Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:21, 22 September 2011

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Zoellick bio

• Robert Zoellick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Currency1 (talk · contribs)
• Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs)

Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoellick bio}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.

• How do you think we can help?

Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000.

Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I presume this concerns Robert Zoellick. I went to the BLP noticeboard in a response to Currency 1's request for help, But I found that this editor had been attempting to t negative information about alleged failures in the general operation of the bank, not in the least limited to his period, on every page possible, in such a way that they reflected on him personally. To some extent some it possibly might be appropriate to mention, but not in the extravagant way that it was bering used,a gross violation of BLP, which applies on talk pages also. My statement on the talk p there summarizes my view of the matter. My resolution of it would be to ban currency 1 from any edits regarding him or the back. The editor admits in so many words on the BLPN page there "Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through..." This editors handling of th topic is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages, which should not be used in this fashion. That the ed. should have carried it hereafter being rejected there indicates a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel. I have had some off wiki correspondence with the ed, which supports my view that there is no understanding whatsoever about WP not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if we reject her here, she will find yet another place for this. I conclude that I probably initially used my admin role in too restrained a fashion on this--instead of warning, I should have blocked. If any other admin wants to do so, I'll support it. It seems the only way of ending this dispute.

I try to avoid bringing up my political opinions here, but I have no love for any aspect of the world financial system, either in aggregate or in detail, and those who know me will know I am putting this as mildly as possible. But Misplaced Pages is not the place to bring it down, however much it may deserve it, and personal abuse is not the method. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Having read the entry at the BLP noticeboard from July, I would say that User:Currency1 is on thin ice. If she again restores her proposed material to our article on Robert Zoellick she risks being blocked for violation of WP:BLP. That is, for inserting unsourced negative material. The only way she can make any headway at all (if she insists in working on this article, which may not be a good choice given her COI) is to make a case on the article's talk page which is so persuasive that other editors reach a consensus to support her view. If so, someone else could edit the article to add his material. It is conceivable that appropriate secondary sources on these questions about Zoellick's personal situation may exist, but Currency1 has so far not found any. There is more discussion at Talk:Robert Zoellick#Transparency at the World Bank. I agree with what DGG had to say there. He has read the sources but could not find support for the assertions that Currency1 wanted to add to the article. I suggest that people read Demiurge's comment also. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio closing comments

Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Misplaced Pages articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)

I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio:

"If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:

US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. (The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 )

and

President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.(April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, )

My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair.

Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him.

About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey "image and politics" section

• Morrissey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Morrissey's relationship to his fanbase is extremely important and central to his enduring appeal. While there is a large amount of information on the unfounded allegations of racism and his sexuality, as well as on 'feuds' within the industry and minutiae, very little content there relates to his relationship with his fans and his online fanbase, the intensity of which is unique to Morrissey. I have provided a good, well-sourced overview of Morrissey's relationship with his fans which is not disputed. Unfortunately the same individual (former IP) repeatedly deletes (censors) any mention of Morrissey's online fanbase, which is crucially important. Morrissey has written about his fansites on numrous occasions, mentioned them in interviews, thrown fansite owners out of concerts and worn t shirts urging his fans to "f***" a particular website. He may also be the victim of an internet hoax/parody, which he has written about three times in 3 or 4 months. When I include this very pertinent detail, former IP repeatedly deletes the content, citing 'poor references' (untrue - the references are good and many other items on 'Morrissey' have NO citation) - and 'trivial' again not true, as proven by morrissey's repeated actions drawing attention to his fansites and criticising them, it is far from trivial. He does not seek to compromise, but rather repeatedly deletes content, even when I repeatedly attempt to reduce the content, he simply deletes it. I also have concerns that this individual has a conflict of interests, being a moderator on one of the websites Morrissey has repeatedly criticised.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• FormerIP (talk · contribs)
• Friendlyfan4 (talk · contribs)

Compromise should be sought first - as I did. This user has not compromised but instead has repeatedly deleted a salient addition.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Morrissey, Image and Politics}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This is my first step

• How do you think we can help?

I am new to this site, please help. I am now informed after all this typing it must be discussed on the talk page, which I do not understand.

