Revision as of 02:32, 12 April 2014

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 06:46, 25 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 may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Template:Apple

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template:Apple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• FleetCommand (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor is willing to add a group of links (related to software and hardware products that Apple Inc. has produced in the past).

Another disagrees on the grounds that other templates ({{Apple Inc. hardware}}, {{AppleIntel}}, {{Apple hardware before 1998}}, {{Apple hardware since 1998}}, {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}, {{Apple printers}}, {{Apple software}}, {{Apple software on Windows}} et al.) already do so and are already transcluded. Adding said links would only bring about link bombardment.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue is discussed in:

• Template talk:Apple § Hardware, et al. (Live page)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive239 § User:Jimthing reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Locked)
• Template talk:Apple § Protected (Live version)

How do you think we can help?

I thought perhaps a moderated discussion can help keep the issue in check.

Summary of dispute by User:Jimthing

Codename Lisa has failed repeatedly to answer several problems put to them directly on the template talk page: why? Raising a dispute here when you have failed to engage in answering with proper explanatory answers and not ones that ignore the reasonable questions asked by other editors on there, is somewhat unreasonable to most longterm editors on WP, don't you think? Especially when you're last edit (HERE) even bothered to screw-up what I had carefully done, by added links to a random handful of individual hardware/software items (i.e. even managing to miss-out most of the current items, for inexplicable reasons) — the very items for which earlier in the discussions you YOURSELF admitted to me should NOT even be on it...strange behaviour for one filing a dispute here?? Jimthing (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:FleetCommand

I don't like being drowned in links either. So, it is said that CL and I have a consensus, although the actual wording was "being in cahoots". (No comments there.)

About steps taken to resolve: "One editor" tried a compromise by replacing the redundant links with other redundant links to templates (see above) that contain the redundant links. "Another editor" didn't agree, because in practice, those templates were transcluded right below {{Apple}} in articles. So, "another editor" proposed another compromise: Some links can stay. Well, "one editor" has explicitly expressed her feelings about it above. Look, I am not exactly famous for my negotiation expertise but I am willing to work, now that I am here. Fleet Command (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Apple discussion

Hi there; I am Mdann52, and shall be the volunteer handling this dispute. My initial reaction here would be to suggest that the info boxes are either split, especially as we have Template:Apple software, and the template documentation already states "This is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to Apple content on Misplaced Pages. However, it can be added to any Apple-related article." . Anyone have any issues with the concept in general. After we have resolved what will happen, we can then agree on the exact wording of the split. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mdann52. This sounds exactly like what the dispute is about and my initial drive to remove links to software and hardware. Do you have something particular in mind? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, I think reverting to revision #599108935 and checking the articles that transclude {{Apple}} accomplishes exactly what you ask; but I fear that is taken as a non-cooperative comment on my part. Do you have anything specific in mind? Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If everyone is happy, I can run AWB later and put the Apple Software template on all articles with {{apple}} later on if everyone is happy with it? Alternatively, we could try and merge the two templates together, or just reword the template, and add new links/rows as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging two huge templates is not wise but yes, the first suggestion works for me. How about you guys? FleetCommand? Jimthing?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you go the template route, you'd be talking about both the Apple Software template AND the Apple Hardware one, BTW. However, if we went the merge route it'd make life easier for other editors in future as they wouldn't have to muck around dealing with more than one template – but what would get included under hardware and software on {{apple}}, and what left out, as they have current and past software/hardware to think about. Jimthing (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Merge route requires a WP:TFD. But since you pointed out that both routes are awkward, I propose a third: Why not include major hardware and software products or products family names in {{Apple}} and be done with it? That way, the user can get to his intended topic by going to the family article, without filling the articles with links. Anyway, which one do you choose? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer third suggestion but first is good enough too. But Jimthing seems unwilling to continue. Should we count her as bailed out per WP:SILENCE? Fleet Command (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A few days silence (unless I'm missing something) seems a bit odd, but looking over this I think the third suggestion might be the ideal one here in terms of implementing. Steven Zhang 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine then, for the sake of (non-)argument, go with the third option: "include major hardware and software products or products family names". As proposer, perhaps Codename Lisa can add their edit of the template on here first, then we can discuss and agree (hopefully briefly!) which pages are right to use, before it gets finally implemented as the finished template. (BTW, some of the things I added in later edits should still remain, eg's. iBookstore under Stores, and the "Subsidiaries" subgroup title under "Companies", Intel transition add under History group instead, et al). Jimthing (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly don't have to bother other additions. Only a snippet is our subject.

How about this:

I am sure I've missed some entries. Please feel free to mention them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sending ping notification: @Jimthing: Could you please watch this page? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry other commitments, be back 24h to comment. Jimthing (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Delayed commenting today, due to WP "site busy" 404's all afternoon!). Anyway, made some minor changes to make look neater, but mainly as some current items –which seem like the ones we should aim to appear on this template to stop overloading– were missing, removing the couple of discontinued products that were on there. Also added a hidden comment (<!-- DO NOT ADD DISCONTINUED PRODUCTS TO THIS TEMPLATE: discussions decided they're covered under "Discontinued software/hardware" links. -->) to discourage future abuses:

Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Super nice. Agreed totally and completely. Permission to call the shot?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice: Unless there is anything further, I'm going to close this case as resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2014 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
• Joetri10 (talk · contribs)
• Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs)
• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• GyaroMaguus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 9 March Prisonermonkeys launched a proposal to remove the Official Race Titles from the calendars which have been present for quite some years on the Formula One season articles. His proposal was not met with a consensus to implement it, yet Prisonermonkeys tried to force the proposal through by removing the content on two occasions (on the 10 and 12th of March) despite not gaining a consensus to do so. The discussion later dried out after several unsuccessful proposals to improve the calendar altogether. However, the discussion was resumed om the 26th of March and has been continuing since. On the 30th of March Prisonermonkeys tried again to force the proposal through by removing the content a total of four times, breaking WP:3RR in the process, despite still not having gained the desired consensus. As a result of that the page was put under full protection by HJ Mitchell and has remained in this state until now following an extension of the full protection period. The talk page discussion has continued in the meantime and the side in support of the removal now continuously claim a consensus in favor of them, primarily based on a head count, despite the long list of arguments presented by both sides. In addition to the users whom I have listed, both sides have received some approval by another few users who haven't brought in any arguments of their own, hence why I didn't list them among the "Users involved"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have thoroughly discussed the matter with them on the article's Talk page and I have initiated a Request For Comment as well, which hasn't however brought any new input in the discussion so far.

