Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 18
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
 | Closing as resolved as inadequately sourced assertion. See closing comments at end of thread. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There have been serial deletions of a sourced reference to the existence and content of a legal Opinion to the effect that Lord Monckton is indeed a member of the House of Lords, and is fully entitled to say so, while the contrary opinion, expressed by the Clerk of the Parliaments, is left in. This is libelous of Lord Monckton, implying that there is only one legally-acceptable point of view on the question whether he is a member of the House, albeit without the right to sit or vote. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
We have tried to insert the sourced reference to the legal Opinion supporting Lord Monckton's view, but enemies of Lord Monckton simply delete it. This is not acceptable.
Either insert the missing reference (it will be found in the History) or delete the reference to the Clerk's letter. Either give both sides or give none. Don't allow prejudice in Wikipedia's pages. Wikipedia is potentially in serious trouble over this issue, because an "editor" removed the sourced reference to the existence and content of the Opinion supporting Lord Monckton's view and then locked the page down. That "editor" should have all administrator privileges permanently removed. 86.160.51.116 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
It may be just a mistake, but you seem to have listed only yourself as a party to the dispute and, looking at the talkpage, this is not something that is actually in dispute currently. If it hasn't been done already, this is something that ought really to be discussed on the talkpage of the article before bringing it here. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Gideon Levy
| It seems that agreement has been reached, so I'm closing this thread. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The issue is WP:SYNTH.This statement in the article "his columns have been cited in The New York Times" didn't have any secondary source but an examples of such citation.In my view is a synth because there should be a secondary source that attest notability.Ravpapa say that may argument is reasonable but connects its with some other issue that I don't see how they connected.Ravpapa didn't responded to my last post only after reverting me.--Shrike (talk ) 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
We have discussed in the talk page but have not reached any agreement it seems--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You can counsel whatever it constitute WP:SYNTH or not moreover input of uninvolved editors is always a good thing
Shrike (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Gideon Levy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am surprised to see this issue discussed here. I was under the impression that Shrike wanted to see input from additional editors, perhaps an RFC, which I thought would have been an appropriate and productive step. So far only Shrike and myself have been involved in this discussion. User:Sean.hoyland also participated, but did not take a stand one way or the other. I have never participated in a discussion on this page, so it's hard for me to say what's appropriate. But I would like to see input from other editors on the talk page before seeing the discussion moved to another forum. I should add that, should a consensus develop on the talk page in favor of Shrike's position, I will not stand in the way of a revision. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I will present to the mediators here the facts of the case. The article on Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist whose articles frequently raise the ire of Israeli right-wingers, included the following sentence in the section on "Praise and criticism": "His articles are frequently cited in the New York Times and other newspapers." The statement was supported by a footnote referring to two out of ten references to his reportage in the New York Times in the last year. Shrike argued that this statement was WP:Synth. He claimed that it would have been acceptable to cite all ten of the references, but to draw the conclusion that he is often cited was unacceptable. We (myself and User:Sean.hoyland) contended that the statement was no different than, for example, "Lucien Freud has been exhibited in major museums throughout Europe"; that the number of times a journalist is quoted by others is an important indicator of his or her renown, and is, in fact, a criterion for his or her notability. But Shrike insisted that, without a secondary source stating that he is widely quoted, we could not include the statement. So I found a secondary source. Ben Dror Yemini, an Israeli journalist who, incidentally, despises Gideon Levy, wrote: "He has a global reputation. He is perhaps themost famous and most invited journalist in Israel." This article was translated and reprinted by CAMERA, another of Levy's revilers. I included this quote, and, in order to clarify that Yemini is not a fan of Levy, I added the sentence, "Even his opponents concede that Levy is widely quoted in the world press." This, too, was unacceptable to Shrike, as you can see from his comment above. There is nothing in the quote, he claims, about being quoted, only about having a global reputation and being invited. Also, he says, Yemini is only one person, so it is wrong to talk about "opponents". As for the first objection, I removed the words "widely quoted in the world press." as for the second objection, the complaint was written by Yemini, but repeated by CAMERA (both are cited in the footnote). That makes two opponents, so the statement as written is correct. Throughout this discussion, I have been trying hard to treat Shrike's objections as substantive complaints made in good faith. His arguments have at times been so specious and frivolous that I can't help thinking that his primary concern is not the quality of the article but the excision of any praise of Levy. However, I don't think that is an issue that we need to discuss here. I do, however, want to object to his choice of forum. If this discussion were taking place on the talk page, I would propose revisions, and negotiate a version that would be acceptable to both sides. To do that off the talk page seems wrong, as there is no documentation there of the consensus we would eventually achieve. Sorry if this post has been long. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Occupy Wall Street - Crime and sexual assault sections
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Should the Crime/Sexual Assaults section continue to be a part of the Occupy Wall Street article. Users involved
User:Amadscientist feels that the Crime section should be deleted from the Occupy Wall Street article and moved to the an article detailing reactions to Occupy Wall Street. I do believe that the Crime section was too long and should have been trimmed but not deleted or maybe even made into an article of its own. Also I don't see how this falls under "reaction". The contents of section were all well cited, and stem from significant news coverage. I am trying to compromise by trimming the section but it is repeatedly deleted.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
The section was deleted before a discussion was conducted. I attempted to restore the section while a discussion was conducted to establish a consensus.
