Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

24 Game

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

• Uucp (talk · contribs)
• 24guard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page is about a card game, and included links to a blog post asserting the number of possible playable hands and other facts. Editor Uucp added links to a second blog asserting corrections to the first one and offering computer code showing all solvable hands, among other things. Editor 24guard reverted this, saying that the new blog post was too recent and must therefore be viewed as "spam". This began a revert war with editor Uucp, who disagreed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Comments in the edit changes and on the talk page. Both sides seem set in their views, though the discussion has remained civil on both parts.

How do you think we can help?

24guard has changed his grounds for reversion over time, variously claiming that recent blog posts are not allowed, that the content could not be linked to as he could not prove it accurate, or that the blog post constituted original research and should therefore not be allowed. In his most recent change, he removed both blog posts; I'm not sure why. I think a cool head can help resolve this.

Opening comments by 24guard

24 Game discussion

OK. The site 24theory.com is not a reliable source. It appears to be self published with no editorial oversite and no fact checking, and that isn't even the blog.--

wheels.org is also not RS. Vanity site. No editorial oversite or factchecking. That means the blog is just not acceptable but will be clear about blogs as references.

WP:NEWSBLOG

.

On the talkpage

talk) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 00:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Curb Chain (talk · contribs)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs
  )
• A1candidate (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In this section of the

Giving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of)

Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (sic, both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in this edit.

To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -A1candidate (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with A1. The quote seems to be doing just fine and is a valuable addition in its corrected form - I don't believe there's anything to be gained from removing it. This discussion really should be closed, I feel.

Castncoot (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

While I don't think that the quote had more than marginal utility, which was further diminished by the correction, I also think that this is one of those things where it's a close judgment call as to what's best for the encyclopedia. My objection to the quote is only slightly on the negative side of the issue and I certainly do not mean to pursue the point further. If Curb Chain wishes to do so, that's his call, but he probably needs to do so through an

RFC since the weight of opinion here and at the article seems to be mostly the other way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• English Vinglish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vivekdalmias (talk · contribs)
• Vivvt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date

How do you think we can help?

to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post

Opening comments by Vivvt

Dispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source.

Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Vinglish discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Long_s#Historical_Usage_Graph Talk:Long s (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Farry (talk · contribs) Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A graph, Historical Usage of the Long S, was created by myself, Farry, based on data published in Google's web n-grams database, and placed in the Long s article. User Prosfilaes, supported by user BabelStone, believed it to be unsuitable, but I believed it to be acceptable by Wikipedia's self-creation criteria for diagrams (as opposed to article text). The graph remained in place and no further comment was made there for nearly 2 years. In the meantime, two people gave appreciation for the graph on my talk page, and somebody added the graph to the French article. Then recently, I noticed that Prosfilaes had deleted the diagram from the Long s article. Since two people had spoken against it, I would have let it go at that point, were it not for the evidence that other people did approve of it. Not wanting to lose something that people found useful, I reinstated it, and explained why. Prosfileas didn't agree and deleted the graph a second time, and now a third time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions are now at a deadlock. How do you think we can help? Some approve of the graph and others don't. As the creator, I'm too close to be dispassionate, so I'd be grateful for an assessment of its acceptability. Opening comments by Prosfilaes Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The graph is original research and is only being used because of some exception for OR in images; it would be vastly better to summarize the results of the graph as saying in English, the transition between long s and medial round s started around 1790 and was more or less complete by 1810, if we could use OR or find a cite. It's a graph from Google Ngram Viewer; due to how it was produced, a lot of what the reader sees is really about "last" not the long s. More unfortunately for our purposes, the OCR transcribes LAST as last and sometimes laſt as last instead of laft. The bubbles in the round s/last around 1720 and 1780 are pure noise. Moreover, it was labeled "Replacement of long-s with short-s in English documents from 1700 to 1900", giving absolutely no idea to the reader of the article that the top line was meaningless and movement in the bottom was frequently noise. (All labels are unreadable at thumbnail sizes.) Even the label on the graph, "Incidence of the word-forms "laſt" and "last" in English documents from 1700 to 1900", is inaccurate; this is raw data and can't be trusted. It's original research; it's being presented as an image only because OR rules stop us from saying what it says in the article uncited. It's bad data; we're showing a bunch of curves that reflect trends in "last" or OCR issues as if this were a graph about the long s versus the medial round s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Long s#Historical_Usage_Graph discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It seems to me that policy prohibits this image. The policy in question is reliable source, the chart is prohibited. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply ] I am another volunteer here at DR/N. I have to agree with TransporterMan. While the effort was made to base the graph on information found elsewhere, it used a non RS as the basis. Oddly enough I just began a proposal at talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply ] Another volunteer here. I have to agree with the above, the image does qualify as original research, for the reason that TransporterMan mentioned. The information could be conveyed as prose, but a reliable secondary source should be cited instead of Google NGram Viewer.-- (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply ] OK, that's that then. Thanks all. --Farry (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] 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.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stewaj7 (talk · contribs)
• Jcally66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette.