Friendlyfan4 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey, Image and Politics discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Friendlyfan4, and thank you for your post. Before we get on to the details of the content that you added, I would like to ask about the conflict of interest of which you speak. While being involved with a fan site about Morrissey would not necessarily mean that an editor would have a conflict of interest with the Morrissey article on Misplaced Pages, the same would not be true for material about the fan site itself. This is quite a serious accusation and I think it would change the manner in which we would deal with this dispute. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interest. I just had the page on my watchlist and noticed the addition of a very large amount of crufty material without reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

Provisionally closing due to inactive nature of dispute and both parties being infrequent editors. Will reopen on request, leave note on my talk page. Intentionally leaving DoNotArchiveUntil in place to keep closed listing on top page for 30 days. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese language

• Portuguese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User PedroPVZ constantly cleans my attempts to correct the beginning of the article, where it is said that Portuguese "is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". In fact, Portuguese was born in Galicia, which included the present-day Northern Portugal: the southern part of Galicia, called "County of Portugal", become independent and then it spreaded the language to the south. See the articles "County of Portugal" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_Portuguese_language#Galician-Portuguese_period". The arguments of user PedroPVZ to exclude any mention of Galicia are purely political and doesn't respect the historical data. I have a degree in Galician Philology and gave PedroPVZ some citations of famous linguists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PedroPVZ), but he rejects any explanation. He wants Portuguese language to be born just in Northern Portugal and unfortunately it's impossibe go ten centuries back and change History. It's not the first time user PedroPVZ changes this item, as you can see in the history of the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Susomoinhos (talk · contribs)
• PedroPVZ (talk · contribs)
• Pignoof (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Portuguese language}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I tried to talk with PedroPVZ.

• How do you think we can help?

Please keep Misplaced Pages a serious place with contributions of specialists of each area.

Susomoinhos (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese language discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Susomoinhos, and thank you for posting here! I think PedroPVZ probably reverted your addition because you didn't provide a reliable source for it. If you have a look at Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability then you will see that there needs to be a reliable source for any claim which is contested or which is likely to be contested. The fact that your addition was removed doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its accuracy - it just reflects the fact that you added it without a source to back up your claim. If you can find a source that directly backs up what you said, then it is much more likely to make it into the article. Also, please understand that this is no judgement on the dispute, but I'm afraid we can't have a discussion here about your dispute until it has been discussed on Talk:Portuguese language. There really needs to be discussion on a talk page somewhere before we can take a dispute here. I suggest you start a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language and post back here if the discussion stalls. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The diachronic map in the article demonstrates the view in Susomoinhos's edit. PedroPVZ's last revert description, 'nonsense again. the article should be reviewed because of people with their "theories"' is not helpful. It would be good if Susomoinhos could supply a reliable source for the view that Portuguese is derived from Galician: it would help the quality of the material as vast sections of the article also need sourcing. -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that there has been some discussion at User talk:Pignoof#Lingua portuguesa, but it looks like it is in Portuguese. Would anyone be willing to summarize the arguments being made? — Mr. Stradivarius 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The discussion about the article has been between user PedroPVZ and me. I'll open a discussion in Talk:Portuguese language, as you have suggested.

Here are some reliable sources of the origins of Portuguese, which I wrote to user PedroPVZ on his talk page User talk:PedroPVZ:

-"Portuguese is the literary language of Portugal, its possessions and Brazil. It is based, originally, in the dialect of Galicia (northwest corner of the Peninsula), an area which has always remained connected to the Astur-Leonese crown (and, later, Castilian) and now belongs to the field of Spanish written language. The Galician border march in the south, along the mouth of the Douro, which in 1095 became independent as county (kingdom from 1139) of Portugal, had already taken in the mid XII century the reconquest of Portugal until the current southern border, and spread by these border territories the Galician dialect, which was used in the Middle Ages in the lyric also in the Castilian-speaking territory."

(LAUSBERG, Heinrich, Linguística românica, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1981). The translation is mine.

-"The Galician-Portuguese language began to be spoken in a region covering Galicia and northern Portugal."

(MIRA MATEUS, Helena, e outras, Gramática da língua portuguesa, Caminho, Lisboa, 2003. The translation is mine.

-"Portuguese, as we have already seen, developed as a concomitant of the southward movement of speakers of Galician, with which as a result it still has the closest of affinities." "Galician, from which Portuguese ultimately derives (...)"