Looking for additional opinions. Racingstripes (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#.22Crime.22_and_.22Sexual_assult.22_sections discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Same problem as before, Amadscientist trying to edit war changes into the article while totally misunderstanding the Wikipedia process and casing accusations at other editors. It's not his changes necessarily, but that he edit wars them in and doesn't seek consensus per BRD. Be——Critical 05:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: This has turned into "you need to do this" and "you need to stop telling me...". ALL of you need to calm down. You're bickering and attacking the editors rather than addressing the best way to move forward. Here's what we're going to do to rectify this. The continuation of this discussion will be written in third person and will not include any user names except in signatures. That sounds extreme, but that, I think, is going to be the best way to facilitate a productive discussion. Before switching to third-person, let me address a few specific issues I can see here that I think need to be cleared up.
BeCritical: BRD is only one method of achieving consensus, and it is not a policy. It is a guideline. You cannot require other editors to follow it, you can't use it as an excuse to revert good-faith edits simply because you don't like them, and you can't EVER use it as an excuse to revert a change more than once. (I'm not saying this in an accusatory way; I'm merely presenting the essence of what is said in the BRD article.) Consensus is achieved through edits and counter-edits (not reversions), and through discussion. You've pointed out the claim that the consensus includes the material removed by Amadscientist. Let me clear this up right now for everyone involved: there is no such thing as a "consensus version" of an article. We can't have a clear consensus if the addition or deletion of material is challenged in good faith. This has been challenged, so we don't have consensus. There is no excuse here to "revert to consensus"; the objective here is to build consensus.
Racingstripes: DRN is not going to solve any problems unless all of the involved editors are willing to discuss the issue. We don't make or enforce decisions about articles; we simply facilitate the discussion to try and help people reach a consensus. The clerk who closed the previous discussion ( refusing to drop the stick . (I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing out what seems to be the case here.)
Amadscientist: Since the previous version of the article included material that you deleted, it did have consensus. (Not that it does have consensus, but it did have consensus.) Since you are the one who is trying to get the consensus changed (and it's perfectly reasonable to do so), the onus is on you to explain the rationale for changing the consensus - let it go .
Everyone: No one's go to get exactly what he wants here. There must be compromise, or nothing is going to get done. It's time to cool down, back up, and consider the best way to improve the project. Let's agree that every editor involved in this discussion is create a stampede of angry mastodons. Like I said, let's try to keep this discussion in third person and avoid using user names whenever possible. Sleddog116 (talk ) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Re prior closing, just for the record: The prior listing was about the use or non-use of quotes and the form in which they were to be formatted, along with a bunch of behavioral issues. I closed it on the basis of this edit in which the content part of the issue appeared to be resolved. That left the conduct issues, which are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, so I closed it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) A correction: I wouldn't bother making this correction were it not for the fact that related issues are still coming up here, and it may be apropos of nothing at this point, but I would not feel right if I did not make it. In the prior discussion I said:
|
Wally Lamb
| Closing for no discussion on the talk page, as required by this board's guidelines. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
After editing and adding to Wally Lamb's article on December 21, 2011, the article was flagged with three warnings: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject,"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification," and "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." I explained in the talk section of the article that I do have a connection with Wally Lamb (I am an assistant in his office), but that I am trying to create an neutral, up-to-date, accurate article. I have since included inline citations throughout the article and a list of references (on January 26, 2012). I then went back to the talk page and requested that the citations be reviewed and the warnings removed, but I have not heard anything back and the warnings are still there. I am more than happy to do whatever is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the article and to have the warnings removed. Any code violations occurred due to my inexperience with Wikipedia editing, not malicious intent. I welcome any help that anyone can provide. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have posted twice on the Talk page of the Wally Lamb article. The first post from December 22 states the nature of the corrections and edits I made as well as my goals in making them. The second post from January 26th announcing the inclusion of inline citations, requests that the warnings be removed, and asks for further guidance if more changes are required. Both posts have gone unanswered.