How do you think we can help?

We are looking for a member of the community who is neutral on this matter and who is prepared to read through an consider all the presented arguments by either side and their merits by either side to determine wether or not the consensus for the removal of the content has been achieved.

Summary of dispute by Joetri10

No comment. I leave Tvx1 to explain this as he can in a much more detailed manner. All I can explain regarding my actions and opinion on the matter is that I try to expand the article in terms of extra complete relevant information so that the article is more helpful and educational to those who may be more interested. What started off becoming an argument about sponsorship details and the gross ignorance displayed by Prisonermonkeys has resulted in a 'complete opinionated democracy', a call of heads as it were. Understandably so I can relate in not wanting trivia and foreign languages featuring as much as possible although when speaking about the official detailing of events including that which forms the sport and is present in many aspects, it can be a tricky game of opinion and wins over what our sources use, why, for what purpose and how that should relate to this page when really it shouldn't at all. We are our own separate source for information, we should give as much as we can and to be as helpful as we can. It matters not what we 'think' is useless and useful for the page when we can otherwise resolve in a neutral agreement by showing 100% accurate information. The positives; if even small outweigh the negatives. It only serves to help. There was nothing wrong with this information before and I feel the arguments for deletion are weaker then they should be. *JoeTri10_ 12:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet

Tvx1's precis of the situation is somewhat disingenuous. He has omitted to mention two other editors (User:QueenCake and User:Falcadore) who have supported removal of the column in question from the table, plus two further editors (User:Hydrox and User:StandNThrow) who entered the debate. He also says that other users supported retention of the column – untrue. There were no other editors in favour of retaining the column. The "head count" was at least 5:2, and Prisonermonkeys considered this to constitute a consensus and I agree with him. Tvx1 and Joetri have refused to suggest any compromise, whereas I and others have clearly stipulated that the information in the column will continue to be present in other, more appropriate articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider the information in the column in question to be relatively trivial, this being the official race title of each Grand Prix of the season, e.g. Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014, in light of the presence of the generic race title, e.g. Spanish Grand Prix. Both titles are not required, in my view. This information belongs in the generic race article as above, plus the individual race report, in this case 2014 Spanish Grand Prix, along with all the other relevant details of the race itself. The race title has no bearing on the season itself, and 2014 Formula One season is the general summary article about the season, not a repository for all the minute details of each race. These season articles are prone to clutter and trivia, and we are attempting to restrict it to the essential facts for purposes of readability and article size. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth mentioning that there have recently been a number of similarly lengthy and frustrating debates on Formula One talk pages, for example a two-month argument about the formatting of the table of drivers, and a six-week row about the driver Sergei Sirotkin. Cool-headed consensus-building and rational discussion is to all intents and purposes, non-existent on the Formula One WikiProject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am all for removing the mentioned race title in the table. As the url address bar of this site states "en.wikipedia", "en" refers mainly to English and so, I do not quite get the idea of having foreign native languages getting into the mix. That's about all I could say. My stand will always be the removal of that "race title" column. StandNThrow (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys

I agree that the description of the situation is not truly representative. There was enough support for a consensus to be formed; however, I feel that those in support of the minority have resorted to deliberate stalling tactics to try and force a situation where there is no consensus and thus keep the article as it is. Almost every single argument made by the majority has been shot down on the grounds that it is weak or unproven, despite the way enough people agree with them to form a consensus. There is also an over-reliance on the idea that consensus is not a vote; while true, it ignores the clear majority, and allows a minority to prevent a consensus from being formed, regardless of how big the majority is.

In the interests of expediting the resolution, here is a summary of the arguments in favour of removal:

• The FIA - the sport's governing body - does not recognise those race titles as the formal names of the races.
• Almost all of the secondary sources used in the article do not use the race titles.
• Everything within the column is redundant, having been explained elsewhere in the article, or covered in a more-appropriate article.
• The only unique content in the column is the name of the individual race sponsors. And while sponsorship is important, it only affects individual races, rather than the season as a whole (which is what the article is about). Furthermore, the exact importance has not been established, and all sponsors really get is a bit more signage around the circuit.
• This being the English-language Misplaced Pages, the emphasis should be on English; other languages should only be used when necessary.
• Any "educational and informative value" the column provides is effectively trivia; if somebody is looking to learn about the Hungarian language, for example, there is an article for that.

I will leave it to those in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GyaroMaguus

While I previously supported the motion of Tvx1 and Joetri10, I changed my standpoint for removal of the column. I believe the column serves little useful purpose, and have produced many points, including: use foreign language when avoidable should be discouraged; the official names are only used by sources they are bound to use them, are not to the season as a whole and the article titles are not the official names; linking the full race titles will most likely confuse readers; we shouldn't force our readers to work out something for themselves; people do not come to the 2014 Formula One season article for all F1 queries; etc. Bretonbanquet has provided equally valid and correct arguments; while Prisonermonkeys has, in my mind, corrected identified a consensus, but has been a little strong in his efforts to implement it.

Personally, I have Tvx1 to be very obtuse and extremely inconsistent and hypocritical in this discussion. His main argument for inclusion of the column is that it is "educational and informative", an argument he has used consistently for a very long time. He appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both what purpose the article serves and what Misplaced Pages articles are meant to convey. These arguments are, from my point of view, fundamentally flawed; the article should not serve as a point of reference for everything regarding the 2014 season; rather, it is a summary of events, and Tvx1 seems to think that we need to educate and inform readers on nearly every minor detail, while only things that effect the season as a whole should be included. He does not understand why it is not relevant and considers none of the arguments me, Bretonbanquet, Prisonermonkeys, QueenCake or anyone else for that matter to be any good and believes that he has easily brushed them off.