How do you think we can help?

1. protect the page until discussions have been concluded. (See closing statement above. Comment about user removed ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)) 2. another editors objective input would be helpful. My fear is the this will turn into another editing war if the page is left open to edits.[reply]

Opening comments by Jcally66

I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded.

Michael Welner discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jcally66, please use the section title "Opening Comments by Jcally66" to state your reasoning on why you feel justified for your contributions, why you may feel the other editor is incorrect or any other comments in regards to this case you feel need to be addressed. Discuss the edits not the editor and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing! Once the case begins and talk is intitiated, use this section for the main dicsussion. --

talk) 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is this at DRN? Other than the filing editor, a

Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur with Fladrif's comment's on the article's talk pages. There was no serious discussion between the two editors before filing here. Removing well-sourced content while accusing other editors of bad faith and malicious activity is a bit inappropriate. If you have a specific BLP issue, I recommend taking it to

WP: BLP/N. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally, DRN only deals with content disputes, not conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to

WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you mean conduct for your last sentence. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif raises a separate issue above that I agree should be addressed in a more appropriate forum. Those involved in resolution, please see additional edits by Fladrif [1] under discussion [2]. Fladrif, should this content matter be address separately as well? I am still figuring out proper forums.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we at DRN will help you fix the

WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The article appears to be free of

Reflinks), but this content disputes stems from OR and NPOV issues. The article is well-sourced, and I don't see original research in it. Perhaps you can link me to it? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Electriccatfish2, I am referring to 2 sections in particular. The first is "The Forensic Panel" under the Professional Career section can be found here[3]. Jcally66 wrote, “Welner's theories and practice regarding The Forensic Panel's “peer-review” are controversial, and have been criticized as for Welner using employees rather than independent experts to conduct the review. The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” This paragraph is completely unsourced. Jcally66 goes on to write, "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers." [4]. From the source itself the DA were asked about how they felt about the fees and they replied “If we were right, and Mrs. Yates was sane, how much should Welner's testimony cost, in nontax dollars per dead child? Especially when the media poisoned the well from which prospective jurors drank?” This is in contrary to prosecutors stating they were misled. The second source Jcally66 lists does not support the statement either. [5] The issue is that any one can link a statement to an non-supporting article, because no one polices the reliability of the source. In this case, the references might as well be an add to an eye cream, because they do not contain anything about prosecutors claiming they were misled by Welner. These are just a few examples.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lines "The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” and "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers.” were written by Fladrif, not me. Your dispute is with him.--Jcally66 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second section is here[6]. Fladrif wrote "Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal, in which Welner's testimony has highly controversial and largely discredited."[7][8] When I brought to Fladrif's attention that he added a link to an article or site that is no longer available, he disregarded the input and subvertted the issue [9] claiming that it was "my opinion" that the sources were wrong and making false allegations. But all one has to do is read the articles cite to see that they say nothing of the sort. When asked to remove the contentious unsupported content Fladrif, blew me of plain and simple. I am asking that you take a closer look at what is being done here. I know those governing this forum are savvy enough to see through these subtle violations of Wikipedia policy.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

• CSDarrow (talk · contribs)
• Memotype (talk · contribs)
• Memills (talk · contribs)
• Perpetualization (talk · contribs)
• Cailil (talk · contribs)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An impasse has been reached at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2

as to whether the statement,(which atm is),

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime".

