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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts WP:DRN WP:DR/N This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of groups . Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

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.

Current disputes

Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#edits by xtremedood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)
• Xtremedood (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

According to Ahmadi Claims Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S fulfilled a prophecy that said , "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." As is clear from the above statement the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani A.S is that 1)The Moon will be eclipsed on the first possible night in Ramadhan, 2)The Sun will be eclipsed on the middle of possible nights in Ramadhan, Now Xtremedood wants to add "criticism" to this which is "Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy. Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after." I contest to this addition. I will explain my reservations in my comment below.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk on talk page only

How do you think we can help?

Remove unreliably sourced material and protect the page.

Summary of dispute by Xtremedood

The article in question contains material that is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy (NPOV). The prophecy outlined states: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." — Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188.

According to the "Ahmadiyya" viewpoint, Mirza fulfilled this prophecy (which is detailed in the article), however, according to opponents, Mirza did not fulfill this prophecy. There are three main points of criticism that I want to remain on the article (as to retain NPOV), they are: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and middle-day (~15th) of Ramadan 1894/1895 respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. These criticisms are highlighted in a variety of different sources and I have mentioned them in the page's talk page.

The dispute is centered around FreeatlastChitchat's unwillingness to bring about legitimate criticisms to Mirza's claims and my willingness to do so. Xtremedood (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood discussion

My reservations about the content are summarized below statement by statement. 1)Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy Reservations are I)It is not the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Alaih-e-Salam that the eclipse will be on the first of month. This is tantamount to putting your own words in another persons mouth and then claiming that he is lying. The claim is that eclipses will occur in the first and middle days/nights of "possible" nights/days. II)the source http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html does not mention ANYWHERE that the prophecy is wrong because the eclispe did not occur on 1st of Ramadhan. This is blatant misinformation , I don't know what else to call it. Quoting a source and then saying something which the source does not say. 2)Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. The source Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. Muhammad is the Last Prophet. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 100. Retrieved 2010-03-17. does not mention this as his own words. He says that a person named "Molvi Syyed Barkat Ali" Gosha nashin of Waziarabad has mentioned this in his book "The false Prophet of Qadian". I have been unable to find a single reference to this aforementioned person on the internet and his book seems to be unknown as well. There fore this source should be fringe and unreliable.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, the following criticisms should remain: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and 15th respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after.

The reason why I say this is to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to bring some neutrality to a biased article.

I will now attempt to address some of FreeatlastChitchat reservations. It is irrelevant whether or not Mirza claims that the eclipse will be on the first of the month or not. The criticism is that Mirza's claims of fulfilling the prophecy are invalid. The critics maintain that the prophecy indicates that the lunar and solar eclipses will occur on the 1st and 15th days of Ramadan. Based upon this understanding of the prophecy, the critics claim that Mirza did not fulfill the prophecy.Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. Muhammad is the Last Prophet. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 100. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi makes the criticisms clear that the prophecy was not fulfilled according to his interpretation of the prophecy. He essentially claims that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy.

The prophecy itself outlines that the lunar eclipse will occur on the 1st of Ramadan and the Middle day (~15th) of Ramadan, however the "Ahmadiyya" interpret the prophecy as not saying this, but rather saying as Mirza mentions.

I never claimed that the source, http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html, ever claimed that the prophecy was wrong. The source however places doubt on "Ahmadiyya" claims, even if we were to interpret the prophecy according to their own interpretations. The website states exactly: "Thus, the Ahmadiyyas must either accept that eclipses may occur on the 12th of a lunar month as well as on the 27th - or else they must regard eclipses as impossible on both those Islamic dates. Whichever choice is made, requires revision of their thesis." David McNaughton tackles the issue while relying on "Ahmadiyya" interpretations of the prophecy to render the "Ahmadiyya" claim as potentially invalid.

The third criticism is also crucial as to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it indicates a new and legitimate dimension to the interpretation of the prophecy. According to Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, we see that others interpret the events as occurring before the advent of the Mahdi and not 3 years after Mirza declared himself as the Mahdi (as the "Ahmadiyya" claim). I have checked the source and it is legitimate. Xtremedood (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the 'the sun and moon eclipse' section to reflect a more neutral view of the prophecy claim. This may be observed in my most recent edit. It includes both the views of critics and supporters. Xtremedood (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now open for discussion. Has there been some resolution here? If not, please summarize in a short paragraph, what the remaining issues are.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there has been no resolution. I have not edited the page much as to avoid an edit war. Xtremedood has Removed the translation of the Prophecy used by the Ahmadiyyah, this is blatant POV editing. When the article is about Ahmadiyyah then the article should use the translation done by the Ahmadiyyah. NPOV is to include their translation, not to force another persons translation upon them. Xtremedood tried to use the translation done by the fringe group Lahore movement and then wrote in his edit summary that he was using the translation from the Ahmadiyyah. This is utter bad faith. I don't know what else to call it. Therefore my reservations still remain.

Also the article is about the LIFE of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Aliah Salam. We should include what happened during his life, this is a biography. You can read the articles on anyone else and it will not include this kind of criticism which is basically hate speech and fringe theories.

Therefore we should mention that he called the eclipse a sign from God and if someone criticised it during that time i.e 1894 we should mention that person. Going into criticisms and claims after the person's life has ended have no reason for mention in his life history. This is the case with ALL other pages from Jesus to Moses. Life history does not include criticisms which are published 50 years after the death. The place to include them is the page about his teachings or the page about his miracles.

Also mentioning these writers in the articles page breaks the coherence. We are writing that in 1984 he claimed that an eclipse was a sign and then instead of going onto tell what he did in 1895, we start to mention what a writer wrote in 1970. Therefore this has no place in this article. Also you can see from the other signs given in the article that they carry only the critics of his age and what they said at the time has been mentioned.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FreeAtLatsChitChat for your response. However the first paragraph was filled with derogatory statements about the other editor. I will not tolerate such posts. We are here to discuss content only not editor behavior. I don't care what happened in the past. We are here now in the present discussing sources and proposed text in a moderated setting. Please limit all future comments to discussion of content only. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seemed solved to me, however I woke up today to see that Freeatlastchitchat reverted the edits and made considerable changes to the article itself, I have since reverted it back to its original. The translation I have provided is the same as that in the source he provides, however it does not include any interpretations within the quotation (prophecy) itself. I have utilized both the "Lahori Ahmadiyya" sources as well as "non-Ahmadi" sources for this translation. "Lahori Ahmadis" are a group of "Ahmadis" who have a significant following with the "Ahmadiyya" community and they love and respect Mirza. The translation I have provided is a direct translation of the prophecy in question, according to a variety of different sources. As an editor I have worked on a variety of Wikipedia articles and I have not seen such interpretations mixed in with the translations of quotes like this before. When dealing with quotes I see that they are usually direct quotes, not interpretations of quotes. I believe it is a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as highlighted in Wikipedia's five pillars. In my most recent edit I have included both points of view and it provides for an analysis of the content based on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Directly under the prophecy itself I provide for the "Ahmadi" interpretation: "Ahmadis interpret this prophecy as the lunar eclipse occurring on the first possible nights of Ramadan and the solar eclipse occurring on the middle possible day of Ramadan,[30] whereas many critics interpret the prophecy according to what is literally stated in the prophecy, which is that the lunar eclipse will occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse on the middle night of Ramadan." The statements after this statement then go to expound upon the various points of view of this prophecy and how it pertains to the personality of Mirza himself. I believe including both sides is a crucial aspect of adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Xtremedood (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #1

Ok, we will discuss one issue at a time. The first issue is:

• the translation of the Prophecy used by the Ahmadiyyah

FreeAtLast, please provide the text you would like to add to the article and the reliable source(s) that support that text so we can discuss it together. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." Ref: Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188 [1] The website is the official website of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim community and it is sanctioned by their supreme leader, it is therefore, the most reliable source of information about Ahmadiyyah community on the internet. I will just copy paste the Arabic too because that will come into the discussion later إن لمهدينا آيتين لم تكونا منذ خلق السماوات والأرض ينكسف القمر لأول ليلة من رمضان وتنكسف الشمس في النصف منه ولمتكونا منذ خلق الله السموات والأرض.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made some changes to the formatting for the reference part of your comment. We don't have a RefList section on this page so just list the Ref info in text please.