My goal here is to achieve a solid, well-supported article and, therefore, to have the warnings removed. I would be so grateful for any advice about what steps to take now as the Talk posts have proven ineffective. 75.21.25.48 ([[User talk:AmandatindersmithAmandatindersmith (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)|talk]]) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Wally Lamb discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Osteopathic Medicine in the United States
| Closed - see my closing comments at the bottom of this section. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Another editor and myself are currently engaged in a dispute regarding whether or not the term "DO" for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is a valid substitute for the phrase osteopathic physician in the article at hand. The objections that have been raised to this have been the personal preference of the other editor, that the term "DO" may cause confusion in lay readers, that the term DO is meant to signify the degree earned by an osteopathic physician and not the holder of the degree, and that DO is a colloquial term. These objections can be seen on the talk page of Wikiproject:medicine and on the talk page of osteopathic medicine in the United States. I have put forth the following logical counterarguments to address each objection: the personal preference of the other editor is not the issue here, articles on wikipedia are meant to be informative and objective, DO and osteopathic physician are synonymous for the holder of the DO degree (it can be used to mean the degree or the holder of the degree) and it will be clear from context which is being referred to (e.g., DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications and attend medical school for four years.), osteopathic physician is a term often conflated with foreign osteopaths and DO is a different enough term so as to be less confusing for lay readers, professional DO organizations use the term this way (I can provide links to support this claim upon request), DO is not a colloquial term since colloquial terms are ones used in an informal, everyday sense, and while this is true of this term, it is also used in academic settings such as peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and informational government pages (again, I can provide links upon request) DO is a more concise term than osteopathic physician, and the term DO is a more parallel comparison to MD while the osteopathic/allopathic dichotomy has caused understandable anger in the MD community due to the pejorative connotations associated with the term allopath and its variants so the comparison of DOs and MDs is more appropriate. Additionally, other articles (e.g., comparison of MD and DO in the United States) use DO in this manner. Users involved
While I respect the other editors, I cannot agree with them on this matter. The fact is that I have responded on the talk pages where we engaged in discussion about this issue with little feedback unfortunately and I provided sound reasons that rendered their points either moot or showed them that their premise was false. I am going to such lengths as to seek advice from a dispute resolution board to avoid an edit war with the editor who reverted my edits. I have notified each user on his talk page mentioned in this note that I am discussing this on this page.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have attempted to discuss the issue with Hopping (the primary editor with whom I am having this disagreement) and have received little to no response. I have been hesitant to revert the edits that he made to my edits to avoid violating the edit war policy. Additionally, I have brought this issue up on the wikiproject:medicine page to engage other users in discussion and received more feedback (objections mentioned above) that I addressed with evidence and received no response.
Regarding the type of help needed I think there are two possible courses of action that can help me. It is unclear regarding the rules of wikipedia (at least to me) whether there is precedent here and which of us is right though obviously I am sticking to my position and for good reasons. So, a clear-cut answer to the thesis of the acceptability of DO as a substitute for the phrase osteopathic physician would be deeply appreciated. Secondly, if there is no clear-cut answer, perhaps pointing me in the direction of a wikipedia page or policy that has clearly defined rules for a disagreement such as this one over professional titles/abbreviations or pointing me in the direction of someone who can mediate/solve the dispute would be perhaps the speediest way to bring this dispute to a conclusion. I am happy to supply the evidence for the statements I have made earlier in this note though it should be noted that they are present on the Hopping's talk page as well as the talk page of the articles Osteopathic Medicine in the United States and Wikiproject:Medicine. talk ) 02:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Osteopathic Medicine in the United States discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I'm baffled. I responded to this user's query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine where it was raised and the response is to immediately vault to DRN? Hardly an encouraging sign for GF collaboration. I don't think I'll be participating.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
DoctorK88 did not inform me of this dispute case despite my clear involvement in the assuming good faith as to DoctorK88's reason for not informing me.
The consensus from the previous discussion is clear to me. DoctorK88's disagreement with the consensus is an inadequate reason to extend the discussion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) It is only your opinion that consensus has been reached. I firmly believe that we are still in the consensus building phase of presenting arguments and evidence, most of the arguments/evidence I have been presented have not been adequately responded to so I believe (yes, also my opinion) that consensus has not yet been established. We also do not have very many opinions weighing in on the issue yet and should strive to be get more voices to participate in the debate for a more comprehensive review of the dispute and ultimately work toward achieving a mutually satisfactory compromise. The responses I have been seeing so far do not feel like they carry the intention to reach a mutual compromise or solution behind them. I would rather you all work with me and address the arguments/evidence I have presented instead of repeating your personal opinions on