(HARRIS, Martin e VINCENT, Nigel, The Romance Languages, Croom Helm, Beckenham, 1988)

Thanks again. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to the arguments of PedroPVZ for deleting my contribution (and similar contributions of other people). Here you are an excerpt of our discussion we had in Portuguese; he said:

"I know Galicia since I exist as a person. Although Galicia is now more Castilian than Galician and some have even seeming vain of it, you have to see Castilian as we see Portuguese standard, it's a different reality than the one that exists in Portugal, Brazil and even Africa! But what you're doing is a perversion, although the Galician and Portuguese variant of Vulgar LATIN in the Middle Ages were already variants of the same language, but that does not validate to be adding things about the Kingdom of Galicia in the article of the Portuguese language. Portugal doesn't owe its language to the Spanish Galicia, and that's what you are implying, and this is false and has another name! There is a relationship of direct dependence of the language between North and South (where they added something to the language) and Brazil and Africa (where additions were also made), but putting Galicia into this is ... A linguistic relationship with Galicia, whether or not it's the same language, does not matter. The only place Portugal owe (by dependence) its language to is Rome."

(I don't want to make any comment about his recommendations about the language we have to speak in Galicia according to his opinion). As you can see, his motives are not linguistic (that is, related to the external history of the language), but motivated by his personal political and cultural ideas and concepts. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting these sources. Going by these, it does indeed seem reasonable to say that the origins of Portuguese is in Galicia. I suggest re-adding your text into the article, citing these references, and also starting a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language explaining why you have done so. If anybody wishes to remove your additions, then they will need to explain their reasons on the talk page, as Misplaced Pages uses consensus to decide article content, and merely reverting without discussion would count as edit warring. If discussion on the talk page stalls, then you are welcome to bring the dispute back here. (By the way, you might want to have a look at our easy guide to referencing to help you with citing those books.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You could use this pdf for an online source: from www.sociolinguistica.uvigo.es. (See page 42.) See also the first page of this scholarly pdf Perhaps, these will function as reliable online sources: , , (search for "Galician-Portuguese"). Even Wikibooks says that the languages share "a common base".

The problem in all this though is that the issue is not really a linguistic one: it is inherently political. The suggestion is the move of Galician away from Castilian (and Spain) and towards Portuguese. -- I.Hutchesson ► 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PedroPVZ's motivations may be "inherently political", or they may not. Whichever one it is, I would rather wait to hear his response before we judge him about them. (Sorry for the slightly bossy tone - it's nothing personal, I'm just trying to keep everyone on relatively friendly terms.) — Mr. Stradivarius 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That was no comment on PedroPVZ. The issue of language relations here is a political hot potato, so it's worthy background knowledge. -- I.Hutchesson ► 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer (Irish republican)

• Volunteer (Irish republican) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I removed this section from this article per WP:TOPIC. Domer48 reverted it citing that "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". I asked them for evidence for this on the articles talk page and they have failed to provide any.

I am vindicated in removing the section from the article as it fails WP:TOPIC and is irrelevant to the article. Domer48 has failed to answer my questions and my requests for evidence:

1. Did the Volunteers (of the 18th century) use the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." as a rank, as afterall that is what this article is on about.
2. That the Volunteers (of the 18th century) were republicans, what the article on this "rank" is also about.

Domer48's only response other than requesting sources to the contrary, was to edit the article to add in more examples of the Volunteers growing nationalistic ideas, and their desire for legislative independence for Ireland from England. Additions that don't say or substantiate that they were republicans. Thus Domer48 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR

His additions alone do not equate to Irish republicanism or even republicanism, especially as the Volunteers declared their loyalty to the British Crown at the very same convention that they declared their desire for legislative independence from England (this is sourced in the article). Home rule and nationalism do not equate to republicanism even if they do share many facets.

All his additions have done is increase the amount of irrelevant information in the article. If they were republicans, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere - so far no evidence at all.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Mabuska (talk · contribs)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Domer48 simply refuses to engage in proper discussion of the content issue, rather stating over and over again "Sources please", when they are the one that has to provide sources to prove their relevance to the article. They also appear to be persuing synthesis and original research in the article itself to try to imply their viewpoint is correct.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Volunteer (Irish republican)}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I took the issue to the article's talk page. Domer48 has refused to answer the questions put forward to him so that he can prove his stance on the matter. Rather they have responded "Sources please". I also made a comment on their talk page however they removed it without a response. I then took it to AN/I where an editor suggested i take it here.

Update - Domer48 has since responded with poorly based and easily countered ad hominem statements.

• How do you think we can help?