Concerning Joetri10, I often appear to be on the opposite sides of discussions with him and I also feel he has been obstructive in this discussion. He has a tendency to not fully read arguments before posting, often fails to take all issues into account. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note from random volunteer

Thanks everyone for your participation. I currently have two cases open so I cannot take this case at the moment, however someone will likely open this case for you in the next few days. Thanks for being patient. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season discussion

I'm really hoping that this can be addressed soon. As has been pointed out, this is the latest in a series of long-running disputes, and I think a lot of people would like it resolved as it will help us establish a precedent for addressing these long-running disputes. Furthermore, if it cannot be resolved here, then I have no idea what the next step is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm more a lurker on the DRN board but I typically get called in to handle disputes that have gone on longer than they should be. I don't think I've ever edited with respect to Formula 1/Grand Prix articles and I do not recall seeing any of your names before. Will you accept my bona fides as a neutral editor here to help you negotiate a solution? Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. —<span="color:blue">Gyaro–Maguus— 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with that. Although I do not think that there is a happy medium to be found - in terms of content, we either keep the column or we remove it. That said, I think it is important that we resolve this issue here. It is the latest in a string of content disputes that should be simple to implement, but take weeks to resolve. For me, the issue is not so much about the content, but how we go about implementing it. I am disturbed that some editors think they can overturn a consensus by declaring the supporting arguments to be weak; that, to me, is clearly a subjective opinion, given that the majority opinion was strong enough to form a consensus in the first place. I am aware that the DRN does not deal with the behaviour of editors, but I think that resolving this dispute here will establish a precedent here that we can refer back to in future to deal with the problems of a) recognising when a consensus has been formed, b) the appropriate way of implementing it, and c) what to do of you disagree with that consensus - the problems that have been plaguing the Formula 1 pages since the original Sirotkin dispute (yes, I was in the minority on that one, but it has no bearing here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting on the remainder of the disputants (Tvx1—Joetri10—Bretonbanquet) to accept my bona fides. Please limit yourself to simple answers and not post great paragraphs of text explanations to simple questions. It means extra time that other editors and myself have to spend time trying to figure out what's going on and in turn slows down the process of negotiating a solution. When I ask a question that has room for elaboration I'll ask for it.Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, fine with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem for me. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

T-54/55

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• T-54/55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Katangais (talk · contribs)
• YMB29 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over the course of the past few months, User:YMB29 has been repeatedly adding some inaccurate information to the T-54/55 article. It's merely one sentence, which I can quote here, concerning tanks in the Angolan Civil War:

"......At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks........"

He has cited a single source for this information, which I have repeatedly challenged with up to ten sources of my own. Nevertheless, the user has refused to engage in constructive or particularly intellectual discussion - demanding I cite information already verified by his own source among other ludicrous matters. He has refused to cite any more sources backing up this inaccuracy, and has done nothing to challenge with facts my assertion that it is nothing more than a hoax with no place on the Wiki, aside from vague accusations of invoking "propaganda" when I offer legitimate citations of my own (his source is itself a book of anecdotes with dubious credibility).

This is a serious problem, because his information directly contradicts all the other sources in the paragraph and leads to disrupted continuity. Furthermore, it's a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on hoaxes. I have tried to be reasonable, but I'm at the very end of my rope. The disagreement has already come dangerously close to an edit war....and I'm simply unwilling to do any more work for a community member so seemingly irrational and obstinate. Accordingly, I am requesting an authority's take on this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, by the following -

1) Pointing out the disputed information's hoax status. 2) Establishing that there is a conflict of sources. 3) Providing seven sources to the contrary, and offering more if these are unacceptable. 4) Offering to provide page numbers for each of these sources for the relevant citations.

Each of these attempts at intellectual discussion have been amounted to nothing.

How do you think we can help?

The user's response to my attempts at resolution have been -

Accusing my sources of being 'propaganda', despite their established legitimacy especially in comparison to his, refusing to accept - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that my sources contradict his in more ways than one, etc.

I hope that an impartial user with more authority to deal with this unique type of dispute (conflicting sources and verifiability) can reach (and impose) a collective decision for the article.

Summary of dispute by YMB29

I have not edited the article "over the course of the past few months." Before my edits in the last few days, the last time I edited the article was in December, so I don't know what Katangais is talking about.
He has not provided quotes from sources to back up his claims, instead he relies on his own analysis of sources.
The text that I added is directly backed up by a reliable source, but he calls it communist propaganda and a hoax.
It looks like he has trouble understanding wiki policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
Up until now I thought the discussion was going well, but here all of a sudden Katangais started throwing wild accusations at me. And he calls me irrational...
We have been discussing the issues in that article for less than two days. It is way too early for dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

T-54/55 discussion

Part I

Hello, I am the DRN volunteer that will be moderating this case. My understanding is that the dispute involves this sentence:

• At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks

Is there a source(s) to verify the content in this sentence? If so, please provide them. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a citation.

Also, this sentence:

On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.

There is no source, at least Katangais has not provided any, that directly says that the Cubans manned the tanks in that particular skirmish or that it was the only tank engagement, so the sentence violates WP:OR.

However, I am not sure if dispute resolution is appropriate now, given the limited discussion on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been significant discussion on the talk page and unless I'm missing something I don't see much progress. I can moderate a discussion here if you like but Katangais and YMB29 if you want a moderated discussion you need to stop making posts on the talk page and bring the discussion here for a fresh start. If discussion doesn't stop on the talk page immediately then I will have no choice but to close this case. So please decide what you want to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

When Katangais opened this request the discussion on the talk page was going on for less than two days, but if that is ok, we can try to resolve the problems here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why YMB29 wants a source for "Cubans crewing the tanks", as he put it, above. It's his information supported by his source; surely I don't have to verify it? --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the engagement on 9 November 1987. The one from my source most likely happened in 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Source? --Katangais (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that it was the same engagement as on 9 November 1987, so you are the one who needs to find a source.

The source I cited does not mention a date, but the website source you deleted says it was in February 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a logical case of WP:SYNTH. You can't assume that the engagement mentioned in the Russian source is the same one from the Cuban source, simply because both cite that 10 Olifant tanks were lost. --Katangais (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of T-55s lost is also the same and so is the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.

However, that does not matter since I am not making the claim in the article, unlike you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's take one thing at a time. YMB29 has agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and move the discussion here. Katangais do you also agree to that? Or would you rather I close this case and allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page? Please let me know, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob, I brought the discussion here to seek an impartial resolution and close it once and for all. I have no desire to prolong anything needlessly by returning to the talk page - where, as you can see, an extensive debate has already been undertaken.