It appears FreeAtLast wants to include a quote from the "official website of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim community". User:Xtremedood, what are your objections to this content?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately if you have another version of the content please list that here and provide sources. You may also cut and paste a portion of your comment from yesterday to this section if needed. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry for the late response as I was busy with university and other work. It is first important to note that the so called "translation" from the official website, as Freeatlastchitchat is describing is not a direct translation, but a translation PLUS an interpretation of the text. No where is it mentioned in Arabic that the moon will be eclipsed on the so called "possible" days, but rather it clearly states the first day and middle day of Ramadan, respectively. I think by including the translation from the so called "official" website, it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as described in the five pillars of Wikipedia. Clearly the "official" website has its biases, and I think it should not remain in the translation. What I propose is a direct translation, as evident from a variety of sources, including both "Ahmadiyya" and "non-Ahmadiyya" sources. The direct translation of the prophecy in Dar Qutni is as follows: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth."

This translation is direct and may be found on a variety of sources, including the famous moonsighting.com "Qur'an & Hadith on Eclipses". moonsighting.com. 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-03-22. source as well as the "Lahore Ahmadiyya""The Significance of the Lunar and Solar Eclipses in Islam:". The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. 1999-08-12. Retrieved 2015-03-22. community website (see 5, a. - "The Heavenly Sign"). The "Lahore Ahmadiyya" are a major sect within "Ahmadiyya" (there are 2 main sects) and they love and respect Mirza. There are also a variety of other sources that have this translation, if you wish for me to provide them I may do so.

In my edit on March 24th, however, I did indeed include the interpretation of the "official" website, as described by Freeatlastchitchat, but I did so after the direct translation of the prophecy. After stating the direct translation, I indicated both interpretations: "Ahmadis interpret this prophecy as the lunar eclipse occurring on the first possible nights of Ramadan and the solar eclipse occurring on the middle possible day of Ramadan,[30] whereas many critics interpret the prophecy according to what is literally stated in the prophecy, which is that the lunar eclipse will occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse on the middle night of Ramadan"

I think this is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it adequately describes both interpretations of the prophecy as well as it goes into details pertaining to the viewpoints from both critics and supporters of Mirza. I think by only including the so called "official" translation + interpretation, Wikipedia would inadvertently be supporting a man's claim to be the Messiah and Mahdi, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I believe the translation should remain as it has, prior to Freeatlastchitchat's edits. I have also included 4 criticisms on March 24 (one more from the initial 3), which I also think should be included, however, I do not want to take too much space here, so I may wait until if you ask for it. Thanks. Xtremedood (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Let's finish discussing the 'official' quote before we move on to the criticisms. According to

]

The sources given by Xtremedood are not reliable and should therefore be ignored. The reasons are

1)Regarding the books and other anti Ahmadiyyah literature quoted here I would like to point out that secondary source is reliable if it is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. This is not the case here. There is massive and complete conflict of interest. Rather the source is a hate page and hate literature. ALSO the publication house is not reputable, they have no editorial oversight in place and they have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The very title of the book "False prophet of Qadian" should be a big red flag.(Analogy is that when writing a biography of Jesus, Moses, or anyone else we will never pick content from a work called "Jesus the false Messiah", although we may use its content in a separate section where we mention the people who oppose him)

2)Even more importantly the sources quoted go against the dictionary and are therefore fringe. I see that Xtremedood has given the impression that these sources give a "literal" meaning, but that is not the case. A literal meaning should not go against the dictionary. The dictionary is the most reliable source we have so we must not go against it. Now according to the Arabic Lexicon (You can pick any one of them, I consulted 12 including the Lisan-al-Arab and the Taj-ul-Uroos) the word used in this prophecy "Qamar" can never be used with the first night of any lunar month. In the entire Arabic literature the word "Qamar" is never ever used to mean the moon of the first night. Long explanation of this statement is that the prophecy says "the Qamar will be eclipsed on the first night of the month", but the word Qamar cannot ever mean the moon on the first night of the month, because as opposed to English the Arabic language does not have a general word "moon" which can be used everywhere, rather they use different words for different phases of moon (this is used in english too like crescent, new moon and full moon, but not that specifically, we can say moon anytime we want even if it is the first of a month, but the Arabic language does not allow this, the first moon will be called "hilal" and never ever "Qamar") . Therefore any translation which tries to say that Qamar means the moon which appears on the first date of a month will go against the dictionary and be therefore unreliable. For you see when a person who can read Arabic studies the prophecy he understands at once that the prophecy cannot refer to the first night's moon, but when we try to translate it into english using only one word "moon" it presents an absurdity like for example saying that "The full moon will be eclipsed on the first night of a month". Even though this is common knowledge to anyone who knows Arabic and can read , I would like to quote http://aaiil.org/text/articles/light/solarlunar.shtml as my source. I would like to point out that this website has already been included in the list of "reliable" sources by Xtremedood and should not be contested now. They have provided Lisan Ul Arab as their source of translation and have provided an explanation with their translation. So either we can put the translation with the explanation or we can use the one which I have given, either way the translation given in the sources quoted by Xtremedood cannot be used because it goes against the dictionary.

3)Lastly I would again like to reiterate that we should not include hate literature in this discussion. This is just a suggestion, I will leave it upto the DRN volunteer to decide. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1)Sources are not hate literature. This is diverting the issue. "Lahore Ahmadiyya" is an official group within the "Ahmadiyya" community. moonsighting.com is a word renowned and reputable source.

2) You are introducing primary research (of your own), which is incorrect. Once again you are diverting the issue. This is the "Ahmadiyya" interpretation of the prophecy, not a direct translation. I could go further in detail, however it is important not to divert the issues. Xtremedood (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of quote

OK, just to be very clear, we are discussing the quote below and nothing else. Please do not comment on or reference other text or other sources as it only serves to confuse and create obstacles to our discussion.:

• "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan."

Please provide a link to the source (or explain how we can access the source) that verifies this quote and we will discuss the validity of that source and then we will move on to other sources and their corresponding text. Please keep all future posts brief and to the point as I don't read walls of text. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." Ref: Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188 [2] I would also like to link the dictionary where it says that the word "Qamar" cannot be used for the first night of the month

"والقَمَرُ الذي في السماء. قال ابن سيده: والقَمَر يكون في الليلة الثالثة من الشهر، وهو مشتق من القُمْرة، والجمع أَقْمار. وأَقْمَرَ صار قَمَراً، وربما قالوا: أَقْمَر الليلُ ولا يكون إِلا في الثالثة؛ أَنشد الفارسي: يا حَبَّذا العَرَصاتُ ليَـ ـلاً في لَيالٍ مُقْمِرات أَبو الهثيم: يسمى القمر لليلتين من أَول الشهر هلالاً، ولليلتين من آخره، ليلة ست وعشرين وليلة سبع وعشرين، هلالاً، ويسمى ما بين ذلك قَمَراً. الجوهري: القَمَرُ بعد ثلاث إِلى آخر الشهر يسمى قمراً لبياضه، وفي كلام بعضهم قُمَيْرٌ، وهو تصغيره.والقَمَرانِ الشمس والقمر." I used http://www.baheth.net/ to look up the word. It combines many dictionaries.