To judge whether:

1. The section is relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC, taking into account the article is on about a rank in Irish republicanism and the section in question contains nothing relevant to the topic of the article.
2. Domer48 has violated synthesis and original research with their additions.
3. That their behaviour constitues disruptive editing by preventing the improving of Misplaced Pages and their use of ad hominem to make up for their failure to provide evidence.

Mabuska 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Let me see if I have understood the issues here correctly. Domer48 added the "18th century Irish Volunteers" section to the article, and claims that these volunteers are directly related to the the subject of the article - the modern use of the term Volunteers, referring to the members of Irish republican paramilitary organisations. In his own words from the edit summary in this edit, "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". Mabuska contests this claim, with the arguments outlined above, and also says that there is no source in the section that links the 18th century use to the modern use. It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence, which claims "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" (my italics). Would you both agree that this an accurate summary of what you are not agreeing on? — Mr. Stradivarius 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius, your summary would be accurate, but that the arguements against it change so often , in both context and substance it is impossible to tell. The Irish Volunteers were founded in responce to the American Revolution of 1776, who forced from the Government an Irish Parliament in 1882 a section of which inspired by the French revolution would later stage the 1798 rebellion. That they were called the Irish "Volunteers" can not be disputed. That Republicans trace their origions back to these Volunteers is however uncontested, although that was not always the case. It now appears that the whole section is being disputed, despite this failed attempt to have the use of the word "Irish" removed from their title. Now as the personal attacks persist ,, I can't see why an editor should be badgered into a responce. Here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, .--Domer48_'fenian' 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I, like Mr. Stradivarius, am a neutral mediator at this noticeboard. You say, "That Republicans trace their origins back to these Volunteers is however uncontested" but I can find no claims, much less sourced claims, supporting that position in the article. Am I just overlooking them? Without such claims, supported by reliable sources then the connection with the 18th Century Volunteers is just an improper speculation between the specialized use of the term in reference to IRA members and the word "Volunteers" in the name of that group. Could you please point out the claims and related sources which make that connection uncontested? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Off-topic: Domer48's ad hominem statements and arguements are disassembled here, here, and in my second last response here. What exactly is bringing up an that was to do with removing the need for disambiguation in the article title, and bringing up fully explained and vindicated responses in regards to Kingsmills, got to do with this issue Domer48?

On topic:Mr. Stradivarius and TransporterMan, you have both hit the nail on the head. All Domer48 has to do is provide evidence to back up his claims that the section meets the two points above that would make it relevant to the article. None has been given despite continued asking, and the fact i had to open an AN/I and this due to his unresponsiveness.

I would like to point out this edit by Domer48: Failing to provide any evidence at all, they tried an attempt to pretend that the only thing in the entire section that made it relevant to the article was sourced, whereby they swapped these two sentences around, and when i added a {{cn}} tag after the sentence, they reverted it pretending that it was now sourced.

All Domer48 has to do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century meet the two points above (that they were republicans, and that they used Volunteer/Vol. as a rank) which would make them relevant to the article. The AN/I and this was created to try to get Domer48 to discuss and provide evidence - which they have failed to do despite many requests, only bringing up unrelated arguements that have nothing to do with the issue, i.e. that the Irish Volunteers were created in response to the American and French revolutions. So? No-one is contesting that, but its irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank bringing up and detailing the creation and aims of a non-republican organisation that just happens to include the term "Volunteer" in its name. Mabuska 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48 has now finally provided a source in an attempt to back up their claims - a single source dated to 1842, and on that i don't have the good faith to believe they have kept the context of the source intact, most notably because of the "..." and the glaring grammatical issue in his source quote that highlights a possible deception on Domer48's behalf with regards to this source:

The origin of the Irish Volunteers, which, as an organized national military association, may be dated from 1777, ceased to exist as such in 1793…It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes.

So what exactly is this actual quote saying if you look at it closely? The source is a book about the United Irishmen, an actual republican organisation. The entire exerpt provided by Domer48 reads as: the editor is stating what they say is consistent with truth in regards to the what United Irishmen spanned ideologically, whilst stating that it is inconsistent to state it for the Volunteers. Thus it is not stating the Volunteers contained republicanism. Nice try.

Also is the quote even in the source? Not according to searches of the 1846 edition of the book and the original 1842 edition (parent link being .

Why is this Domer48?