why you disagree with my position. And yes, it was an accidental oversight not informing Axl of my involvement of the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did notify everyone else but confused his comment with another user's and have acknowledged this accidental mistake both on Axl's talkpage as well as on the wikiproject:medicine page. talk ) 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I would be happy to supply that evidence. I have found several pages that use DO to describe physicians with this qualification including pages from: DO professional organizations, government pages, peer-reviewed research from academic journals (government pages and peer-reviewed journals are noteworthy to address the objection brought up that the term DO was colloquial and not suitable as a formal word but I have found it is used in formal arenas as mentioned). Where would it be best for me to supply the evidence in the form of links? Here or on your talk page or a different page? As for literaturegeek's response, I do accept the premise of wikipedia consensus but I do not believe wikipedia consensus has been achieved yet since we are still in the phase of presenting arguments/evidence to attempt to persuade other editors and work toward consensus building not to mention only a few of us have even participated in this debate at all though I do not know if a certain amount of people need to participate in a debate to achieve consensus or not. Anyway, please let me know where you would like me to present evidence of my claims and I will do so. talk ) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I did put out a request for comment today a little while ago. I'm glad to see you admit it and I do not expect you to be infallible but I do expect respect and courtesy from people who are volunteering to help. Regarding frustration, don't you think I'm frustrated? Especially when the editors I have been engaging in discussion largely ignore the substance of what I am talking about? I don't agree that the thread has garnered enough opinions to be representative of the wikipedia community. And as far as I know wikipedia does not have well-defined parameters for consensus (e.g., how many editors need to be participating in discussions to achieve it) or how long the process of building consensus is. It is true that I came here to get the opinions of uninvolved editors, but just as you say, I can still disagree with outside opinions and employ logic to back up my assertions. I'm not one to simply accept others' subjective opinions without evidence. I keep repeating myself because my evidence/arguments stand and I have addressed many of the objections given in the past on this subject (e.g., those of Hopping). If the wikipedia community on a large scale decides that they are not "comfortable" with the substitution, despite the fact that I would not understand why given how much the term is on the page as it is, I will accept the decision, but I do think that solid reasons backed up by sound, logical arguments and evidence are necessary. If they are not, then wikipedia has some deeply flawed policies that need immediate addressing. If that occurs, I will go back to editing articles as I had been and accept the decision I find unusual. Truthfully, I never expected this topic to generate the controversy that it did, I disagree with Hopping that there is no controversy, I sensed strong opinions come through in the other editors' statements and all of this over a small preference in nomenclature. I know I have put this proposal forward with some energy behind it but I have been advocating for a mutually agreeable compromise if nothing else and have so far received no responses echoing a similar sentiment. talk ) 05:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Closing comments: Reading the discussions here and at WikiProject Medicine, I see a clear consensus to use osteopathic physician. I count eight editors supporting the use of osteopathic physician, and two supporting DO or a combined approach. Discussions like these are manual of style page on abbreviations asks us to "always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation". I do agree with DoctorK88's desire to use DO to more easily compare it with MD, but I think the appropriate solution is probably to expand MD into a word or phrase, rather than to abbreviate osteopathic physician. I'm sure the editors involved can work out the best way to word that by discussing it on the article's talk page.
I should stress that this closure isn't a binding decision about the content involved; we don't do binding content decisions at this noticeboard. If DoctorK88 wishes to pursue this issue further, then the correct venue to do that is to create an RfC on Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Based on the responses so far, however, it is my personal opinion that such an RfC would not be successful, and I urge DoctorK88 to consider dropping this particular issue and to work on improving other aspects of the article. I'm sorry that this post gives a such a bleak outlook for the chances of DO being used, but I don't like seeing editors wasting effort on things that aren't likely to succeed, especially when there are many things to which that effort could be better channeled. If anyone has further questions, I'll be happy to answer them on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Disruptive editing by user Gunnai?
| Conduct, not content, dispute not within the scope of this noticeboard. Try WP:ANI to seek sanctions. — TransporterMan (TALK ) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Can you look into to behavior of user Gunnai (talk · contribs) to verify if my idea that this user blanks out or remove portions of page content, references, changes page content without proving edit summaries or sources and maybe avoids discussions or assumes ownership of articles is legitimate? During January 2012 the talkpage of this user has received several comments by me and other editors. The talkpage is regularly maintained/blanked, so this user reads messages, remarks and suggestions from other Wikipedians.
Yes (ipso facto)
Resolving the dispute
Contacted user Gunnai (talk · contribs) several times on his talkpage to no avail, added paragraphs on the Gewehr 98 and Gewehr 1888 talkpages to explain and referenced to facts that have legal status in many countries. In other countries this may be regarded as a point of view by people who like to risk serious injury or death. But as there are only few users involved I do not see how the impasse with a used that does not provide edit summaries and does not discuss matters can be broken.