The translation should not include the word "possible" in it. It is a clear mistranslation as the word 'possible' is not in the original source. This is validated by moonsighting.com, the "Lahore Ahmadiyya" website, and also it is in the so called "official Ahmadiyya" site that Freeatlastchitchat is talking about.[3] As we can see from this source the prophecy from Dar Qutni is translated, however, there are two brackets included in the tranlsation which are interpretations of the prophecy. This is mixed with the translation to confuse people. This is what I am referring to:, 1)"(i.e., on the first of the nights on which a lunar eclipse can occur)" and 2) "(i.e., on the middle day on which a solar eclipse can occur)."

According to world renowned and respected (not hate speech) moonsighting.com, we see that they have translated it in the same way (without the interpretation in brackets).[4][5] We see in this secondary source that the prophecy is being interpreted as occurring on the first and middle day of Ramadan, not so called "possible days." There are also necessary criticisms of the "Ahmadiyya" position that require this interpretation of the translation for it to make sense, such as those made in Rizvi's book.[6] According to the "Lahore Ahmadiyya" official website, which is also an official "Ahmadiyya" group, we see the prophecy stated in the same manner (see 5, a. - "The Heavenly Sign").[7] The so called "official Ahmadiyya" website as described by Freeatlastchitchat is not a reliable source as they are on record of promoting what is in accordance to their religious agenda in a biased way. However all three sources point to quote mentioned on my edit on March 24th to be correct.[8] This is as exactly mentioned: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth.— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188". Xtremedood (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote is going to be included in the article it will need to be included verbatim, as reported by the source. WP doesn't allowed modified quotes based on conclusions or facts drawn from other sources per

WP:Coatrack. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

what exactly will be the meaning of verbatim here? Giving the translation used in the hate literature quoted by Xtremedood will create absurdity as I have mentioned earlier. Without the explanation the translation is not complete. Original research is something which the editor does himself, however this translation is taken from a reliable source and corroborated by the dictionary, not done by an editor.While the translation quoted against it goes against the dictionary. The dictionary shows that the thing which will be eclipsed is called "Qamar", and Qamar cannot be translated as "moon" when used with a lunar date, it will have to be translated as "moon from the fifth till the 26th". This is why the official website has given the explanation with the translation. And I would again like to point out that the sources quoted are considered hate pages(except the official website ofc). The Simple evidence of this fact is that they use the slur "Qadiani" to refer to Ahmadis. It is tantamount to someone writing about African Americans and then using the title "The this and that of NIGGERS". As the source uses a word which has the similar status as nigger, the source is a hate page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim, means quoting the source you have cited per

WP:OR. Again I remind you to confine your comments to the single item we are discussing ie the quote and the single source you have given.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Another possible source for the quote

Ok.I have done some searching and seeing that the only negative in the source was OR and Primary I have found another source which verifies and corroborates the text found in the website. Here [9]we can see that the text is almost identical give or take a couple of grammatical differences which will occur in two different translations no matter how close they are. this solves the Original research and Primary source problem. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source is affiliated with your initial source (official website of "Ahmadiyya") and therefore it should not be treated as differently. Please refer to page 362 on the text for proof or click this link.[10] Xtremedood (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikipedia policy that says "affiliation" should be considered. If your only problem is affiliation then please quote a wikipedia policy about it. The article on secondary sources clearly says that ALL secondary sources are biased. This is a secondary source per wikipedia policy. Also the author is merely pointing out that the Ahmadiyyah website is present on the internet and it can be used to get more information about some things described in the book. Just becuase a website is given at the back of the book does not make the book unreliable.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. You have found a secondary source. If there are concerns about the source being biased or affiliated then there can be an inline attribution. Something like: According to the book ABC by author XYZ "yada, yada............". My only caution is that the quote needs to be verbatim from the one source. Is this OK with everyone?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with using: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth.— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188" as this is a direct translation and verbatim. I am not okay with using words like "possible" or the messages included in brackets (i.e. possible days of eclipse, etc.) that are found in the "official Ahmadiyya" website, because this is not verbatim. Xtremedood (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with using the text given here [11], inline sounds good. I will just copy the text here "There are two testimonies for our Mahdi(another name for Messiah) which have never occured since the creation of this universe and that is a lunar eclipse will occur on the first night (of the lunar eclipse dates) in the month of Ramadhan, and, the sun would be eclipsed in the middle(of the solar eclipse dates of the same month (of Ramadhan)". I would again like to point out that the text quoted by Xtremedood appears in hate literature (where derogatory slurs are used to refer to ahmadies). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not hate literature. Being critical of the "Ahmadiyya" position is not hate. Do not divert the issue. Stay focused. None of what I stated was hate speech. Xtremedood (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FreeAtLast, for the last time stay on point. We will discuss other sources when we finish with this one. Either way I don't want to hear the words "hate literature" again. That phrase is off topic, inflammatory and unproductive. This is your last warning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now.......... we have a bit of an issue with this book as a source and I apologize for not seeing this sooner. The book is self published by iUniverse Publishing. [12]

]

As I have stated I am not okay with the quote in the book as it is not verbatim. What IS verbatim is the following: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth.— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188" Statements like: "possible," "(of the lunar eclipse dates)," etc. which are interpretations, not verbatim texts, should not be included from my point of view. Xtremedood (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with the official website, we can put an inline saying that the Ahmadiyyah official website gives this translation. IF you are not comfortable with the website and the book which I provided you can insert the exact quote from [13] which is a biographical account written by a person who was not even a muslim. And another work by the same author has already been accepted as a reliable source in the articleFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood, I think we all agree the quote in the self published book is not acceptable. FreeAtLast is suggesting the quote be inserted verbatim from the 'official' website with an inline attribution indicating the source of the quote. This seems like an acceptable compromise to me. Is it OK with you? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the exact quote from Freeatlastchitchat's source is not verbatim, I do not think it should be in the article. The verbatim text is what I have stated in my previous comment. I do not believe that the material on the so called "official site" is superior or better than any of the other sources I have indicated. I believe on the contrary that it is tainted with bias. Remember, Mirza is a historical personality, and the website Freeatlastchitchat is referring to is NOT his official representative, rather it represents a particular religious community (there are two groups of "Ahmadiyya", the Lahore Group and the Community Group). Freeatlastchitchat's website refers to the second group of "Ahmadis."

Mirza's life should be analyzed (and the quote as well) in a secular manner. I think the quote should be as indicated on the "official" website of the Lahore "Ahmadiyya" website (pro-Mirza) and the official moonsighting.com (critical of Mirza) website, which is: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth.— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188"

As we can see, there is no utilization of the word "possible," "(of the lunar days)," "(i.e. of the possible lunar days)," etc. in these two sources. This is important as the inclusion of these phrases means the quote is not verbatim. Whereas the text as identified on moonsighting.com or the Lahore "Ahmadiyya" website do not include such interpretations and therefore may be considered as verbatim.[14][15][16] - (see 5, a. - "The Heavenly Sign" for the last link)

Therefore I conclude that the quote two paragraphs above this one is the right one to have in the article. Xtremedood (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [17] is a source which is not biased or self published or connected to the Ahmadiyyah community. He corroborates the quote given in the official website. He can be quoted with an inline citation and that solves all problems.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative side note: User:FreeatlastChitchat and User:Xtremedood, Sorry, This case was autoarchived by the bot but I've reinstated it. Let's continue.......-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source

No problem. As I said this source is the very definition of reliable. Written by a well known author, book published by a third party publishing house; he has no connection to either Ahmadiyyah or to any other party which has interest in the article, therefore he is the best source for the prophecy. He says exactly what is written on the website. We can use him as the source and mention that the Ahmadiyyah website has the same translation. I hope we can now lay this to rest and move onto the criticisms as there is no source which can be compared to this as far as reliability is concerned. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be the best source we seen so far. According to