Nothing that contradicts this source and quote that i added to the article which Domer48 has failed to counter or prove wrong: Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100. "Quote: We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights and no more than our rights". Loyal to their sovereign. How can republicans, especially Irish republicans be loyal to their sovereign, which was obviously the British Crown? Mabuska 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Vol. 1 first edition, of which I have a copy! This discussion is over! Your personal attacks, have gone to far!--Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so. And you have provided at least a partial response. If you can provide the publication information, I think this entire argument can be laid to rest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The volume is possibly irrelevant anyways as the source isn't needed to show that Domer48's quoted exerpt may not back up their claim entirely (i am accepting that it does have some merit towards it). Domer48 if you want your source to be taken as the answer to this issue (despite the fact its only one source from 1842) then answer the following questions about your exerpt from the source:

"It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes."

1. The bit that is embolded - as far as i read it, it says that it may be inconsistent with truth in regards to the Volunteers - or is it saying its inconsistent with its military glory?
2. What exactly does it mean by "with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers"? Is the entire exerpt talking specifically about a specific institution of the Volunteers as opposed to the entire organisation?
3. Is it on about the revival of the Irish Volunteers which occured in 1791? Especially seeing as after the war in America ended, the Volunteer movement rapidly declined other than in Ulster where it remained. Would that not make them a slightly different institution to that of the 1780s seeing as it was a revival of an organisation that had rapidly declined other than in several counties.
4. Is it on about a specific branch (an institution) of the Volunteer, such as the Belfast Volunteers which held different views to most other Volunteer branches?
5. What precedes this quote you provided? Does it elaborate on what "institution of the Volunteers" it is on about? It reads as if the preceeding text does indeed elaborate on it - why have you not provided that text?
6. If this institution of the Volunteers does refer to a specific part or branch or the revival of it fortunes, then how can this source be used to represent the entire organisation spanning a specific part of it? Would it not be more appropriate to add into the article the specific institution or incarnation of the Volunteers it is referring to? It would be deceptive not to.

After all the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century several years before their rapid decline did state quite clearly in 1782:

1. "We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal" - .
2. "Resolved unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a Grievance." - Would republcans say that the king can legally make laws for Ireland?

So this "institution" to me must be a specific branch of it as it definately wasn't the entire organisation for such a turn-around in its stance would surely be better documented than a single source from 1842.

But at least we are getting somewhere as we now have a source of sorts for contradicting these comments by the organisation itself. I took the liberty of amending the first sentence to be more accurate to what Domer48s source states, however even if his source turns out to be good enough - how is the rest of the section relevant to the article as it goes on about the history of an organisation that has its own article, which is already linked too so that the article can remain as WP:TOPIC as can be.

Mabuska 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1. ^ Bardon, Jonathan (2005). A History of Ulster. p. 215-222. ISBN 085640764-X
2. Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100

Suggestion

In fact this is what i think the article could contain at this moment if we include Domer48's source put into proper context. Compare that to the article at present and you'll see it removes the Domer48's recently added bloatedness of irrelevant information in the article keeping it firmly on topic per WP:TOPIC.

Once Domer adds clarification as to what institution his source refers too, it can be added into the article and the clarification tag removed and the whole issue is done and dusted at long last!

All this for something for simple. Mabuska 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska, and thanks for posting here again. I have a request for you - would you be willing to keep your comments down to the minimum length necessary, and to not alter them after you have posted them? It does make it harder to follow the conversation when there are long comments that keep being changed. Regarding the 1842 source - the issue here would appear to be whether the 18th century usage of Volunteer is connected to the modern usage, and so a source from this long ago is obviously inadequate. Any source will need to discuss the modern usage of Volunteer, and so it will need to have been written after the modern usage arose (The article says this happened in 1913). Also, newer sources are preferred to older sources, as subsequent historical research may have made the conclusions drawn in older sources outdated.

The bottom line is that if the 18th century Volunteers are included alongside the 20th century Volunteers with no indication in reliable sources that they are related, it would count as a synthesis, as it would imply that they are related when they may not be. I am not saying that they are definitely not related, but we do need evidence that they are before we can include information about the 18th century Volunteers in the article. (By the way, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the general term volunteer came into use around 1600 from Middle French, not the 18th century as the article now claims.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the ever edited comments, though i'm guilty of that when its my last comment before anyone has replied to it. Though yes i need to keep them briefer as well - it gets too easy to ramble on. Mabuska 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And i'll amend the sentence i tweaked to match Domer48's source to place it in an Irish context. Mabuska 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Driving While Black

• Driving While Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 76.231.150.69 (talk · contribs)
• 69.15.156.226 (talk · contribs)
• Freechild (talk · contribs)
• Cntras (talk · contribs)
• Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Driving While Black}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Misplaced Pages policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.