By establishing if there is an issue and if so by resolving the issue at hand.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Disruptive editing by user Gunnai discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Though perhaps not the most appropriate place, I strongly suspect User Gunnai is a new incarnation of indeff blocked User:MFIreland. Same frustrating MO: refuses to engage, blanks attempts at discussion from TP, no edit summaries. RashersTierney (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Grant Cardone
| Closing for no discussion on talk page per this board's instructions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
A hagiography was initially put up - this was edited back and new information about Cardone's involvement with Scientology included. There is now a concerted effort to have the Scientology information removed and the hagiography as originally written put back up Users involved
Central issue appears to be to remove details of Cardone's actions against acting coach Milton Katselas
YES - apart from those unknown
Resolving the dispute
tried talking
protect page, encourage dialogue Henry Sewell (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Grant Cardone discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Hunnic Empire
| I agree with the other neutral parties - there doesn't seem to be a dispute here. I recommend you stick an {{rfc}} tag at the top of the merge proposal thread, advertise the discussion at relevant WikiProjects, and then wait for the replies to roll in. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I would like to ask some help because there is a debate about merge and there are clashing options. Please see talk page of Hunnic Empire: Talk:Hunnic_Empire#Merge_with_Huns_and_delete.3F
Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We need more opinions, suggestions. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Hunnic Empire discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's comments: This discussion has been extremely civil and objective. There are currently 5 editors in favor of merger (or, in one case, deletion) and 3 in favor of retention. The discussion has taken place in two phases, one ending last November and a second, far more thorough, one beginning in early January; of the eight involved editors three made only one or two edits in the earlier discussion and have not participated in the more recent discussion. If only the recent participants are considered there are 3 in favor of merger and 2 opposed. It is 2 and 2 if an IP editor's sole, one-word support !vote is discounted, and the remaining 4 have all been substantially engaged in the discussion. There appears to be agreement from both sides of the matter that it should not be concluded as having no consensus but that additional opinions should be sought. Both the merge side and the opposition have prepared excellent summaries of the arguments pro and con on the article talk page which should be considered in addition to the discussion there. I highly commend everyone involved in this process so far. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC) One additional word. While the opinions of uninvolved parties and mediator/clerks here at DRN do "count" towards consensus, the real purpose of this venue is to either (a) try to help the parties in a dispute to come to consensus via compromise or via clarification of Wikipedia policy or guidelines or (b) to refer them to a more appropriate dispute resolution venue. It is not a venue whose primary purpose is to create or solicit additional parties to determine consensus, though that does, indeed, sometimes happen here. In light of that I would like to pose this question to the parties and particularly to the DRN uninvolved/mediator/clerk community: Do you see any possibility of a compromise or clarification of policy which would resolve the stalemate here without the mere addition of additional !votes? If not, then this dispute should probably move on to a request for comments which is the proper dispute resolution venue for just that purpose. I, frankly, do not see such a possibility myself, but I am not going to close this listing until others have a chance to weigh in. — TransporterMan (TALK ) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with TransporterMan's comments. All of you involved editors are already doing an extremely good job of discussing this civilly; there's really no need for dispute resolution if this case. If all you need is opinions from uninvolved editors, then RFC would definitely be the most appropriate venue. This can't even be called a "dispute"; a dispute implies people not getting along. This is just a discussion/debate. Sleddog116 (talk ) 20:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Aviators who became ace in a day
| Closing as settled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
We have three sources for the section on Muhammad Mahmood Alam. Two sources say he claims to have shot down five in a day.
Users involved
AS we have two sources saying Alam claims five kills in a day then this is what the article should reflect.
Yes (ipso facto)
Resolving the dispute
Have used the talk page. [6] But as there are only two users I do not see how the impasse can be broken.
By resolving the issue at hand. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Aviators who became ace in a day discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The source is not a primary source, it is an international publication and a reliable source by an independent writer. The quote by Alam is not the only quote the source mentions. The source has also mentioned quotes from formation members and others. There's no indication that the source conflicts with the other sources cited (infact it is backed up by them). A previous neutral editor already discussed this on two different talk pages who said that the kills are awarded by ace's airforce intelligence and as such those confirmed by the formation member in my view are taken as confirmed. Also, the source is presenting this as a fact as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Top Gun and Darkness Shines. I had a look at the source, and it looks reliable to me. John Fricker, the author, was apparently a staff writer on military matters for The Aeroplane magazine, and I don't think we can easily dismiss his work. However, if you need another opinion on this, there is always the reliable sources noticeboard. Also, if there is discrepancy between the sources, then it is perfectly fine to say so in the article - it doesn't have to be a simple black or white distinction. Top Gun, would you say that this is the case here? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I think the biography article already says that Indian sources dispute his kills and such which is the correct place for those details and not this article. This has also been indicated by the page creator of this article that such debates be first dealt with on the BLP article instead of pages where there's just a recount and that kills are awarded by the ace's air intelligence. As for the quotes mentioned here by DS, he missed to mention any clarifications to the quote which I previously gave to him on the article talk page.