WP:SOURCE

Preferred sources are:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers

Websites can be used as sources but they would not take precedence over a book published by a legitimate publishing house and having its origin at the University of Virginia.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob.As the volunteer managing this debate it will be better if you put in the text instead of one of us. So I will not edit the article , you can put the prophecy in the article ,using inline if you want.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the criteria then I believe I have found even better sources than Freeatlastchitchat's. Here is the first source [18] This was published in Islamic Studies Vol. 41 No.4. On page 664-665, we see the following stated: "For out Mahdi's appearance, there are two signs that have never existed since God created the heavens and the earth. One of them is the solar eclipse in the middle of Ramadan, and the second is the lunar eclipse at the beginning of Ramadan." Islamic Studies is an internationally peer-reviewed and internationally recognized journal.[19]. The author, Zeki Saritoprak, is a distinguished professor and has held the Nursi chair at John Carroll University in Cleveland. [20] I therefore request for the translation of the quote to be as stated in this peer-reviewed and internationally recognized source. Xtremedood (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said my source is more reliable as one of the basic pre requisits of reliability is that the source should not have conflict of interest. The sources you provided have conflict of interest which means that they are inherently against the Ahmadiyyah therefore they will always publish material against the ahmadiyyah. For example The Islamic research institute sent its eminent Professor Mehmood Ahmad Ghazi in 1984 to declare Ahmadies as Kafir. (Kafir is a term used by muslims to mean a person who does not believe in Islam and according to many muslims a person who is kafir should be killed at once). Now an institute which says that Ahmadis are not even muslims and thinks of them as Kafirs should not be considered a reliable source of information. This why I have been saying from the get go that our sources should not have conflict on interest. By the way what problems do you see in the source that I have provided.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have both provided academic quality sources. It is not uncommon for academics, reputable universities, newspapers etc. to have their own translation or interpretation of controversial topics (as do all WP editors). I would not disqualify a source or an editor for that reason. For this reason WP places emphasis on good editorial procedures for the publications it uses as sources so author bias can be minimized. At present I do not see any weakness in either source. My recommendation is that you take the issue of source quality to the Reliable Source Noticeboard at the end of this DRN to try and get some clarification, if possible, as to which source may or may not take precedent over the other. Unless one of you has a suggested compromise I'd like to defer this issue to

]

Proposed compromise on quotes

The only compromise that I can come up with is that we mention Ian adamson's book at the start of the article and give the translation from it, then, where the "critics" are mentioned the "other" translation can be put in. This saves the long discussion at any other forum. If this is not acceptable then I guess we go on to the criticisms and I will submit a request at

WP:RSN. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am fine with moving on to the next issue. I will make a quick point however. Why not include both translations in the article (one right after the other on equal standing)? If Freeatlastchitchat is okay with this I think it may save us some time. If not, we may proceed on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It seems that KeithBob has done what he can for mediating on this issue and I think we should move on to the issues of the criticisms that was central to our main issue from the beginning. Xtremedood (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have two proposed compromises on the table. The commonality amongst both proposals is that both versions/translations appear in the article. The remaining point of agreement is where they should be placed. One suggestion is to place one at the start and the other in the Criticisms section. The second proposal is to put both translations in the same place. What shall we do?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them together creates the suggestion that perhaps both are endorsed by the Ahmadiyyah, and as the second translation is being used for criticisms it should be with the criticisms. If this is fine we can move to the next part of discussion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources should remain on equal standing if we are going to put both up. We can state both sources, mine from Zeki's article and his from Adamson's. This should make it clear the sources. As for endorsement, Wikipedia should remain neutral and I do not see on what basis anybody would think any of it would be endorsed by "Ahmadiyyah." Xtremedood (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the only compromise I could come up with. Giving both an equal standing is stating them both in the article, which is being done. As one source is used by the Ahmadiyyah it should appear at the start of the section, as the other is used by Critics it should appear before criticisms. I don't think putting them together makes any sense. Anyway if you are not even ok with my compromise we can talk about this later. I merely wanted to see at least some output from the discussion so far.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: First cent, they have equal standing in terms of sourcing. Any other perceived standing is not relevant. Second cent, Since they are two slightly different versions of the same thing they should be side by side so the reader can see the difference and draw their own conclusions. To separate them is not in the reader's best interest in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this, KeithBob. Xtremedood (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next Issue

What is the next sentence and corresponding citation(s) that you would like to discuss?

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Providence (religious movement) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Specifically Talk:Providence (religious movement)#Providence(religious movement)

Users involved

• GIOSCali (talk · contribs)
• Jim1138 (talk · contribs)
• Shii (talk · contribs)
• PeterDaley72 (talk · contribs)
• John Carter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Providence(religious movement) is religious group based in South Korea whose leader has been accused and convicted of several serious crimes.

Despite the controversial nature of the subject, there is a policy issue I have been trying to address in keeping with

:

1. What the Providence group claims to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that the group believes.

2. Both sides are supported by secondary sourcing.

3. My suggested compromise: simply add a "criticism" or "controversy" section to the article per the exception for religious articles under

. (i.e. critics claim that members believe...)

This is the model used by many other articles on controversial new religious movements. However, as many editors on the page have had heated exchanges with members of the group, they seem wary of accepting any edits that are not critical of the group. I'm sure they are acting in

, but it is coming off a bit as ownership.

Also, concerned as one editor

. Discussions do not seem to be progressing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help us to reach a compromise in keeping with

that allows for the entirety of the subject to be presented in an academic manner despite the fact that the subject is extremely controversial and potentially difficult subject matter to work with.

Summary of dispute by Jim 1138

I agree with PeterDaley72 I seriously doubt the "member beliefs" would be anything more than the Church's own propaganda. If members' beliefs are to be included they should be by a reputable second source, likely not involved with the Church and definitely selected for the purpose of a white-wash. Jim1138 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Shii

I don't have time to participate in this discussion and I won't be editing the page in the near future, but I think this statement by GIOSCali is misleading:

"What members of the Providence group claim to believe religiously is different from what critics claim that members believe."

Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature. We have not only news media but also academic sources that explain the group's actual teachings. Sometimes primary sources can be used to support claims about what a group says about itself, but I would trust the primary sources surrounding this group about as far as I could throw them. Shii (tock) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By request, here is the secondary source I was referring to. (Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's journals of record and has very high standards)

"Cult aimed at elite in 50 universities". Asahi Shimbun. 2006-07-31. Ex-members say recruiting on campus started on Jung's orders in the mid-1990s. "It's a fraudulent activity, as they conceal the group's identity in luring members," a lawyer said. An ex-member in his 30s said he and other cultists were deprived of sleep--forced to work late into the night and then wake up early to listen to Jung's videotaped preaching.

Shii (tock) 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by PeterDaley72

The material suggested for inclusion as "member beliefs" is an attempt to whitewash the article to some extent by presenting "beliefs" the group only claims publically. The selected quotes are in contrast to material included in the in-house book from which cherry-picked quotes have been selected that the requesting contributor is requesting insertion of, material which he/she is strangely reluctant to include which I think is a pretty clear indication of an agenda not inline with the point of this site. The suggested insertions are also in stark contrast to teachings and sermons published by the group on closed forums which show that members believe that the convicted serial rapist leader is the messiah (as mentioned in the article), that he has supernatural powers, that the Holocaust was a wonderful event, and that you will die if you don't obey the leader etc. The material presented as "member beliefs" is simply how the leadership would like their criminal organisation viewed by outsiders and potential victims. I don't really see any value in presenting propaganda as fact. I have been researching this group for 12 years now over at www.jmscult.com. I appeared in one of the sourced media links as an expert on the subject and contributed to several other media reports with more in the works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM

Regarding the accusation that I operate a site denigrating the Providence group, my site (www.jmscult.com) provides factual information about a criminal organization that operates worldwide and is led by a convicted serial rapist. One relevant section of my site documents news reports: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg2196#msg2196 To denigrate means to criticise unfairly. I'm really not sure it's possible to degenerate a Hitler-praising convicted serial rapist/cult leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDaley72 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72[reply]