The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight.

The section being

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape.

Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help.

How do you think we can help?

Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus.

Opening comments by Memotype

Opening comments by Memills

Opening comments by Perpetualization

In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime."

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

This viewpoint is not held in the majority. CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The last option is does not belong in wikipedia.

WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to remove the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "prominent adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight.

Editing/Extending:

I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States.

I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were formerly mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as Cailil has done).

Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources:

• men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws
• men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases
• men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as |Slp1 found a source for).

If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws"

Perpetualization (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Cailil

Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page[10]. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India[11] related to this.
The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - that's original research.
As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under probation and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable.
I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Slp1

CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved.

• First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact
  WP:UNDUE
  says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".
• Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments).
• Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another[12]). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article.
• But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent.
• We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments)
• And now we have claims that this material might be libellous and slanderous. Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Binksternet

Opening comments by Kaldari

First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by Perpetualization:

• "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it."
  • This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal."[13]
  • Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as SIFF which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago.

The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit):

• Current Controversies on Family Violence[14]
• American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia[15]
• Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure[16]

Despite this, some editors have insisted that

• Tom Williamson, founder of the
  National Coalition of Free Men
  : [CNN Interview] "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."
• Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of SIFF: [Speaking to the press about a proposal to remove the marriage exemption from the Indian rape law] "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."[17]

I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely.

Opening comments by Kevin Gorman

I've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Rights discussion 1

• Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under probation; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of

WP: BRD. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on article probation. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section[18] above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Wikipedia after smoking crack...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing. It's all about the timing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--

talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:INFLUENCE covers editing while in a altered state of consciousness. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding waiting for opening statements, Binksternet has been actively editing other pages but has not responded here, Memills last edited Wikipedia on 30 September, and Memotype last edited Wikipedia on 14 September. How long should we wait? I want everyone involved to weigh in, but i also don't want to frustrate people with undue delays. Opinions? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As both sides of dispute are here, the discussion may be opened IMO. The others may jump in later if they become active and/or willing to participate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. This thread is now open for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Rights discussion 2

Comment - [from uninvolved editor] I looked at the sources that are listed above to support inclusion of the material. They look satisfactory to me. The Segal source in particular, p 276, is conclusive (describing a campaign against laws which define marital rape). That source is published by the University of California. So, the essence of the sentence should be included. Can it be wordsmithed? Sure ... in situations like this it is always better if the specific advocates are named in the sentence. But

I'm open to the idea of including specific advocates or groups so that it doesn't sound like a sweeping statement about the movement in general. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss for a moment the citations for the current article's statement "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime.[74][80][83][84][85]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=515903480 in case it changes).

When examining something like this, I start with the question "does the source say what we say it says" and I look at the quality of the sources.

For Ref [74], the source supports the statement. It says that http://www.ejfi.org "demands .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime". I could not find evidence supporting that claim on the ejfi.org website. That's a typical problem when a source is more of an advocacy source that an academic source -- they don't say where to look on ejfi.org and they don't give the exact wording.

For Ref [80], Google books gave me this error: "Restricted Page: You have reached your viewing limit for this book." Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [83], The section before it says "The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia" does not support the claim. The "free one day trial" asks for a credit card number. Does anyone have a quote of the wording that supports the claim?

For Ref [84], the source supports the statement. Again, an obvious advocacy publication, not academic research or unbiased reporting, and the source only says that some unnamed men's groups campaigned against the legal recognition of marital rape in 1994. That's 18 years ago.