• How do you think we can help?

Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy.

Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Driving While Black discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. My gut tells me Freechild won't revert his/her un-redirection so easily just based on your and my opinions, or at all, so I am wondering what the next step should be? Is there a target number of contributors weighing in, or a specific amount of time this discussion should be left open, before doing the redirect (assuming the consensus points towards doing so? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't aware of the background discussion when reverting. I should've taken it into account when I came across the article via recent changes. -Cntras (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cntras, your revert occured back in March during the initial discussion, and you appear to have been doing it thinking an unknowing IP editor was trying destructively edit an article. I'll give this a little more time to see if Freechild wants to respond, but if not I think restoring to the previous consensus is not out of line. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general).

The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your well-considered input. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. My only concern is that if we move all the rest to racial profiling and leave the specific parts about the term in the article, then the Driving While Black article will be reduced to a short definition, which would make the article violate WP:NOT#DICT. I believe the term is notable enough to be discussed in the racial profiling article, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article, so could certainly add more to the racial profiling article, including a short discussion of the term "driving while black" and similar terms used to describe racial profiling. With a redirect for the term itself to that section, I would think that should be satisfactory, unless there is some sort of agenda for making sure the specific term "Driving While Black" has it's own article which I am unaware of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Madhyamaka

• Madhyamaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk Polemic replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There appears to be a new user 'LhunGrub', who is unwilling to listen, discuss, or compromise about the content of the article. He is merely reverting any changes to the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• LhunGrub (talk · contribs)
• 20040302 (talk · contribs)

I am a longstanding but infrequent editor, and dispute resolution appears to be different every time some issue arises. This probably needs a 3rd party. It appears that LhunGrub doesn't know or understand WP:RS

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Opened up talks on the article and on his talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Provide a 3rd party.

20040302 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Madhyamaka discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

User is using typical boomerang behavior. The reference is sourced. I went out of my way to type some of it out on the discussion page, but I am not going to type out several pages worth. LhunGrub (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is that the user moved critical NONPARTISAN introductory Madhyamaka material out of the lead. Obviously this is due to the lack of understanding of Madhyamaka in general. LhunGrub (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree with this. I consider LhunGrub's contribution to be tantamount to original research. He has use a reference which does not substantiate his claims in the article. Moreover, he is focussing on a rather specific objection that occurs within the Tibetan academic tradition of Madhamaka, which is not particularly meaningful regarding the scope of a school of philosophy which covers several continents, many cultures, and about 1,900 years. (20040302 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

20040302 and LhunGrub, I think you may find it hard to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on your conflict, as your disagreement is over a fairly arcane subject, and difficult to wade through everything to see what you are talking about. 20040302, it might be helpful if you include diffs of the edits that LhunGrub has made which you disagree with. I can see why the "distillation sentence was problematic, while worded as if it was an objective statement of fact, it was obviously non-neutral and pro Madhyamaka. Lhungrub, I suggest you stop with the accusations of "boomerang behavior" both here and in your edit summaries. I don't know if that is something you made up, or if you are trying to invoke WP:boomerang but it doesn't seem very descriptive of 20040302's behavior, so you look a bit foolish throwing it out, and at any rate it is not civil, so just stop. I suggest take a break from this article for a little while. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is engaging in WP:boomerang behaviour. For yet another example, right here he accuses me of original research when I have painstakenly quoted the source which says almost exactly what I have written. Actually I have quoted MULTIPLE sentences on the discussion page for this illiterate's benefit. He is the one who is inventing his own Madhyamaka theories on the discussion page i.e. original research. LhunGrub (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

my opponent appears to be making my case for me. 20040302 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