Summary of dispute by John Carter

I was wondering if I could add myself to the list of "parties" here, given that User:Shii, who is almost certainly one of the best "topic-area experts" we have around wikipedia in this field, has indicated he won't be participating, and having someone to at least try to partially fill the gap in his absence seems reasonable to me. It seems to me, based on what I can see, that there are basically two questions here: (1) the statements of belief by individual members of the community in question, and (2) statements of belief by independent outside sources, presumably in contact with active and/or former members. In my history of dealing with articles about religious beliefs, which is rather extensive, I have always gotten the impression that the members go out of there way to emphasize the beliefs which will help them get positive reception by the community, and downplay and/or refuse to talk about beliefs which have less public appeal. It seems to me that this matter might be one of the points of consideration here. One of the other points is exactly how to phrase the statements of belief. In most religious traditions, we already have, or should have, separate articles or subsections of articles describing most of them, and simply linking to them is generally enough, except in the cases where such sections don't yet exist or where there are unusual variations on them unique to the group. Lastly, there is a regrettable but real question about who even the best independent reliable sources get their information from. "Happy campers" do not as a rule run to the media to talk about the problems of the groups they are involved in, dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are. Anyway, just a few ideas, but I would welcome information about whether there would be any objections to my adding myself as a party. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Providence (religious_movement) discussion

This post is intended not to initiate discussion, but as a reference point for volunteers as to why the case should be taken to dispute resolution:

there exists reliable secondary sourcing that contradicts current representations of the Providence group's theology on Wikipedia; these include sources on Wikipedia's list of reliable Korean sources such as KBS and Yonhap News(i.e. http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/Press/YIBW_showPress.aspx?contents_id=RPR20091125022100353 ) as well as others not yet on Wikipedia's list such as Monthly Politic and Economic, Jemin Ilbo and Jemin Ilbo. In some cases these are mentioned on third party lists of Korean media references.

The proposal is in regard to theology, not practices of the group.

GIOSCali (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is her/his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page — {{subst:drn-notice|Providence (religious movement)}} — ~~~~ — can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note pointing here. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes to this page. See page history. I posted notifications on PeterDaley72 and Shii's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, apologies in forgetting to notify, thanks Jim1138 for helping. As a courtesy I will also drop notifications.GIOSCali (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per his request, I've added John Carter as a party and moved his request and opening statement into the more usual location for such matters, above. If he wishes to modify and specify that statement now that he's been added, he should feel free to do so. At this point we're waiting for a volunteer to "take" the case and open it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)[reply]

Would someone please take this on? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening by moderator

OK everyone, I'll take this on. I will note for the record that I am uninvolved in this case, I am a new DRN moderator, My goal here is to see if I can help you all to reach a mutually satisfying resolution of the disagreement above. I will remind everyone to focus on content, not contributors and to remain civil at all times. To cut to the chase, as this issue has languished and there has already been some discussion, I would like everyone here to make a second statement below outlining 1) what you see as the single biggest issue and 2) what compromises or concessions YOU are willing to make in the name of reaching a solution. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To that end, my initial review suggests that it would behoove everyone to consider the following:

1. Current and proposed sources; do they meet WP:RS and WP:V? Given that this is a religious topic, remember the adage, "verifiability is not 'truth'." I want to see debates linked to WP guidelines and policies - narrowly defined (subsection links or direct quotes please, not the whole page!)
2. Structure of article: Do new sections/subsections need to be created or existing ones removed? Can you show me examples from religious articles that are FA-class that use the structure you propose? Why will that work to settle this dispute?
3. Tone: Can NPOV phrasing be improved upon?

Hope that helps structure the debate. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by GIOSCali

Thank you Montanabw for taking on the case, and to the other editors for also taking part this discussion. I would happily welcome John Carter to the discussion.

Primary Concern

My primary concern with the article is the incomplete representation of the subject matter itself. Some important RS secondary sources are missing altogether and need to be included. Others are misrepresented to a certain degree

. I think the root of the problem could be that most sources on the subject are in Korean and potentially difficult to access for the English speaking community.

In conjunction with the debate regarding the differing opinions on the group's theology, I am including an example of a source with brief summaries to illustrate just how the deep divide is between the current representations of the subject matter and additional information available. Rather than make this post exceedingly long, you can view additional samples on my sandbox at User:GIOSCali/sandbox

1. "JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)
   It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article)
   
   

As for misused RS sources, please also see my sandbox page.

Potential Compromise

While not ideal for the majority of cases, per the exception for religious articles under

phrasing(i.e. one religious leader claims that CGM believes...) Also, sources like those above with relevant information should be added to the article.

• Intelligent Design
  is an FA-class religious article that features a criticism section. I think it is a good point of reference for our purposes, as opinions surrounding ID are also extremely polarized, making integration difficult.

GIOSCali (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read - by the way, to get the ping, you have to do either User:Montanabw or one of the templates: @Montanabw: or @Montanabw: - and then you have to sign the post for it to "go." But don't worry, I also have this page watchlisted. I'll wait until everyone else weighs in before I comment further. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, a "criticism" section doesn't seem a bad idea, and, so far as I can tell, maybe a "controversy" section, dealing with the various controversies. Under the circumstances, I might also consider moving the "History" section up in the article, possibly to the second section. Particularly regarding schismatic groups like this one, the history tends to influence the theology a bit more than the other way around, and giving greater attention to the history often makes it flow a bit easier for the average reader. The possible "controversy" section, if there is to be one, might be made a subsection of the history section, maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Shii

I see no reason to compromise here. The sources translated on User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this. Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A broad statement like this is not quite what I was hoping for. I am not yet ready to go digging in assorted sandboxes until everyone has had a chance to comment on the article itself. While I have looked at the article and skimmed the discussion, it is not the place of a mediator such as myself to make actual content suggestions - at least, not at this stage of the game. (

WP:3O is the place to get new opinions) So, what do you see as the primary issue with the actual article as far as things that need to be added or not added? Are you stating that you are opposed to a discussion of the negatives associated with this movement's leaders? Or do you think it is fine to discus the negatives, it's only a debate over which ones, which sources, and the tone or approach taken? Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable? If either is the case, why? Please clarify. What are you willing to do in order to work with the others? Montanabw^(talk) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The article as it exists right now is NPOV and based on reliable sources. Moving all the unbiased information to a "criticism" section, and replacing it with dubious information directly from the group itself, would, naturally, bias the article. Shii (tock) 09:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, Shii, is it your position that the article is essentially OK as is and does not require changes? (with the caveat, of course, that any article could theoretically be improved) Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jim1138: and @PeterDaley72: to weigh in on this case if they still wish to be involved (or at least stop by and say if you are in or out, please). Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously any article can always be improved, but I'm talking about the allegations of bias -- what the article is based on now is not merely reports from former members, but newspaper reports and academic articles from outside observers. GIOSCali wishes to replace that central content with fishy-looking Korean-language articles that make serious

WP:BLP allegations. Shii (tock) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'd say one thing that is clear is that everyone involved in this dispute needs a very clear understanding of the guidelines provided for
  Verifiability not truth". And yes, WP:BLP. On articles about new religious movements, I've noticed that finding balanced, neutral, third-party sources is crucial to creating a quality article. I think Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is well-stated and worth the read as well. Foreign language sources are often problematic, particularly when, as with Korean, machine translation such as Google Translate is not a lot of help for people who don't speak the language to use as a tool for verification. (I just tried it with one Korean news article above... it creates near-gibberish) Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For the most part, I tend to agree with Shii above. Granted, some newspaper articles are better than others, but the newspaper he has cited is one of the better ones, and, even if it isn't "the best," well, the London Times, New York Times, and Washington Post have screwed up pretty bad in the bast too, but until the clear evidence of that is produced, we still use them, AGF'ing of them that they haven't in that particular case. WEIGHT is a separate factor, and one that probably could be dealt with, but the internal sources about what members of Providence say don't really say a lot that is particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by PeterDaley72

I'm with Shii on this one. I think the article represents the group well. It could be improved with more newspaper articles like these: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2006101884598 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/117_27550.html http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008011523598

And more material from last year's Australian TV report which is already included as a source should be included, especially the letters from the leader in jail to the female members which were partially read on air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11K8R8kmwtM

And since Do-hyun Kim, the founder of the anti-JMS NGO Exodus was brought up. Can we consider including the violent attack on his elderly father by members of Jeong's cult? http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.0 I've met Do-Hyun and while there is a language barrier, I can get a response from him regarding his earlier mentions. Would that be helpful?