@YMB29: As it happens that little tidbit may be quite crucial to my perceived conflict of our sources. Can you provide the name of this individual, please? --Katangais (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Part II Fresh start

OK, both parties have agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and instead have a moderated discussion here. Very good. And we have agreed the core of the dispute is limited to the two sentences cited above. Let's start with the first sentence:

• Content: At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
• Source: Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2010). Ветераны локальных войн и миротворческих операций ООН вспоминают (in Russian). Moscow: Memories. ISBN 978-5-904935-04-7.

YMB29, can you please provide a page number and a quote from the source you've cited above to demonstrate that the source supports the content we are discussing? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the translation (pages 118-119):

I remember I learned about a counter-attack, when seven Cuban tanks were destroyed. A lieutenant-colonel sent T-55 tanks into a counter-attack against the South Africans. Six or seven tanks were destroyed. It was some critical defensive moment; the Angolans, I think, fled. He led the counter-attack and died (he was wounded*).

*It was a Cuban lieutenant-colonel named Hector. He did not die, but received two severe wounds, one of which in the area of the mouth, so later he could hardly speak. The Cuban film about Cuito Cuanavale has a piece about him, and he speaks there himself. In the newspaper Red Star for that year, there was an article about him and his attack... In the counter-attack seven Cuban tanks were knocked out, and only one tank was left with lieutenant-colonel Hector inside having been wounded twice. However, the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing, according to the Cubans, 10 Olifant tanks.

-YMB29 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Excerpt from the Russian Site Cuban Aviation, which is apparently describing the same engagement:

On February 14, 1988 the SADF and the UNITA begin the second heavy attack to the Cuito Cuanavale defenses, with forces sized in three SADF and six UNITA battalions, supported by more of 100 armored vehicles of various types, among them 40 Olifants Tanks. By this superiority of forces, they achieve to break the defense of the 59° Angolan Brigade. To cover this place were urgently thrown the unique 8 T-55 Cubans in movement in Cuito, by the command of the lieutenant colonel Héctor Aguilar. They stop the South African, destroying 10 Olifants and 4 armored cars, and losing 6 T-55 (3 by anti-tanks rockets RPG, and 3 by the Olifants). The remainder of the Olifants retires behind march. In this collision die 14 of the 39 Cubans perished in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, but this sacrifice went not in vain, therefore the attack of its T-55 saves the situation of the battle, that already was in crisis. This is the first collision in the war between Olifants and Cubans T-55, and is a victory for these, which would be the norm until the end of the war. March 23 the Olifants support the last attack to Cuito Cuanavale, that finishes with another disaster, when the SADF lost 3 Olifants in minefields and by artillery fire.

Okay, we have a date: February 14. That gives me more to work with. I need to consult my own sources and find out what exactly was happening on the 14th, if the Olifants were involved, etc. I have a feeling that will go a long way towards clearing up the fog. --Katangais (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish I had seen "2/14/88" much sooner. New information is coming to the surface.

Polack states (p. 142): A split attack by UNITA units followed by the 61st Mechanised Infantry Battalion under SADF Commandant Mike Muller and the 4 South African Infantry Battalion made a determined assault on 14 February against the FAPLA 59th Brigade and remnants of 21st Brigade reinforced by other brigades west of the Dala River. After a time, his numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack led by Cuban Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt. The FAPLA lost five tanks but managed to damage a SADF Olifant.

Hamann states (p. 96): On February 14 1988, in a bitterly fought armour battle, the SADF and UNITA effectively destroyed FAPLA's 59 Brigade, which was heavily supported by Cuban contingents. As a result, most of FAPLA's forces were pinned down in a 30 km square just across the Cuito River from Cuito Cuanavale.

Bridgland states (p. 196-197): The first Cuban fighting men entered combat in defence of FAPLA's 59th Brigade on 14 February 1988...Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks...but nevertheless, the action in support of A and B Companies ended with five T-54/55s destroyed and one T-55 captured in mint condition with only a few kilometres on the clock. On , he continues: Seventy-five FAPLA dead were counted on the two battlefields and six were taken prisoner. Given the SADF's loss of only seven men killed and two wounded, one Ratel destroyed, one Ratel badly damaged, and an Olifant damaged, the inventory indicates a clear South African victory. But the fact is that the attack was a failure in terms of objectives Colonel Don Ferreira had set - the elimination of 16 Brigade and the cutting off of 21 and 59 Brigades so that they could be destroyed virtually at the SADF's leisure.

George states (pg. 221-222): Early on 14 February, the attack began with a fierce bombardment of both brigades, allowing 61 Mech and UNITA to manoeuvre into positions exactly between them and then simultaneous attacks...faced with the collapse of his forces, 59 Brigade's commander urgently requested reinforcements, and 3 Tank Battalion was ordered to launch a counter-attack. Seven tanks from the Cuban Tactical Group (under Lieutenant Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt) spearheaded the force as it moved east towards 59 Brigade's position (one breaking down en route). The FAPLA's signal was intercepted by the South Africans, however, and they sent 61 Mech to intercept the tanks, precipitating the first tank battle of the Angolan war. Visibility in the dense bush war was poor and the Cuban tank force - which according to the South Africans, "arrived in a mob", stumbled into a noisy point-blank firefight with the South Africans. The fighting was chaotic, and the Cuban tanks impressed the Olifant commanders with their aggressive (and often suicidal) sallies into the midst of the South African squadron in search of targets. With the range between opposing tanks down to as little as 100 yards, the Cuban commander was forced to keep his tank on the move, and by the end of the day his was the only tank operational (although it had been hit three times). As dusk fell, both sides started to lose communication between their vehicles, and the South Africans started withdrawing. This allowed the Cuban tank commander (who had rammed a tree and camouflaged his tank under the foliage) to collect nine Cuban survivors scattered across the battlefield - six of them badly wounded - and withdraw to 16 Brigade's positions, arriving shortly before dawn. The attack of 14th February was another overwhelming success for the South Africans, driving the FAPLA off the high ground and, following a weak attempt to re-occupy 59 Brigade's positions the next day, the FAPLA withdrew to its last foothold, the Tumpo Triangle.