The "--" (dashes) between the quote were added by me to differentiate between two separate quotes mentioned in the citation (which might not be a good way.. may be you can do that in a better way?). Infact the quote before the dashes was the only quote cited before DS objected. This first part of the quote is not of Alam but a formation member of his who was taking a turn to attack those hunters too but Alam took them before he completed his turn (so not a primary quotation at all). The second part was added by me on DS's request as he asked me to point out where in the book was the fifth kill mentioned (I also added page no's at that moment). The book contains narrations from different people and not only Alam and the author himself is backing this up too. This in no way would be a primary recount of the incident. Thanks for helping with the dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion questions: There obviously seems to be a bit of a discrepancy here over (1) whether the provided research is considered to be solely from primary sources, and (2) whether they can be used, even if they are primary sources. While it's true that primary sources are generally discouraged, sometimes it is necessary to notability guidelines? Notability does not, of course, require that information on the subject be available on the Internet, but chances are that a subject of notability will have some mention on the Web. I would also like to quote from the Notability guidelines one of the criterion necessary for notability: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.. Is that the case here, or do we indeed need better sources for this material? Sleddog116 (talk ) 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to the book for now (I did before when I presented quotes) and the online ones are not free I guess, I'll review author's descriptions and quote them here whatever they are so that further analysis can be made when I get to it. If there's a copy online that can be accessed for these pages feel free to link here. I don't think the source is unreliable in anycase the dispute about the 'claim' and 'facts' is the only thing being handled here as far as I know. On other hand, saying that eyewitnesses are primary sources would make any statements quoted in books or news as primary, is that so? --lTopGunl (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
To Darkness Shines: I would strongly suggest that you also read win the argument; our goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Sleddog116 (talk ) 04:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the objection here by Darkness Shines is over "shot down", what would you suggest to replace with from the original quote? I suggest, simply replace "shot down" with "is credited for shooting down". All ambiguity gone. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, we really need to come to some sort of consensus here. This topic has been on DRN for over two weeks now, and productive editing should not have to be stalled that long. (It's not one editor stalling it; both sides need to original research. Darkness Shines, I would like to know what objections you raise to that and why. TopGun, I would like you to please let DS speak for himself. Let's try to resolve this today; it's been on DRN long enough. Sleddog116 (talk ) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: TopGun, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not "taking your side." I simply said that in my estimation, the source is reliable, but I'm just another editor. Obviously, DS is not willing to accept that it is a reliable source. What we have here is two editors who are both completely unwilling to compromise. I'm beginning to think that DRN may not be the proper venue for this, as the main argument seems to have shifted towards the reliability of the source. Since DS is not willing to accept my estimation of the source's reliability, then obviously, the discussion still needs to continue. Darkness Shines, I realize how passionate editors can get over something that is, when it comes down to it, purely an argument of semantics. You're right in wanting to improve the encyclopedia by using the best possible sources, but when other editors give interpretations of sources, there comes a point when it's best to just let it go and accept what the discussion says, even if you don't particularly agree. This refusal to compromise (and it's from both editors; I'm not pointing fingers) has stalled the encyclopedia's progress on this particular article for over two weeks now.
Proposal: In the interest of moving things forward, I'm going to suggest that we use both sources and word the article exactly as TopGun's source quote says. Not verbatim (no need for copyvio), but something like this: "Alam was credited with the required five kills, even though only two bodies were recovered." Both of you: If you're opposed to what I have suggested, I want to hear counter-proposals, and I DON'T want a simple restatement of what you've both been saying for the past two weeks. Like I've done on other discussions, I want future responses to be written in third person and without the use of user names except in signatures. Let's work together and get this figured out instead of bickering. This has gone on long enough. Sleddog116 (talk ) 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Following a different line here, has anyone actually considered looking at the article about Alam himself? It has an extensive record of his kills, and that record is extremely well cited from all reliable sources (including the Pakistan Air Force and the Pakistan Military Consortium). It also gives extensive citation to the Indian claim that Alam might not have actually scored all of those kills. I am going to suggest (and, in fact, insist as much as possible while remaining neutral) that we present the information here exactly (not necessarily word-for-word) as it is presented in the actual Alam article - that is, record the official information from the PAF about Alam's kill record while still presenting the fact that the claim is disputed. Look at the article about Alam himself (I'm going to ask that neither of you edit that article for now until this dispute is settled - obviously I can't enforce that, but I just want you to look at it). I think we should present the information here as it is presented there. Sleddog116 (talk ) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Clerk Comment: Both of you, stop. As TG said, most of the material that was added about Alam's kills on his own article was not added by him, and it was added before this dispute began almost a month ago. I'm not saying that to side with TG; a quick glance at the edit history will confirm that. Darkness Shines - I'm going to say this straight out: we cannot use the word "claim" or its forms in attaching it to Alam's kill rating. Again, I'm not saying that to take sides; I'm saying it for two main reasons: 1) It has been legitimately challenged by a disputant with reliable sources - open a thread on WP:RSN if you disagree with their reliability, but I think you will ultimately get the same answer there.
2) To say "claimed" is, in this case (due to its style manual because the Pakistan Air Force (which is, ultimately, the body that determines ace status for a Pakistani pilot) also gives Alam credit for the kills (ergo, the word "claim(ed)(s)", if used, must and will be attached to the Pakistan Air Force, not to Alam himself, to avoid BLP issues)
Darkness Shines: Having said that, the article can't used "Alam claimed" (or any of its synonyms - e.g. "alleged" "asserted" etc.). Having said that, I would suggest that you find another option. If you're going to dispute the source's reliability, then do that on the RSN - again, since it comes from the PAF, you'll likely get the same answer there, so it may be time to just arguing for the sake of arguing .