One "supportive" article is brought up in the face of scores of critical articles that document criminal convictions, abuses, and violence. I am all for including primary sources as GIOSCali suggested, but the quotes he/she wanted to include from Heaven's Words, My Words, an inhouse booklet published by the group which I also have were cherry-picked. When I suggested including, in addition to her cherry-picked quotes, quotes like "Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death," he/she resisted. I thought that a fair compromise. And his/her refusal to accept including that quote a pretty clear indication his/her motives continued the pattern of the group's attempts to whitewash this article.

Regarding John Carter's comment: "dissatisfied people, and particularly real opponents, tend to lunge at every camera or reporter they can find. This can in some cases raise questions regarding how reliable the sources of information used by those independent reliable sources are." I would consider myself a "real opponent" of the group as the operator of www.jmscult.com. I'm not sure "lunge" is the right word, but I am always happy to help reporters, which I have and are doing quite regularly - I just finished a 7-page interview last night in fact, and I have appeared on Australian TV in the report referenced in the article. Regarding the reliability of myself as a source, as both GIOSCali and myself mentioned on the talk page, I have several letters from the group alleging copyright infringements. I also have numerous threatening and abusive text messages from the leadership in Korea. The source material I have is certainly legit, hence I was able to identify the stated beliefs GIOSCali wanted to include as attempts to whitewash the article and present an image of the group which is in stark contrast to its inner secret teachings. In my experience with destructive cults former members and critics intimately familiar with the cult in question are often the best sources of information. The recent Going Clear Scientology documentary is another good example. What is wrong with "lunging" at a camera in order to help raise awareness of a dangerous serial rapist? Perhaps a little off topic, there, but I wanted to comment on John's thoughts. PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley[reply]

• While I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong on this issue in my role here as a mediator, I CAN give you my understanding or interpretation of WP's guidelines and policies that may be relevant to your questions:

1. We are all constrained by
   the "no original research" rule
   . So no, you personally getting an interview with Do-hyun Kim would not be usable on WP, it's original research. A third party news interview is an acceptable source, though inclusion on ANY article depends on other factors (relevance, etc...) .
2. Similarly, blog posts and bulletin boards/chat forums also are not considered
   reliable sources
   on wikipedia, so those can't fly either.
3. The
   Charreada#Animal_welfare_issues
   , where there was considerable controversy between animal rights advocates and charreada advocates.
4. Finally, per
   WP:COI
   , your own web site is definitely a no-no! That said, the sources you found for your web site where you obtained information (such as TV or newspaper stories) MIGHT be ok as sources provided they meet the general guidelines for wikipedia sourcing (third-party, verifiable, and so on). You probably need to be open in disclosing that you have a POV on this issue; it doesn't preclude your involvement, but it does mean that your position will be viewed with a more jaudiced eye than would that of someone who doesn't have their own web site on the topic.

• I hope this clarifies things for everyone. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Jim1138

As

]

• In the dispute resolution realm, we generally want to tread with caution about attributing motive to other editors and try to just focus on content. That said, if you have concerns that the process is being misused or manipulated, you also have access to other forums such as ANI and 3O, though having issues on multiple forums at once is probably not a good idea. On articles where there are allegations raised such as those in this case, a focus on content becomes doubly important; I noticed the talk page discussion invoked
  Godwin's Law almost right off the bat, which is not a good way to resolve an issue. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Open discussion, round 2

OK, I think everyone has now weighed in and I posted some responses to each person's comments with ideas and my preliminary thoughts. It appears to me that the issues can be summed up as follows:

1. Is there a need to add or remove material in the article that is critical of the religion and/or its founder?
2. Is there a need for discussion, assessment or analysis of the movement's critics?
3. Should any of the above be moved into a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" section, or should it be incorporated throughout?
4. Is there a need to add more positive material on the organization?
5. For all of the above, are reliable sources being proposed and utilized?
6. Ideology aside, is the article disorganized and would it benefit from some rearranging?
7. Finally, Is there a
   WP:COI
   issue.

• It is now time to open a general discussion here. Please everyone remain civil and focus on specific content to be added or subtracted from the article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm burned out on this. I withdraw. Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My replies have also been curt because I am currently busy with other work. But I think this formal discussion has shown that there is a broad consensus against the kind of changes GIOSCali wants to make, and that this consensus is based both in Wikipedia policies and in a reasonable skepticism of the sources he has presented. Shii (tock) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that these "drama boards" can create time-consuming situations. I will not drag this out unnecessarily if folks to resolve their differences. We have no authority to force consensus if consensus cannot be reached. @John Carter:? @GIOSCali:? Any comments? Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, close this proposal already.

The current edit of #Theology does give more or less a fair balance of RS material out there. What GIOSCali claims to be a reliable secondary source on this is fake (to address the question "Are the sources you have concerns about being mistranslated, or are they unreliable?"). So a proposal built on such false premise ought to be rejected.

The source

WP:SELFSOURCE guidelines, severely limiting its use. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Key Points

The argument is not that the majority of content should be removed, nor that the current article fails to use reliable sourcing. The argument is that the current article is incomplete--some important information is missing, and some current sources are being misused in some, not all cases. While editors have addressed some of these points, others have gone unaddressed or have not been met with viable solutions or alternatives.

For clarification I have included key points A, B, and C.

A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok. Again, these facts having nothing to do with (

WP:UNDUE

), the phrasing of the article, or the nature of the group.

1. There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10).
2. The Seoul Broadcasting System in Korea was found guilty of doctoring Jung's sermons to portray him as a sex offender and was forced to pay reparations to the CGM, eventually issuing an official apology letter.
3. Jung Myeong Seok was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea in a case unrelated to the one for which he currently serves a sentence.
4. Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea.

Again, these are basic facts surrounding the subject, without which the article would be incomplete.

B. An entirely separate issue: sources being misused in cases, particularly regarding the theology of the group.

1. For example, claiming that the belief of salvation is achieved through intercourse with the Messiah is (
   WP:Exceptional
   ). Although there are a few sources which claim this, they are clearly stated as opinions by specific people and should be clearly conveyed as such.
2. As for the primary sources mentioned by Peter Daley, the argument is not that these sources should not be used, but that they must be used correctly. I do not object to the use of primary material--in fact I think it is wholly necessary. My only constraint is that the WP:NOR is followed and that phrases not be WP:CHERRYPICK to support the critical viewpoint.

C. There are several sources(not just one) that portray the theology of the group as different from the majority of critical reports. Some of these are on

WP:KO/RS

sources are available, alternatives would have to be explored if sources like this are not acceptable(i.e. verifying other Korean articles, etc.) which would take additional time, but may be the best option.

If it would help, the articles could be translated for the purposes of this discussion. The core issue still needs to be addressed: with claims about the theology being so polarized, it would seem difficult to integrate the two. Perhaps as John Carter suggested, the best way to structure the article would be from a historical perspective.

As for the potential issue with POV, perhaps offering some background information will help. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am a theology student studying modern Christianity, particularly in East Asia. What caught my attention about the CGM was that while Jung was convicted of these crimes, he was only serving a ten year sentence. After some research, I found the article had some gaps in information. This became the basis for these discussions.

GIOSCali (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of discussion, it may help for editors to refer to specific arguments A, B, or C.