Heitman states (pg. 233) in his very lengthy chapter entitled The Attack on 59 Brigade: Almost immediately after the artillery began firing, FAPLA tanks engaged 61 Mech from the west, south, and east. Several of them began manoeuvring very aggressively to attack 61 Mech, and the artillery fire was adjusted to support them. Five of these tanks were shot out by 61 Mech during this fighting. Two more were shot out by 4 SAI; one by an Olifant, another by a Ratel-90....this group of tanks was not very well handled, and they arrived in front of the South Africans "in a mob", so that only the poor visibility in the thick bush saved them from instant destruction. The bush was so thick that some of these tanks were only visible at ten metres. 61 Mech later reported that they had mixed Cuban and FAPLA crews, the commander and the gunner generally being Cubans. At 18h25 61 Mech received artillery and direct fire; one Ratel was hit by a 23mm round which wounded one member of its crew. Unusually, the artillery fire was accurate and was accurately adjusted as the South Africans moved. A second Ratel was hit by 23mm rounds, killing four men and wounding three. Another Ratel was damaged by 130mm shrapnel. 61 Mech now isolated these FAPLA elements with fire and dealt with them. 4 SAI had manoeuvred alongside 61 Mech to support it, and the FAPLA attack soon broke down. Seven T-54/55s, a BTR-60, and three other vehicles were destroyed. Fourteen Cubans were killed in their tanks and about 100 FAPLA infantry were also killed in this clash.

Obviously I was mistaken about there being only being one tank-on-tank clash in the '87/'88 campaign. I trust these quotes will be helpful. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar López Rivera

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Oscar López Rivera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rococo1700 (talk · contribs)
• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Sarason (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Oscar López Rivera is an incarcerated prisoner convicted of crimes including: using force to commit robbery, which is considered a violent crime. . Mercy11 continues to insist that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. The available evidence finds that false. Mercy11 continues to revert my edits despite the simple, verifiable data, and using unreliable sources. Other editors such as Lerdthenerd, NickCT, Neosiber, and Froglich have experience similar problems.

My response to MERCY11 is that he ignores WP:BLPCRIME, which sustains that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery. and then I add: which is considered a violent crime.

Again, I am trying to keep this simple. Remember, the article now states. López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. Again this is false, untrue.

MERCY11 claims that this violates WP:SYN putatively because it recreates the "A and B, therefore C" construction referenced in that section. He is committing a logical fallacy. My argument is that A did A1, A1 is entirely equal to B, therefore it can be said that A did B. The example used in WP:SYN differs in that it does not link logical statements like this. It would be like saying: that even if I can source the follow two statements:

• The marathon race in city X is 26.2 miles long.
• 26.2 miles is the identical length as 42 kilometers.

That I could not say The marathon race in city X is 42 kilometers long.

MERCY11 is practicing WP:SYNTHNOT or to quote:

• SYNTH is not an advocacy tool. MERCY11 is using SYNTH to advocate that OLR did not committ violence.
• SYNTH is not presumed that is that people accusing other of synthesis should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. Here's the problem for MERCY11. The first source I use states OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and the second states, robbery is a violent crime. He needs to establish why this is not verified by the sources. The problem is that these facts make his conclusion as presently stated in the article untrue and false.

In addition, I challenge the reliability of MERCY11 sources and his use of biased sources. For example, the title of the source he cites is a newspaper article that claims: Arecibo clamó por la libertad de Oscar (in English: (the city of) Arecibo clamors for the liberty of Oscar). I rarely consider documents that claim that a "city clamors" to be reliable. I think that article is equally in error to claim that he was never accused of violent acts. As I state, he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. The FBI source I quoted described these as armed robberies, but to make things simpler and only use the language of my source (US Department of Justice) I now only use that phrase of using force to commit robbery. However, he was convicted of a violent act.

Again, I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of whether OLR should be released. However, I do not think that should excuse MERCY11 from obscuring facts. And it is a fact, by this mere conviction for robbery that OLR was convicted of a violent crime. Notice that I am not saying seditious conspiracy and interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, two of his other conditions are violent crimes. I do not know if they are classified as violent crimes. However, using force to commit robbery is classified as a violent crime by the United States, and OLR was convicted of this.

Much seems to made of the false claims that OLR never practiced violence, including by the Arecibo newspaper, but as in that article it is made in order to support a clamor for his pardon. It is advocacy. My statements do not advocate an opinion, the just state the facts. (see WP:ASSERT). My challenge to MERCY11 is to establish that the Department of Justice document does not state that OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and that this is not indisputably equal in the eyes of the US Justice System (in which OLR lived by choice) to a violent crime.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have altered the citations to reliable sources to two simple reliable sources. I have discussed my changes in the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The answer here is fairly simple. If OLR was convicted of robbery & robbery is a violent crime, then OLR was convicted of a violent crime. I accept President Clinton's assertion that FALN members were not convicted on causing "bodily harm or killing", but the violent crime conviction stands. This case has generated some frenzied partisanship. I am only interested in the assertion of this skeletal fact. I am fairly certain that outside intervention will be needed to resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

The editor was reverted because he violated WP:BLP. None of his citations (US Parole Commission; Bureau of Justice Statistics) state what he is trying to push HERE, that "While not causing bodily harm through any of his convictions, Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime" . The issue here is his obsession with linking Oscar Lopez Rivera (OLR) with committing a "violent crime" and qualifying the subject's biography with the words "violent crime" when his sources do not use those words. The editor was not content with stating that "Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery" but he then goes on to editorialize that, with the dangling add-on "a violent crime." THIS source, among the other 4 given in the article, states "nunca fue acusado por actos violentos" (Goggle translation: "was never charged with violent acts"). To achieve a re-write of history, the editor resorted to OR via WP:SYN, which is best appreciated in his words:

"the references used to substantiate the statements in the article...fail to address the simple, straightfoward statements I have set forth:

OLR was convicted of use of force to commit robbery.
Use of force to commit robbery is a violent crime.

OLR was convicted of a violent crime."

Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The editor no only failed to do that, but also -conveniently- insists in removing HERE sourced material that states just the opposite of his original research, and Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish original research. If the editor's claim that the subject committed "a violent crime" was the case, then, per WP:V, "some would probably already have reported it so". Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". As such, he was reverted. Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sarason

Oscar López Rivera discussion

Thanks Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) and Mercy11 (talk · contribs) for participating. Technically I should wait for Sarason (talk · contribs) to reply, but I am making an exception because the discussion seems to be underway. I will notify this user via talk page. I have moved the comments of Rococo1700 to the opening section of the dispute for clarity. In future, please do not state anything in the discussion section of a dispute before a volunteer has opened the discussion, as it creates confusion. Let me begin with some preliminaries. (1) DRN is meant for discussion about content and not conduct. (2) Assume good faith on the part of all participants. (3) Be civil in everything you say and (4) Please adjust to the pace of DRN. We the volunteers prefer to do some research so that we can address all parties in a comprehensive manner. I have gone through the comments made here and the talk page and the way I understand things, Mercy11 is opposed to the inclusion of the words violent crimes in the description of the conviction of Oscar López Rivera and is accusing Rococo1700 of WP:SYNTH for doing so. At the outset, let me clarify, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury and will focus merely on the inclusion of the content. I have asked for comments from editors of a Wiki Project Criminal Biography in the talk page of the article. As these editors have experience working on such biographies, lets wait for their comments before deciding the next course of action. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. I note that Sarason (talk · contribs) has not replied to the request on his talk page. Technically the statement quoted by Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) (i.e. Oscar López Rivera is convicted of violent crimes) has to be removed from the article, not because of WP:SYNTH but because of WP:PRIMARY. Court documents such as court rulings, US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011, Department of Justice document etc. are all Primary sources of information. Reliable secondary and tertiary sources include books, magazines, journals etc. Rococo do you have any reliable secondary sources that say that Oscar López Rivera was convicted of violent crimes? --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

References

References

1. US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.
2. Beaureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.

Kvenland

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Finnedi (talk · contribs)
• Thomas.W (talk · contribs)
• Yngvadottir (talk · contribs)
• BogatusAB (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Help is needed concerning two articles: Kvenland and King of Kvenland. User Thomas W. wants to add a reference to a King of Sweden, Charles IX, in these articles yet no historian has ever linked the king with Kvenland in any way. Charles IX lived in 1550-1611, but Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. The matter has been discussed and sources have been asked, but to no avail. Consensus cannot be found.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for sources for the counter arguments being well aware that sources supporting the counter arguments don't exist.

How do you think we can help?

Preventing a ban that Thomas W. and Yngvadottir are aiming at.

Summary of dispute by Thomas.W

I don't have much time right now but I'll return later today with a longer answer. Finnedi's presentation of the case is a deliberate misrepresentation of it. The claim that I want to add something about Charles IX is patently false. That section, which is properly sourced, has been present in the article for a long time, and it was not added by me. The true story is that Finnedi ever since creating his current account last year has made repeated attempts to remove the section about Charles IX, i.e. properly sourced material, while at the same time adding POV/fringe material sourced to blogs and personal websites (sample diff from King of Kvenland), edits that have equally repeatedly been reverted by me and Yngvadottir. And it's not the only article on WP that Finnedi is POV/fringe-pushing on... Thomas.W 06:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yngvadottir

At both King of Kvenland and Kvenland, Finnedi and before him, an IP have objected to the inclusion of a section that states that some academics have regarded one of the regnal titles of Charles IX of Sweden as perhaps referring to the Kvens by another name. On request, I improved the sourcing of this section by finding the actual wording in Swedish. Finnedi until recently posted his objections to the section's inclusion at User talk:Thomas.W rather than on the talk page of either article; I started talk page sections on both article talk pages myself and after he posted there, have continued to engage his argument that the section does not belong. Most recently in response to his saying that sources do not exist of academics discussing Charles IX in this context, I first indicated the references present in the section and then provided an example from Google Books of a page in one of those sources (Kyösti Julku's book Kvenland-Kainuunmaa, which is about the theory that the Caijaners (sp.) are the Kvens). As I say there, I believe we have to cover the issue because scholars (reliable sources) have discussed it. Finnedi's primary objection appears to be that the word "Kvenland" is not used in writings of Charles IX's time, but this is not claimed in the cited sources or the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found and brought here summaries of what exactly Julku's argument is in his book, and those reveal more of the context in which he uses the passage whose relevance is in dispute. (I also in the process found other citations I'd like to add at Kvenland, but I'm not sure how relevant that is here.) I'm really trying to follow the rules here; but my view of the core issue hasn't been changed by anything I've found, and I'm trying to understand Finnedi's point of view rather than assume I fully understand it, if that makes any sense? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BogatusAB

I side with those who want the disputed text to be kept, for the following reason: "Sweden", "Sverige" and "Ruotsi" all mean the same thing in different languages. Similarly, "Kvenland", "Kainu/u" and "Caienska Semla" (in slightly varying spellings) also all mean the same thing, in different languages, according to e.g. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa', 1986.)

Although the terms Kven and Kvenland are entirely absent from all old Swedish literature, the term Caienska (compare to Svenska) - in different spellings - has been used in old maps and texts over centuries. Julku provides several examples of such uses in his study 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa' (1986). Accordingly, the following statement of Finnedi on the Dispute resolution noticeboard is misleading: "Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century."

The Kvenland article currently correctly states that the term Kvenland "with that or close to that spelling - seems to have gone out of ordinary usage around the end of the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century." However, Kvenland's separate status next to - and later, within - the Swedish Realm only gradually diminished thereafter, over many centuries.

According to Kyösti Julku, even after the reign of Charles IX's son in the 17th century, Kainuu (same as Kvenland in the medieval era, according to Julku) "occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come" (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa'. With English summary: The Ancient territory of Kainuu. Oulu, 1986).

The part of the article which Finnedi wants to remove needs to stay. The text itself explains why it needs to stay. The added map in the Kvenland article, showing Europe in 814, is a good addition. BogatusAB (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kvenland discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am opening this up for discussion now. I encourage everyone involved to review our Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

STOP!!! DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page.

A lot of the comments above (and not just the ones by one person) are near-duplicates of something that was said in an earlier comment or in the summary of dispute statements. You all tried that on the article talk page. Did it work? No? Then why repeat the behavior that didn't result in resolving the dispute before?

Clearly this dispute needs a more structured approach. I am going to ask each of you to look over the above, and if you believe that you made any new points that you didn't make in your statements, to update those statements. (you can add a comment or edit the existing one; either way is fine.) Keep it short and to the point. Then wait for me to evaluate your statements and we will discuss how to move forward.