TopGun: Since the Indian disputes give legitimate sources to dispute the claims (not all of them are primary), it would be weasel words from the Alam article to remove any perception of primary source bias, but it still has to be at least mentioned, otherwise it's not neutral. Sleddog116 (talk ) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a good suggestion (we'll say what DS says), but I would like to amend it a little: "In air-to-air combat during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Muhammad Mahmood Alam of the Pakistan Air Force was credited by the PAF for shooting down five Indian Air Force Hawker Hunter Mk.56 fighters in
@Darkness Shines: Are we finished? — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Lotus E20
| Prisonermonkeys and DeFacto agree not to edit the Lotus E20 article for one week. See the resolution below for further details. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
Ongoing dispute between editors over the appropriateness of certain content on the page. Users involved
I believe that DeFacto is in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:F1, he joins the discussion as consensus is formed, at which point the discussion goes off-topic and no consensus is reached, which I believe may be sabotage to prevent a consensus against his edits. There have been multiple instances of all of this happening, and sadly, I can no longer assume good faith in his edits.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Multiple attempts to come to a consensus, both on WP:F1 . Have approached adminstrators about the issue with no real resolution (more admin input pending).
Can someone please take a look at the content and come to some kind of consensus as to what is appropriate? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Lotus E20 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is a mistaken attempt by the complainant to manufacture a "dispute" scenario by rolling two separate and distict disagreements into one.
-- de Facto (talk). 08:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This has already been addressed on the WikiProject talk page, but the lede section should be a summary of the article. From WP:WEIGHT, says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject", and further, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Some of the arguments have claimed that including information on the naming of the car would be giving that information undue weight, but I find this hard to reconcile with the fact that the naming has been discussed in multiple, reliable, non-specialist sources such as the New York Times, BBC Sport, and Reuters. We cannot exclude sources merely because they are not official FIA sources, and I cannot see any reason to believe that these particular sources aren't reliable in this case. 14:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So, now let me cover the issue of the "Enstone team". Here we have two conflicting sources of information - the official FIA statistics and the sources that DeFacto provided. First, it doesn't look like there is any conflict about the use of Enstone as a "team" on par with official constructor teams as specified by the FIA; in such cases, everyone seems in agreement that we should use the FIA's terminology for our official statistics. When we are talking about the "group of people" at Enstone, though, the sources conflict: the official statistics call this group of people different teams depending on which season we are talking about; the media sources call them the same team that just happens to have changed their name a lot of times. As I see it, these two views are both correct, depending on what you mean by "team", and again, I don't think we can exclude the media sources from the article just because they make things inconvenient. In my experience, the only way to do things here is to be verbose - to teach the controversy, as it were. So I think we will have to spell out, in the article text, that X news sources call Enstone the same team, but that the FIA classifies them as different teams, and that the E20 is named after the Enstone team in the first sense, but that we can't call Enstone a "team" in the second sense. It will be long, yes, but when we have worked out the wording I feel it will be a good compromise. Let me know what you think of my suggestions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫
Lotus E20 discussion: convenience break #1Would somebody please take a loot at WP:CRYSTAL (though as I have pointed out, he has made no move to alert other users to it). This paragraph recounts the development of the reactive ride-height system, and the circumstances that led to it being banned. It draws on several reliable sources, including James Allen and Autosport. It is a summary of the details given in the articles that are referenced, carefully rewritten into layman's terms. It is not the first time that I have condensed lengthy techncial explanations into something that readers can understand - I have written entries on off-throttle blown diffusers, the F-duct and DRS concepts, mid-season regulations regarding camber limits, and several other technical points. I have never had a single complaint about them, or even so much as a re-write. I'm not suggesting that I own these parts of the article; I am merely highlighting the way that I am familiar with condensing a lot of technical information into encyclopaedic terms without losing any key details.