It seems editors have generally commented regarding argument C. GIOSCali (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above might relate to an issue I have at least commented on elsewhere, in reference to specifically Chinese "religious groups" or cults. Specifically, at least to me, particularly in terms of Chinese versions of Christianity, there seems to me to be an unusually frequent occurrence of allegations of sexual misconduct against the leaders. Part of that, of course, could, I suppose, be due to different cultural norms. Another part of it, of course, particularly in China, which has a tendency to dislike anything not under state control, the possibility that at least in some cases it might be a trumped-up charge for the purposes of defamation and discreditation. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge that I as an individual haven't seen any specific sources discussing the possibility of the government either coercing or manufacturing such allegations. Also, I acknowledge that it might be less important in this case than others, unfortunately, because the Unification Church, from which this group split, has faced similar allegations from some otherwise creditable sources, and, at least so far as I can tell as an outsider, I suppose there might be some sort of general views of religion in the East which might make such ideas more prominent there. While I would definitely support development of content, or maybe even a separate article, if possible, about the unusual characteristics of criticism of Christianity in the Far East, from what I can tell anyway, the sources reporting the matters seem as reliable as any others, so that material should be included somewhere. Just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is this summary basically accurate (if a bit oversimplified): GIOSCali wants to add assorted material that is more favorable to the organization that may clarify some things, add nuance, and could give it a more balanced or NPOV look; GIOS also thinks some restructuring would be a good idea. (GIOSCali, you may have an undisclosed COI here, can you clarify your involvement with this organization?) Shii states that the article is already NPOV, the sources in there currently are fine, doesn't want to see the criticisms "ghettoized" into a standalone section, preferring them integrated throughout; Shiii also views the ones proposed by GIOS are not very credible; generally opposing GIOS' proposal. Kiyoweap - who has been doing a lot of actual editing on this article, more than anyone else here, at least lately, feels that the article has improved and that the debate is pretty much moot. The other parties opposed to GIOS' proposal have assorted arguments about source accuracy and potential "whitewashing". But, Jim1138 is sincerely burned out on the issue, and PeterDaley72 has a COI problem in the opposite direction due to running his anti-group web site (This does not prevent him from working on the article, but it does go to his own neutrality). Do I have this stated accurately? If so, I have to say that there appears to be a consensus mostly opposing GIOSCali's suggestions. Does anyone here see anything in GIOS' proposals that could be added to the article? If so, we can continue, but if not, I will not prolong this unnecessarily. Montanabw^(talk) 01:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is not proposing information that just favors the CGM, but including critical information which is currently missing from the article..

• Why would there be any opposition to including the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok ?(i.e. that SBS was found to have doctored his sermons/lost a lawsuit in the matter, or that JMS was acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2012)? The issue is not
  WP:NPOV
  ... I have not seen any policy arguments against including this information... is there any reason why these facts should not be included? See point A above...

• Separately, it seems most editors have concerns regarding sources offering an opposing views on theology, but only one source has been examined... How is this consensus?

If this is indeed an issue, there are several more sources which I would be happy to submit for verifiability...

(My position on the subject matter was disclosed above in the preceding edit--)

• So apart from the theological questions, is there any reason why the information regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok should not be included? i.e., are editors not willing to include even relevant info such as JMS being acquitted in 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea on all charges of sexual assault against minors?

GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Legitimate inquiry to the other users, at least the stuff on the theology and an assessment of the verifiability of these SBS lawsuits. I will be frank: I am more dubious about the court stuff if the man is in fact doing time in prison - often prosecutors drop other charges once they have a single conviction; victims also frequently recant. So before I close this as unresolved, I shall ping the the others for a quick yes, no, or maybe. @Jim1138:, @Shii:, @PeterDaley72:, @John Carter: @Kiyoweap:: Anything here to work on? Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia usually describes how a topic is described in prominent secondary sources. Given the obvious unanimity of prominent secondary sources, and the concerns you offered about GIOS's alternate theory, I think it would be safe to label it a conspiracy theory, which we have guidelines for dealing with. Shii (tock) 07:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GIOSCali's A1,2,3,4 strays from the proposed topic of theology into courtroom dealings, and these should have been nudged back to page talk. I guess I'll move topics there. In short, A1 (perjury) and A4 (Kim Do-hyun) are from GIOS's dubious source #2 (see talk). A2 (SBS committed certain broadcast infractions in 1999), but this is stale and trivial compared to what is known since trial in 2007. A3 (sex charges on minors) pretty much as Montanabw says. Prosecution refused to indict on a particular charge. It's creepy if your Christian church is running a kiddie modeling school, but not exactly a crime unless kiddie porn turned up. I see nothing here about "sexual assault" though. B2, former high-ranking members confessed this had been taught. Will add this with sourcing. Will you close this now? --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed: Did not get a response on questions about external links - Continue discussion elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (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:APL (programming language)#Inclusion of maintenance templates and some wikilinks in the article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved talk · contribs ) LongTermWikiUser (talk · contribs) Mdann52 (talk · contribs) Tim Pierce (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The linked talk page section begins with a dispute between LongTermWikiUser (LTWU) and myself over two maintenance boxes I added, {{external links}} and {{overly detailed}} (originally {{tone}}). I removed the external links, allowing the removal of the former box, and believed that this problem was done. In an edit summarized as "correction", LTWU removed the other box. I dropped that stick. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. More recently, LTWU has been beating the dead horse; on two separate occasions, they've readded the external links in running prose that we discussed in the "Link inclusion" subsection. In the most recent edit, Mdann52 reverted LTWU and suggested DRN; believing that to be a good solution, I came here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have only discussed this at any length on the linked talk page section. How do you think we can help? I hope that a good consensus can be worked out with regards to the inclusion of external links in the running prose of the article. Ideally, we'd also reach a consensus on whether the maintenance boxes should be there, but that's less in the scope of the original dispute. Summary of dispute by LongTermWikiUser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Issues: External Links (essence/summary of the problem): Wikipedia deleted some 9 internal Wikipedia webpages re the APL Programming Language article (they became "redlinks") within the last 3-4 mos, most affected links were in the History section of the article. Portions of historical development and people associated in the development of a programming language are being lost to posterity, forever. Consequently external replacement links in the article were put in. Wikipedia calls the process of deleting Wikipedia's internal web pages, cleaning up. An appropriate or actual term is deleting history (Wikipedia's internal links/webpages) permanently = ultimate trickle-through effect of deleting/moving or replacing internal wikipedia articles. It is user/reader-friendly to click on an external link. It is significantly cumbersome to go to an External Links section in an article and then click on links. Train of reader thoughts get lost, original article context is distanced - when going to the Wikipedia's Internal Links Section, and then clicking on an actual external link - the original encyclopedic text is "text distanced" - at least 1-2 clicks removed from original reading by Wikipedia users. Article Length (proposed solutions): Moving portions of the article (perhaps the History Section) to a separate Wikipedia web page might provide a solution, but there is/are some admin. or other Wikipedia approval process(es) needed “to create a new Wikipedia entry/webpage.” A) A programming (HTML/markup) “makeover” solution would include tree structures in Wikipedia articles for + = expand/show-detail, - = hide/no-detail. B) A separate but linkable to WikiArchive (by Wikipedia) would be another solution where say the History section of the Wikipedia A Programming Language could be placed/moved to. Digital storage is so low-cost these days surely article length should not be an issue. From 2009: Petabytes on a budget: How to build cheap cloud storage and disk storage costs have declined since 2009. The Telegraph, UK 8/6/2014: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "History is a human right." LongTermWikiUser (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Mdann52 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tim Pierce Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Starting in January of this year, LongTermWikiUser added some very detailed and thorough expansion to APL (programming language). external links , and reverted them. LongTermWikiUser took exception to those reversions, arguing that articles should not have restrictions on external links or on overly detailed content, and that doing so is contrary to the spirit of the Web, and that it can lead to confusion if information is moved to other Wikipedia articles that later get moved or deleted. There has been some back-and-forth since then, but that appears to be the core of the disagreement. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Links in APL (programming language) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello! I am a volunteer at the DRN. It is my opinion that links in text are generally not a good idea. I believe that the tags were justified. The further reading section seems fine to me though. We could perhaps move the links in prose to there? That seems the most sensible to me. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi Magic Cow and thanks for offering to help at DRN. Please read the DRN volunteer guidelines before moving ahead on any further DRN cases. The volunteers role is to moderate a discussion between the participants not to give their own opinion as in WP:3O. I've also changed the case status back to NEW as cases shouldn't be opened at DRN until all the participants have been notified and consented to the DRN process by leaving a summary here. Thanks for coming by and I hope when you get up to speed on the guidelines you'll continue to participate. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] Coordinator's note: @ APerson: Please remember that it is your obligation to notify all listed parties by giving them a note on their user talk pages. You can use this text — {{subst:drn-notice|APL}} — ~~~~ — to do that, and since you've added parties after making an initial filing here, you must create a summary of dispute section for each of them, above. If the parties are not given notice in the next 2-3 days, this will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)[reply ]  Done talk!) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] First statement by volunteer moderator I will accept this case to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't know anything about the APL programming language, having used many programming languages but not APL. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is a requirement everywhere in Wikipedia.) It appears that one of the issues has to do with the use of external links. Have all of the participants read the Wikipedia policyguideline on external links? I would like each of the participants to summarize their position briefly. Are there any other issues to be resolved here besides the issue about external links? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] First statement by APerson The way I read ELCITE, is that external links should be located in their own section at the bottom of the article by convention. As a consequence, I don't think external links should go in the main prose of the article without a good reason. As LongTermWikiUser would like them to be used, they would essentially serve as wikilinks: "IBM Systems Journal" would link to the journal's official website "Philip Abrams" would link to his personal website "The Computer Company" would link to a scientific paper that features a microcomputer made by the company "Garth Foster" would link to the Computer History Museum's wiki In my opinion, none of the usages here represent compelling reasons to go against the position of the external links guideline. talk!) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] First statement by LongTermWikiUser First statement by Mdann52 Just noting here that I agree with not including external links in the article body, except in limited circumstances (eg. referring to stuff that we could never write articles on, such as legal code). However, in this case, it appears to be unnecessary, as articles were written on those topics, and could easily be rewritten if needed. I'm unlikely to be about much, so please ping me if my attention is required urgently. Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] First statement by Tim Pierce First, I'd like to observe that technically, Wikipedia:External links is a guideline and not a policy. Many of the arguments in favor and against it still apply, but let's be clear about how strong a boundary it is. My sense of LongTimeWikiUser's argument is that they disagree with the underlying principles of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Too much detail. That's certainly a reasonable position to take, but those are well-established Wikipedia guidelines nonetheless. Absent an argument that's specific to APL (programming language) to explain why those guidelines should not be followed here, it seems to me that they should continue to apply. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by volunteer moderator Based on the statements of the other editors besides the guidelines on external links . So my primary question at this time is for LongTermWikiUser. Which of the following is correct? 1. That summary of the dispute is incorrect, and the dispute is not about external links. If so, please provide your own summary. 2. The issue is about external links, and you believe that your proposed use of external links is consistent with the guideline. If so, please explain how it is consistent with the guideline. 3. The issue is about external links, and you believe that an exception to the guideline is warranted for this article. If so, please explain what the exception is. 4. The issue is about external links, and you believe that the guideline should be changed. If so, is a Request for Comments in order, or should there be discussion at WP:Village pump (policy) ? 5. Something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also, for all editors, are there any other issues concerning this article besides the issue about external links? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by APerson Besides external links, the other issue is that at the moment, the article and the way detail is added to it are both going against talk!) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] Second statement by LongTermWikiUser Second statement by Mdann52 Second statement by Tim Pierce The other issue at hand, besides external links, is excessive and overlong detail. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by volunteer moderator User:LongTermWikiUser - Please reply to the above question about external links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] User:APerson, User:Tim Pierce - Please indicate what sections of the article you think contain too much detail. Please indicate whether you think that those sections can be trimmed and that adequate detail is present in child articles, or whether you think that the detail should be trimmed and moved into child articles, or propose some other action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] Third statement by APerson Third statement by LongTermWikiUser Third statement by Mdann52 Third statement by Tim Pierce Fourth statement by volunteer moderator Unfortunately, I am closing this discussion as failed. The primary issue had been the external links. the talk page on external link guidelines to change the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ] Concerning the issue of some of the sections having too much detail, please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2015 (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.