For Ref [85], The source supports the statement. The mens group is named; it is the Save Indian Family Foundation ( http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ and a person is qouted: Virag Dhulia. Furthermore, it appears to be from a legitimate news source rather than an obvious advocacy book and is less than 5 years old If it were me, this is the only cite I would use for this statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without commenting on the issue, some of the editors seems to not be aware of

I am quite familiar with

WP:PAYWALL. My philosophy is this: if you recently added a citation or you are vigorously defending a citation, then I can only assume that you have access, and it seems quite reasonable to ask you to look at the source that you can presumably access and give us an exact quote that supports the statement in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have access to all the sources and listed all the quotes on the talkpage of the article quite a while ago [19]. So did Cailil here. I disagree with the contention that books published by highly reliable academic sources can or should be marginalized as "advocacy" books, and I don't know of any policy or guideline that would support this. On the contrary, they are precisely the books that have the highest reputation for fact-checking etc (e.g. published by University presses) that we are supposed to privilege per

Identifying reliable sources Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Guy you've made some rather extreme comments above. You've inferred that nobody bothered to list sources and quotes when in fact, as Slp1 said, both she and I had done so - and I linked above to it above. You've dismissed a number of sources' reliability in a way that has no basis in policy.
In relation to your readings: Re ref 80 - try this link[20]; regarding ref 74 are we looking at the same source Current Controversies on Family Violence written by 3 academics and published by Sage? Furthermore a search using google of EJFI site for "spousal rape"[21][22] and "marital rape"[23] does indeed generate a number of hits. It is this source's opinion that this site is advocating something. It's not our job to go outside policy and do

original research to prove OR attempt to disprove a source.
Regarding ref84 you've claimed that Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure is NOT an academic piece. It may be a feminist text but last time I checked that doesn't disqualify a source's as academic, or make it advocacy. That is your opinion and NPOV does not requires that sources are neutral - merely that they are reliable. Your conflation of these core policy concepts and dismissal of these sources is frankly incredible and raises questions about the ability of this board to handle topics under probation (which need extreme care and precision) - I will ping KC about this--Cailil ^talk 23:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

While I agree with Cailil that it is inappropriate both in policy and practice to seek marginalize sources based "I can't confirm it"-type statements, (most especially when we are talking about websites that may have changed a good deal), in the spirit of good faith, here is Charles Corry, the longtime president of Edfiin a 2007 ejfi article, mentioning the introduction of "the crime of marital rape in many localities" as one of the "false flags" "used to insure that any action by a man can be used against him.". It can't be the original source for the book because of the date, but it shows the way the wind blows in that organization. Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Turkish Cypriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ghuzz (talk · contribs)
• E4024 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In September 27th part of article deleted with argument "some infos not stated in source given". And after deleting that part only one user manipulated article and filled with unreliable and subjective informations. And today with adding new sources, i turned article back to old version again. But after few minutes E4024 user undo my edits with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". With current situation article is looking highly under Turkish nationalist ideology, subjective, weak sourced and far from reality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask whats his reason to undo my sourced edits on users talk page and i didnt get reply. Also I opened section in talk page of article again with giving reliable sources and try to explain situation. But only thing that user did was making fun.

How do you think we can help?

You can look at current situation of the article (objectivity, reliability of sources and info) and also look edit that i tried to do today (again objectivity, reliability of sources and info). Also in Talk Page of an article you can check last two title to understand situation and perspectives. And help to protect one Wikipedia article.

Opening comments by E4024

Turkish Cypriots discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party editor and a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. I have a question: the September 27 edits were made between

Also, a reminder: DRN does not handle conduct disputes and cannot protect pages. For other volunteers interested in participating, the prior discussion seems to be located

(talk) 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for reply SGCM. Regarding

Republic of Cyprus, and the other one is one intercultural training research project which funded by European Commission. Lets look both version of article again and all of these things and try to reasonable. How in Wikipedia when someone try to edit one page with this kind of sources other can have a luxury to say "thats humorous", "i didnt like it" etc. (88.102.213.115 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC))[reply

]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Frances Hugle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cheryl Hugle (talk · contribs)
• Lhugle (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Regarding the history of Frances Hugle, a female scientist.

This article (Frances Hugle) was repeatedly corrupted by Lhugle who introduced a number of factually incorrect statements and deleted others she personally did not like.