As always, you can continue any sort of unstructured discussion you wish on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have read all of the edits to both pages, all recent talk page comments, and checked a few citations.

I am going to open this up for discussion again, but I need to set a few ground rules:

• Do not talk about other editors. Period. Talk only about article content, not user conduct.

• Slow down! We have tried the "fill the page with comments" technique already. It didn't work.

• Don't repeat points. We all heard you the first time.

• Calm, measured discussion based on logic and evidence will win the day.

That being said, this looks like a classic case of a one-against-many dispute. I wrote us a essay for those in such disputes. It is at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay, if I comment here?

1. This is what has happened: "When you think that the page has been hijacked by a group that is pushing a

particular point of view"

2. The core issue is that no historian has ever linked Kvenland to Charles IX in any way whatsoever. Nor did Charles IX himself draw such a connection.

3. If the matter was a question of interpretation, I wouldn't bother about it.

4. Please, ask the opponents a source that says Charles IX had something to do with Kvenland, the land, and you'll see they cannot present such a source.

All they have presented is a source linking Charles IX to the Caijaner at a time when Kvenland, the land, was no longer documented to exist.

5. The opponents are Swedes. One takes part in the debate with two different user names. If no consensus is found, I'll take the dispute to the neutral point of view noticeboard.

Thanks for your help so far.Finnedi (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A). Not all opponents are Swedes.

B). There's no sock-puppetry here. If you seriously feel there is, feel free to start a sock puppet investigation.

C). Your posts here clearly show that you haven't read and understood what your opponents have said/written. Either because you don't want to, or because of a lack of language skills. Thomas.W 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for slowing down, making your point, and waiting. It makes it a lot easier to deal with.

Please look over your own comments above and ask yourself "Did I follow the Do not talk about other editors. Period. Talk only about article content, not user conduct rule here? If not, please use <s> and </s> to strike those comments. I think that striking point 5 and reply C will be enough. Also, if the other fellow talks about other editors, do not respond. Leave it for me to deal with. Seriously, the only possible way that we can resolve this is to focus on article content, not user conduct. At the end of all of this I will advise you as to where to go if you think that there are still user conduct issues.

We have all read User talk:Guy Macon/One against many, right? Keep in mind that that page is purely my opinion. It is based on experience, but it is still just my opinion.

Finnedi, please think long and hard about whether you really want to apply the "When you think that the page has been hijacked by a group that is pushing a particular point of view" part of that essay. If you want to do that, we need to close down this DRN case (DRN deals with content disputes only) so that you can take it to WP:NPOVN and/or WP:ANI, in that order.

Please note that we at DRN do not want to hear why you think this, and we do not want to hear anyone's arguments saying that you are wrong. That's a whole other part of Misplaced Pages that handles those issues.

Also note that I would have given the exact same reply whether I thought that you had a good case or whether I thought you had nothing. It isn't my place to comment on user conduct issues other than to tell you where to take them.

If you change your mind, let me know and we can continue trying to resolve the content dispute.

Everyone else, please give him time to make that decision before continuing the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A solution based purely on facts will be the correct solution. Of course we can try here first. Miracles do happen sometimes.Finnedi (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, that leaves you with the fact that at least three editors disagree with you and that nobody supports you. As it stands, they have a clear consensus. Your only options are giving up or convincing someone. So far, your arguments have failed to do so. Do you have anything else that they haven't heard already? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "The only possible way that we can resolve this is to focus on article content". The number of "supporters" isn't relevant here but the historical facts. (This dispute isn't about one opinion vs another opinion). Do the opponents have anything new I haven't seen already? Finnedi (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. If you cannot convince a single person anywhere on Misplaced Pages that you are right, you don't get your way. See WP:TRUTH for a fuller explanation of this. You have made the "historical facts" argument several times and have failed to convince anyone. I personally am purposely not taking sides, and if you can manage to convince everyone but one that you are right I will switch to telling that person that he has to convince someone if he wants to get his way. Your opponents have already demonstrated what the WP:CONSENSUS is. They don't need to convince you. You need to convince them, or convince some uninvolved third party. That's how Misplaced Pages works; by consensus.

Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Imaging that everyone agreed with you except one. Would you like it if Misplaced Pages let that one person have his way? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please advise me how to take this dispute to the WP:NPOVN and/or WP:ANI. It's best if you don't act as a "referee" in this matter.Finnedi (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed users can start a new discussion in WP:NPOVN. Please advise. Thank you.Finnedi (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

Administrative close. There are several other editors involved in this dispute at the talk page and it is unfair to expect a DRN volunteer to have to list, notify, and create summary sections for all of them manually. Moreover, as currently stated this is primarily a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes; if you do refile, please focus on the content issues, not on editor conduct (and remember that we here at DRN are not administrators: we cannot prohibit or allow any particular behavior). — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Leavitt Bulldog

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Leavitt Bulldog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ss 051 (talk · contribs)
• Freedombulls (talk · contribs)
• Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The reason for the renaming of the breed from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog is in question. One side has made the statement in top header that the breed was being modified because the original creator (David Leavitt) did not like the direction that the breed had taken. The other side disagrees that this was the case and has provided a quote from David Leavitt regarding the reason for the name change in the article, as well as a statement in the Talk section showing that David Leavitt actually approved of the current condition of the breed at the time he renamed it, as well as a direct statement by him that he was not changing the breed (its conformation) but simply the name in order to dissociate the dogs from the more commonly, and inappropriately, used OEB title for many of the Alternative Bulldogs that use it. There has been no response from the first party in the talk section, despite it being referenced in the edits in order to get their attention.

This is actually relevant to the Genetic Background section as well, as the current article makes it sound like a new breed was founded in 2005, while at the same time stating that the dogs can still be registered as OEBs with the United Kennel Club (which is an obvious contradiction).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added comments to the Talk section as well as providing direct quotes, in both the article and Talk, to support the edits made

How do you think we can help?

I think a little mediation on how to resolve the difference would be appreciated. I have no problem compromising, so long as the statements that wind up being made have some degree of evidence. I was involved with the breed at the time all this happened and have been since, so I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt) and outright falsehoods without a hint of evidence are... tiresome...