Talk:Muhammad Ali_Jinnah#Jinnah_did_not_have_any_Punjabi_ancestry.21

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• State of Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hadraa (talk · contribs)
• Middayexpress (talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow (talk · contribs)
• Largoplazo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

David H. Shinn which i used has a reliable source on the question of Thirty five states recognized Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence is thrown out and instead is changed with a chinese document that is a fraud not only me but also by by The International Court of Justice which i asked them to look at the document and after i showed Middayexpress that, he insist on keeping the fraud document and i can not rvt him every time and about David H. Shinn we have been talking about him in the talk page for over 2 weeks and the chinese document is only found on (http://wardheernews.com/Organizations/NSPU/ICJ%201-01-12.pdf) nowhere else not on the chinese goverment sites or on The International Court of Justice site .

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

David H. Shinn is a reliable source agreed by —Largo Plazo and me and by showing a email from the International Court of Justice on the Chanise document is a fraud Middayexpress insist on using it and i asked him to show the source of the document twice .

How do you think we can help?

simply look at both of the documents and you decide which is a reliable source. for the 35 countries recognizing Somaliland in 1960 during its brife existence.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

Basically, Hadraa does not want the claim that a state of Somaliland was diplomatically recognized by 35 countries, including all five permanent representatives of the United Nations Security Council, to be attributed to the separatist administration of the present-day Somaliland

]

Summary of dispute by AcidSnow

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Largoplazo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

State of Somaliland discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note: I am neither accepting nor declining the dispute at this time. I will comment that the filing party did not notify User:Middayexpress on Middayexpress's talk page. I have made that notification. I will also note that this is the second filing in a month at this noticeboard about State of Somaliland; I would suggest that theThe other editors, User:Largoplazo and User:AcidSnow, who were in the previous thread, should also be have been notified. Also, in discussions both here and on the talk page, comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• talk · contribs
  )
• Lady Lotus (talk · contribs)
• Lugnuts (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors at the Wikiproject are pushing a local view on list entries, particularly awards in a "List of awards" article, claiming the Wikiproject has a consensus (which past, linked discussion contradicts) decreeing that items on a list need to have their own WP article in order to be reliably sourced in a List article. Community-wide consensus, i.e. guidelines, and MOS does not support this view, e.g.

. The editors in question have refused to accept that, and continue reverting per their view, claiming local consensus and one claiming WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which is not the case given that numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not declare that names, organizations, schools, awards, et al, without articles cannot be sourced in an article. A couple of editors, one an admin, at the present discussion have also disagreed with those editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy, and now redundant, discussion at the Wikiproject talk page, where past discussions contradicting their claims was linked.

How do you think we can help?

Confirm as a third party that the linked guidelines do not support their view, including the claim that their supposed local consensus overrides community guidelines which evidently allow sourced info and items such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, whether or not the items have their own article (which is not remotely a requirement anyway).

• It should be noted that this statement is part of the original post so it is not a third party comment. Along with that there are no links to any guidelines or discussions to confirm or refute the statement. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Lady Lotus

Summary of dispute by Lugnuts

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film#The_removal_of_non_notable_awards_on_film_articles discussion

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The removal of non notable awards on film articles Here is a more direct link to the discussion than the one provided above. It should be noted that the discussion there is less than two days old so the conversation is hardly "lengthy and redundant" - BTW a RFC should have been the next step. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]