This is how the article appears now (I have removed the references, but they are included in the article):
This, I think, accurately and concisely summarises the issue. It described the development, the mechanics of the system, the ban and the circumstances under which it was banned. Perhaps the only thing missing is Lotus' reaction to the ban, but nobody appears to have commented. I expect the issue will be raised in four days when the car is launched. And this is the version DeFacto is suggesting:
This, I feel, downplays the importance of the system, despite several teams copying it once they learned of it. It also implies that Lotus did not develop the system, which was later banned (and the FIA felt that it hadd been designed for aerodynamics benefit first and foremost), with the extended implication being that Lotus did not break the rules. It makes no mention of the mechanical operation of the system or its development, and even implies that it was never a part of the E20's development (despite the team having spent two years working on it). In short, I think this example best summarises why I cannot assume good faith in DeFacto's edits. It needlessly removes detail, downplays the importance and the coverage of the system, does not ascribe due weight, insinuates that Lotus never developed it and so never broke the rules and he claims it violates OR and CRYSTAL, despite having come from highly-reliable sources when DeFacto had previously used the "it's being reported by several people, so it should be included". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me being upset about my edits being undone, and everything to do with your behaviour. I have noticed that you have done the following:
I am well aware that these are serious accusasions that I am levelling against you. But I wouldn't be making them if I didn't believe them to be true. You are correct in saying that I went to an adminstrator. You will notice I have done this before to deal with a disruptive editor. I went again because I was unfamiliar with the dispute resolution process, and I was asking advice and for a quick review. You were the one who entered a conversation you had no part entering. And as for the RFP, I noticed that you were in the habit of reverting changes as soon as you saw them on the E20 page. And I would restore them straight back, because I felt that your edits were inappropraite to the page. Since I could see the inevitable course that this would follow, I decided to take the initiative and request page protection so that we could sort the issue out. It has nothing to do with "being a sore loser". It has nothing to do with "your good work", because your work is not very good at all. I am not trying to misreprsent the team one way or another, because while I don't particularly like them, I don't particularly dislike them, either. I have no interest in discrediting them - I am simply interested in portraying them as accurately as possible. You are the one who overstates the importance of the Enstone team's success whilst downplaying the effect of the RRH. You are the one who tries to stop a consensus being formed by deliberately obscuring the issue, and when that doesn't work, you are the one who holds the page hostage the minute consensus goes against him. You are the one who argues for the inclusion of some content based on reliable sources, but then removes other content and ignores their reliable sources. You are the one who has been over-stating the quality of his edits. So, here is what I propose: we both back off. We are clearly both too close to this. So I suggest we refrain from editing the E20 page for a week or so. When the car is launched, more detail will be added to the page (like the infobox). After one week, we will assume that the editors have left the page in an acceptable state (we will invite them to edit the page fully). I am fully willing to do this, but it only works on two conditions: that we both do it, and that we do not try lobbying for certain pages when other people edit the page. We simply invite people to review and edit the Lotus E20 page, and leave it at that. After one week, we come back to it and assume it has been reviewed and that the page is in the most accurate and NPOV state that it can be in. The advantage of this arrangement is two-fold: the page will accurately re-written, and because we have to trust one another not to edit the page for one week, we can begin to assume good faith in each other's edits once again. It sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, but we both need to agree to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Lotus E20 discussion: convenience break #2For what it's worth, I think that Falcadore's point about recentism is the key here. Pretty much every reference that de Facto has cited can be traced directly back to recent press releases from the Bouiller/Lopez/Genii group, or to interviews given by them to journalists. Very few are more than 12 months old. This seems to be a widespread, orchestrated campaign by the current owners of the Enstone facility to generate some quasi-official "heritage" for their brand new constructor, presumably in an attempt to position themselves better in forthcoming contract negotiations. Why an ever-changing group of employees, some of whom pass on to a new constructor when the previous one is bought out, but plenty do not, should be regarded as a "team" is beyond me. Whether de Facto likes it or not, the term "team" is a loaded one in a Formula One context, and does not simply refer to a "bunch of people", but is used as a common shorthand for "constructor". For a new constructor to be claiming race wins and Championship titles that were bought and paid for by completely different commercial organisations is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst. It seems a shame that Wikipedia seems to be being drawn into this. Pyrope 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Let's bury the myth that the concept of a team, its heritage and its culture, continuing contiguously despite owner changes and constructor name changes, is only a recently conceived one:
Three after a quick Google, and specifiacally for "Enstone". I'm sure if all those who are seeking to perpetuate the myth, instead did a few searches themselves, that we could bolster that number no end! -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC) -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 discussion: proposed resolutionDespite the amount of virtual ink that has been spilled over this dispute so far, it doesn't look like we are actually any closer to resolving it. I think implementing Prisonermonkeys' solution would be a very good idea. DeFacto, would you be willing to leave the article alone for one week if Prisonermonkeys also does the same? This will give you some time to reflect, and there should also be more sources available when you come back. If you still have problems after that, then I would recommend filing a case at the mediation cabal. In my opinion the discussions so far have sometimes suffered from a lack of focus, and I think mediation would be the best way to redress this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, it looks like we have a rough consensus for a week-long break. I've written precise terms of the agreement below. (I think putting it here makes more sense than on the talk page, as it's not directly about the article contents.) I've also specified that any other editors can edit the articles, but I don't think there is agreement for advertising for editors to come and improve the article before the week starts. In any case, most of WikiProject F1 know about this dispute now, so the point is mostly moot. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 resolutionFurther to the discussion in this dispute resolution thread, User:Prisonermonkeys and User:DeFacto agree to the following conditions, which shall apply until midnight on Saturday
After midnight on Saturday mediation cabal. Prisonermonkeys, DeFacto, please leave your signature below to indicate that you agree to these conditions. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing. I just noticed that I got the date wrong in my resolution text above. To clarify, it should be Saturday 11th February. Sorry for the trouble, but can you both confirm this below? Otherwise I'll leave this thread open for another day or so to avoid any confusion. Thanks for your help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
- ISBN 978-1591146865.)
Mohammed Mahmood Alam claimed five victories against Indian Air Force Hawker Hunters, four of them in less than one minute! Alam, who ended the conflict with 1 1 kills, became history's only jet "ace-in-a-day."
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help