One of her reasons was: protect the identities of living relatives.

In an article of this type, names of children are often given in Wiki articles, for instance, read the articles on Wilkins and Watkins, discoverers of the helical structure of DNA. Frances was an esteemed female scientist, not a criminal requiring all those related to fear for their lives or reputations.

Additional info was also included regarding education, career path and hobbies. These inclusions in the original Frances Hugle article though were deemed 'irrelevant' by Lhugle who protested certain inclusions to Wiki staff and had them removed.

I am not attempting to be exclusive. I told her repeatedly that I welcomed her contributions and corrections but not the introduction of personal biases and intentional corruptions of the record.

For instance, she edited the education section, deleting at first some parts and then falsified the record to state that Fran had earned a 2nd degree in Chem in 1957. The facts are, all course work for both degrees, Fran's PhB and S.B., was completed during or before 1947. Lhugle had the facts but appears to have wanted to sabotage this article (because it was not initiated by her?).

This is not the only case in which her 'corrections' can be proven to be false. Others involve the development of Fran's career, where Lhugle's assertions contradict Fran's own writings and that of her former boss.

Therfore, I respectfully request that these sections of the original article be reinstated for they provide insight into the life and times of the actual inventor of the IC and Microprocessor:

Family

Frances Hugle was born Frances Betty Sarnat in Chicago on August 13, 1927 to first generation immigrants, Lylian Steinfeld from Romania and Nathan Sarnat from Poland, both of Jewish descent. Frances was the eldest child. Her siblings are Irwin (now deceased, b. 1930), Sheila (b. 1935) and Marlene (b. 1938).

She married William Hugle in June 1948 and had four children: Margaret Hugle Harris (b. 1949), David Hugle (b. 1951), Cheryl Hugle (b. 1952) and Linda Hugle (b. 1954). In addition to two sisters and four children, she is survived by 6 grandchildren; Jacob Loomis (b. 1972), Tabashir Nobari (b. 1974), Brandy Loomis (b. 1974), Nassim Nobari (b. 1978), Frances Elizabeth Harris (b. 1982), Tracy Hugle (b. 1984) and 4 great grandchildren.

Education and teaching

She attended Hyde Park High School in South Side Chicago, where she participated in many of the school's science clubs, including the chemistry, physics and biology clubs. In the spring of 1944, just before her graduation, she was selected to represent Hyde Park High in Chicago's Math Contest, where she took first place. Following high school, she attended the University of Chicago. She received a degree in chemistry with minors in physics and mathematics. She also did graduate studies in crystallography including studies in x-ray diffraction techniques at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY.

In 1960, she received an MS degree from the University of Cincinnati. Her thesis is Cathodic Deplating of Rhodium.[28]

She also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Montreal. In the mid 1960s, she taught physics and math courses at Santa Clara University.

Hobbies and personal interests

Frances enjoyed many outdoor activities, including camping, skiing, gardening and hiking, as well as competitive games and sports such as water polo and ping pong (at which she excelled). After reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, she took an interest in organic gardening.

In the mid 1960s, she bought the book Europe on 5 Dollars a Day, and used it to travel alone for six weeks throughout Europe. She enjoyed reading on a wide range of topics, from botany to political science, and often gave the impression of having an encyclopedic mind. She also enjoyed science fiction and the occasional crime or romance novel.

She preferred simple Danish designs in furniture, but also fashioned some of her own furniture from salvaged doors and made hanging lamps from Mexican pottery.

Frances enjoyed the counter culture experience of Haight-Ashbury and would dress in Mexican painted skirts and serapes whenever she visited. As a rule, she never wore make-up except lipstick on occasion, but when visiting Haight-Ashbury, she would draw dark, wide and dramatically extended lines around and her eyes and across her temples.

Just before she discovered she had stomach cancer she had decided to begin studying law.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions on the edit page. A protest email sent directly to Lhugle.

How do you think we can help?

Reinstate some of the sections of the original article that were deleted following objections by Lhugle or deleted by me (one) since they were targets of repeated corruption.

Opening comments by Lhugle

Frances Hugle discussion