Summary of dispute by Freedombulls

Summary of dispute by Sminthopsis84

There are several aspects to this dispute, it has become confusing, and is moving too fast. The current main thrust seems to be centred on a quote from this page : "The LB and OEB are clearly the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue. The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed." User:Ss 051 with this edit says "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." I would say that that is a misinterpretation.

There are two clubs, the LBA and the OEBKC, both breeding dogs descended from the "Olde English Bulldogge" breed developed in the 1970s by David Leavitt. More context from the same page is: "When he came back to the breed in 2005 he found that people had begun to try to change his breed into a bullier more English Bulldog look. He knew this was not good for the breed and formed the Leavitt Bulldog Association to further his dream. When he did this he changed the name from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog …". In the quote that User:Ss 051 is using, I would say that the OEB referred to is the original breed that David Leavitt developed in the 1970s, not the OEBKC dogs (the other club). Thus "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." is a mistaken impression. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Leavitt Bulldog discussion

"The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed. It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s, and bred to OEB’s, who are creating two breeds out of one. It would be in the best interest of genetic diversity to allow dual registry. Dual registry is in the best interest of the dogs."

Rodeo Drive

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rodeo Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gotgomped (talk · contribs)
• JSmitty01 (talk · contribs)
• Jbrubins (talk · contribs)
• Wikilaina (talk · contribs)
• Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

As a term-long assignment for COM257 at NCSU, a group of three others and I, were tasked with editing the Rodeo Drive page. This page had hardly any information on it when we began, and as we tried to expand it, we ran into trouble with a specific user who was extremely critical of our content - so much to the point that we had a hard time adding ANYTHING. By looking at the talk page, you can see there has been a lot of discussion. Although we have been able to add more since starting, there are a few things that we (and other wiki users) have been trying to add since 2006 - specifically, a list of the shops on Rodeo Drive - that this user continues to argue against. Even after citing sources establishing the importance of these stores, this user refuses to allow it. We can't give up the article and come back another time, because the final draft is due in a couple of weeks. Our class is learning about encyclopedic knowledge as a field of study - but we are not familiar enough with Misplaced Pages tools and regulations to make a strong enough case on our own.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have asked for help from our professor and have tried (and failed) many times to shape our material around her critical remarks - hoping to please her and allow her to add this content. We have used many different books from our university library and articles from Google scholar.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully you can have some users look over the content on the main page and the talk page, review our sources and arguments, and help mediate the argument that has been going on for years. By having a third or fourth opinion that is (hopefully) unbiased, we hope to solve this issue as calmly as possible. We are developing an appreciation for global knowledge through Misplaced Pages and want the most important part of the street to stand out.

Summary of dispute by JSmitty01

Summary of dispute by Jbrubins

Summary of dispute by Wikilaina

Summary of dispute by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

Rodeo Drive discussion

Hello, and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board. I am Mark Miller, a volunteer here. I have no special powers or authority however, I need to make a note here as this is important. While Misplaced Pages welcomes students to edit articles, we do not allow groups to tag team. That could be the perception of editors of what is happening in the comments above. Also your professor has no authority here and I am more than a little disturbed by the suggestion that your are trying to please her with an assignment she seems to have given you. Whether or not your assignment is due in a few weeks or not is of no importance to the project. That sounds harsh but Misplaced Pages is not a university and not a pet project for schools. You must still collaborate and attempt to work together even if in a heated manner.

This note might open the discussion but do not post in this section until a volunteer has looked through the dispute to see if it can be debated here and all participants have made their opening comments. (Unsigned by Mark Miller)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs)
• Ianmacm (talk · contribs)
• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)
• Aoidh (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Monty845 (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• AzureCitizen (talk · contribs)
• Justanonymous (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On this article there are a handful of editors who insist that the words "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" must not be used in the lead. I have had similar disputes on other articles. Overall, I have probably had the same dispute with more than a dozen editors who take the same or a similar stand: that these words, or close variations of, are not real, but simply anti-gun POV. (Please refer to the most recent discussion about this, started 10 April 2014, at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.)

To the best of my knowledge they are all pro-gun editors, who also, again to the best of my knowledge, are a significant majority among active editors of gun-related pages.

I would like to start an RfC re: the use of these words in Misplaced Pages articles, but I would like to involve as wide an array of editors as possible - not just WP:GUNS editors.

Other articles on which these words have been repeatedly disputed and effectively banned from regular use, as they are regularly used by WP:V WP:RS. Other articles where this has been an issue: Assault weapon, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Gun control, Gun laws in the United States by state, Gun politics in the U.S.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

First BRD, then talk - citing lots of sources - then an "unbalanced" tag (which was promptly removed and called an "attention seeking" drive-by).

How do you think we can help?

Help to draft RfCs and place them under a non- WP:GUNS page/project. History, law, media, politics?

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm

Summary of dispute by Gaijin42

Summary of dispute by Aoidh

Summary of dispute by Drmies

Summary of dispute by Monty845

Summary of dispute by North8000

Summary of dispute by AzureCitizen

Summary of dispute by Justanonymous

-- I have never commented on this and I do not know why I am named. I do not know why I am being included (or targeted) in this, aside from the fact that perhaps there is an ARBCOM on gun control which lightbreather is fully aware of????? I believe this is terribly unfair and unjust to me on the part of Lightbreather, to attempt to bait me into this argument when I have very clearly never commented on these terms here on this article. The last time I edited this article, to the very best of my memory, was to edit the timelines of the first responders where I added a table with the times from the editors and to include the names of the defenders who died valiantly trying to defend the school. Lightbreather, could you very please (and I'm being very polite here under extreme duress from you) articulate where specifically where I "Justanonymous" have attempted to "stop" or "restrict" you (specifically) from using the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine" in the LEDE against "you" (specifically), in this (specific) article? Please be very specific with difs please.............. Otherwise, I will expect a "full" apology from you here AND on my talk page -- Otherwise, I will be forced to report you for personal harassment to appropriate oversight groups if you are engaging in these activities against others. Please be specific.....this is extremely serious in my mind. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't include you to upset you. I am looking for editors to help resolve the dispute. In the discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page, another editor provided a link to a past discussion "with previous consensus on this matter." You were involved in that discussion, so that's why I included you here. Not everyone I listed is involved in this particular dispute, but some have expressed opinions in other discussions that were brought up in this dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion

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