mmyers, it may be arcane to you, just as species of saltwater fish are arcane to me - but it's a pretty major (living) philosophical tradition, with a vast academic corpus. There are plenty of individuals who understand the basics. However, my concerns are far more to do with attitude and openness of spirit. Unsubstantiated claims, abuse, and aggressive reverts to incoherent text is a major reason why I contribute to WP less frequently than I used to. 20040302 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a funny guy. You destroy a functional article, deleting introductory material, and call the reverts "aggressive." BOOMERANG. LhunGrub (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been contributing to this article since April 2004. I like to think that at least some of it's merit is in light of my contributions, rather than in spite of them. I wish you would prefer to enter into considered discussion rather than resorting to aggressive snipes. 20040302 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(fixed response) 20040302, I assure you I was not attempting to belittle your area of interest, merely pointing out that the issue over which you and LhunGrub are in disagreement isn't one that the average wikipedian will understand. I know considerably more than the average nonbuddhist about the fundamental beliefs and major divisions of Buddhism, but I found the issue the two of you were discussing hard to wade through. I wouldn't call it "the basics" that an average Wikipedian should understand. Based on your initial posts, I assumed you were bringing a content dispute here, but it now sounds more like you are more concerned with LhunGrub's behavior than the content, and in that case, perhaps starting a Wikiquette Alert discussion about his behavior might be called for. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When did you start this dispute resolution, like 5 SECONDS after I first replied to your discussion section (which was only created an hour before) on the talk page?? Regardless of the issues, your various actions are way off. LhunGrub (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's Caution (and PS re complexity): The instructions for this noticeboard say:

Discussions on this page should be focused on the issues brought here. Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them.

Please maintain civility if you hope to obtain assistance here. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I agree with Mmyers1976 regarding the complexity of this dispute. I'm afraid that you may not find a mediator here with the expertise needed to sort out the competing claims. (I know I couldn't figure it out.) If that turns out to be the case, you might consider asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or doing a request for comments using {{rfc|reli}} (or doing the RFC and dropping a note at the two projects asking for comments on the RFC). TM

I agree with TransporterMan's assessment. I had a look at the talk page and at the source in question, and I think anyone attempting to mediate here would need to be knowledgeable about Buddhism. I think you should leave a message on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism and see if you get any responses. We do have some good editors who are listed as being part of the wikiproject, so that seems like a good thing to try first. I think that it may also be possible to take this to informal mediation, but you would probably need to "translate" for the mediator and that would make the process take longer. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lexi Thompson

• Lexi Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:WilliamJE undid a large chunk of content on this page. User:Crunch, who created most, but not all, of that content, reverted the change charging bad faith and asking that changes of this scope be brought to the Discussion page. User:WilliamJE refused to bring the issue to the Discussion page to try to bring in more editors and a brief edit war ensued with some discussion taking place at User talk:WilliamJE. The site as of this minute is in place with User:WilliamJE's last edit.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• WilliamJE (talk · contribs)
• Crunch (talk · contribs) (me)

WilliamJE has previously been involved in other disputes involving golf pages, with many of the regular golf article editors. Some of this is documented on his Talk page. As a case in point, see this: Post from WilliamJE on my (Crunch's) Talk page addressing edits I have made in the past that he supposed had to fix and addressing me in an unprofessional and rude manner.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Lexi Thompson}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

1. Encouraged WillamJE to discuss the change on the article's Discussion page.

• How do you think we can help?

What can we do to solve this problem? I think the change should be brought to the Discussion page so consensus can be reached. What can we do to facilitate that?

Crunch (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lexi Thompson discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I know that Crunch discussed the issue on WilliamJE's user page, but there is no discussion of the issue on Talk:Lexi Thompson. I know crunch said he encouraged WilliamJE to start a discussion, so why didn't Crunch just start a discussion along the lines of "I readded the information, and here is my reasoning why."? It seems like the best thing to do would be start a discussion there so the other editors on that article could weigh in on the issue. If you don't get enough responses that way, then take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf, where editors who work on a lot of articles on pro golfers could say "yes, amateur losses should be listed that way" or "no, they shouldn't be listed that way". If your belief is found to be the consensus, and WilliamJE still keeps reverting, then some other action can be taken. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmyers is spot on about this. This board really needs to see that engagement (even if it's a talk page discussion that has been out there for 10 days) has been attempted first before we weigh in on the topic. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this dispute could have been sorted out through more discussion on the article talk page. Looking at the discussion on WilliamJE's user page, however, it looks like it was a good move to open this up to third-party input. This dispute looks to be about whether the results from Lexi Thompson's professional record outside of her Tour membership are suitable for inclusion in the article. Crunch seems to be arguing that it is suitable, but WilliamJE seems to be arguing that these results are not of great consequence, and tantamount to trivia. I can't find any specific guideline on what kind of results to include in golf articles, so in the absence of this, I think filing a request for comments on the article talk page may be the best way forward here. You could also advertise the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Golf. I would note also that it is possible to collapse the table, if that would help the two of you reach a compromise about its inclusion. Let me know what you think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution