:00 UTC on 11 October 2013 unless someone objects and states a reason to keep it open. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 10 October 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.

Summary of dispute by [no editor named]

Pedophilia discussion

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

Summary of dispute by [no editor named]

List of social networking websites discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Smallclone10

Darkhawk discussion

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

Summary of dispute by TheOldJacobite

Summary of dispute by Philip Trueman

Summary of dispute by

Talk:The Road_Not_Taken discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Balthazarduju

Hanfu discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Tenebrae

The disingenuousness of User:BlueSalix is beyond remarkable. As both I and an unrelated IP editor, 99.192.69.120, pointed out, what BlueSalix calls a "minor grammatical issue" in the disputed sentence is POV interpretation — and not even of a straight news story but of a letter-to-the-editor that makes political claims not verified by a reporter, as would occur in a straight news story. The sentence is WP:UNDUE, among other things, and shouldn't even be in the article, but in the interest of compromise I tried to write it neutrally. BlueSalix, however, is insisting on a version of which I and the IP editor gave three specific, bullet-point instances of BlueSalix's political POV.

BlueSalix consistently refused to even acknowledge let alone address those points, but kept saying like a broken record, "it's just grammatical, it's just grammatical." Yes, after hearing this repeatedly, it does feel as if you're dealing with someone either a) behaving like a child, or b) doing that thing we've all seen some bad-apple editors do of ignoring what you're saying and pretending the issue is about something else. He's also acting in what a disinterested outside observer might call a paranoid way, repeatedly and inaccurately accusing me "denouncing [him] as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy." No one, not I nor anyone else in the RfC, did anything remotely like that.

Two registered editors, neither of whom I'd ever run across before, both agreed with me and the IP editor in the RfC. Indeed, one of these editors wrote of, BlueSalix's edit: "Clearly rooted in bias. Thank you for your service in cleaning up this page after BlueSalix's disruptive edits."

I don't know what else to say. It's clear to three or four editors that BlueSalix is adding derogatory political spin about a living person. And it's not the first time: He'd previously tried to add mudslinging based on a political blog's tabloid-style "anonymous sources say" post. I hope this provides a fuller context. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

wiki/Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC_Ethiopia discussion

I just want to clarify this is an issue related to 10 specific instances of name calling threats that occurred in a RfC. The consensus of the actual RfC, however, placed me on the outside and - as I posted in the RfC - I fully accepted the outcome. Again, this dispute resolution is an issue separate from the content dispute which was resolved when 2 other editors weighed in on the content question. My concern is with the personal treatment of one editor by another, not editorial disagreements or different viewpoints we had on one article (as pointed as they may have been, I ended up in the minority and consensus ruled against me). Sorry for any confusion if my initial post was poorly worded. I believe a full review of the Talk page of this article will probably add further clarity to the nature of the issue. BlueSalix (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues are intertwined. Your behavior came out of your insistence about your content. If you are going to act in a disruptive, non-responsive way, you can only do so for so long before one or more editors calls you on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues are not intertwined. I have opened a dispute regarding ten instances of name calling by you and a generally aggressive method of interacting with other editors that has continued on my Talk page and those of several other users. If you believe I engaged in disruptive editing, you need to raise that in a separate noticeboard section so I can defend myself against that claim in a concise manner instead of as a drive-by accusation (for example, the entire layout of the Ronan Farrow article as it currently exists and consensus has accepted, is of my design; I don't want to get into posting diffs here to exhibit that as it would muddy the issue of editor harassment). BlueSalix (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am your DRN Volunteer for this dispute. First, I think it is of vital importance to understand what I believe to be the golden rule, that is assume good faith WP:AGF. It appears that editors in the RFC on content in question have failed to do so (Including but not limited to Tenebrae). This could have been an oversight or mistake on their part. This isn't a place to forget that rule, accusations of conduct such as calling others "disruptive" "Childish" and "single purpose" have no place here. Continued accusations must stop if this page is to be used. Another detail, a rather big one, is that this is a place for content disputes, not conduct disputes. In fact, this is supposed to remove any conduct issues, bypass them in order to deal with content and thus resolve a situation. Once the content issue is resolved, hopefully it would be easier to deal with the conduct elsewhere if it doesn't disappear.

So, that said, is there any content issues that require resolution? If so, simply state what content is disputed, where and how has it been discussed, and what opinions on the content exist. Then we can begin discussing how to best reach a compromise or find an alternative answer. For conduct issues, the first step is to meat the minimum requirements for an RFC on User Conduct. Please read this page for more information WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. You can always ask for a third opinion on an issue as well, here WP:3O Fordx12 (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: Welcome to DRN. I'm the current DRN coordinator. Let me second what Fordx12 has said. This listing would ordinarily be closed as a content dispute based upon what the listing editor says that it is about. DRN does not handle conduct disputes (use ANI or RFC/U for that). Tenebrae has made an appeal for this to be considered to be a conduct content dispute. If BlueSalix wishes to go forward with it as a content dispute, and only that, please so indicate below and feel free to supplement the Dispute overview with that in mind. Otherwise this will be closed as a conduct dispute. But understand that discussions of conduct will not be part of it or be permitted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Oops, fixed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Fordx12 and TransporterMan - I greatly apologize, this was an error by me. I have never filed a dispute before and so clearly filed it in the wrong place. There is no content dispute as far as I am concerned, as I agree to consent to Tenebrae's edits; only a conduct dispute. I am happy to see this closed if that's appropriate. I would be lying if I said I could figure out how to file a conduct dispute so I will try to just steer clear of that article and Tenebrae and hope for the best. Thanks and sorry again for the misplaced dispute. BlueSalix (talk) 03:18, 12 October 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.