Revision as of 18:21, 13 September 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 01:46, 26 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

BlackLight Power

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• BlackLight Power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blippy (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Ronnotel (talk · contribs)
• LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)
• Bhny (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is discussion about whether an editorial in a well regarded physics journal is a secondary source, and whether it should be included in the article. For convenience, here is an extract from the editorial:

Despite the reservations about the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is admittedly a controversial postulate.

The following draft sentence has been proposed, but no consensus reached thus far: In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterised the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion and debate while acknowledging the "reservations...expressed by some members of the scientific community".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Engaged in discussions on my Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Editors seem to be fairly polarised in their view of Blacklight Power on the talk page. It would be very helpful for people less interested in (or committed to) currently accepted physics to bring some dispassionate attention to the nature and quality of the source in dispute as such editors are less likely to be distracted by the implications of what BLP does in deciding on the issue of WP:RS.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Trying to torture meaning out of a flimsy editorial comment in order to big up a fanstastical claim which would re-write the laws of science. I don't think so. Alexbrn 06:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ronnotel

The article in question is from European Physical Journal D, a mid to high quality journal that consistently ranks in the top or second quartile related to other physics journals. It is unusual for a journal such as this to publish an editorial justifying a decision to publish a paper. The reason for doing so is that one potential interpretation of the results would have a profound impact on our understanding of quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. However, there could be other interpretations that would not be as impactful, but could still introduce new science. However, how will these interpretations be resolved if the results are summarily suppressed? How does it serve the scientific process to prohibit the mention of an article such as this? Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LeadSongDog

One SPA disagreeing with all others] about a source for a fringe free energy claim hardly deserves a serious response. Going fForum shopping when prospects at the article talk page dry up? Priceless. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bhny

If something is "worthy of further scientific discussion" it will be discussed and maybe then we will have something to add to the article. Let us wait for a discussion! Most wikipedia topics are worthy of discussion and obviously we don't state that in an article. Being "worthy of discussion" is not a notable thing, and also the quote is from a primary source. Bhny (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

• The source in question is the 1.1-paragraph editorial here, linked from here if the direct pdf hyperlink does not work. It does not mention the subject of the article in question, BlackLight Power (BLP).
• The proposed edit badly misinterprets the source, which is much more a dry justification than an endorsement. That the editors felt the need to justify publishing one of Mills's papers is not relevant enough to BLP to merit inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

Talk:BlackLight Power shows a large amount of activity focused on attempts to find something that might be added to the article to boost the impression that the company may be on the verge of a scientific breakthrough that will provide endless energy at low cost. However, the talk page also has a large section at the top regarding "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" showing that scientific consensus determines what appears in articles, and by that guideline a throw-away editorial should not be used to suggest a positive result regarding hypothetical hydrinos. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by 2over0

I am uninvolved in this particular dispute but have edited the article in the past. EPJ D is a fine journal (not first tier, but top quartile sounds about right), but the editorial in question is a good reason to continue treating the issue of hydrinos as outside of mainstream physics. Using this source as proposed would be to severely misrepresent it. If post-publication peer review shows interest from the relevant community of physicists, then we can talk about new physics. As it stands, this remains a WP:FRINGE claim. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BlackLight Power 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. Right now I am doing a bit of research, reading all of the talk page comments before opening this up for discussion. This should take less than a day. In the meantime, 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) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant prior discussions:

• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#Blacklight Power
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 33#BlackLight Power
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Blacklight Power#Published material
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Eric mit 1992 Blacklight Power
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#User:TStolper1W
• Talk:BlackLight Power/Archive 7#NPOV,
• ARBCOM user notification #1
• ARBCOM user notification #2
• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk archive/Science/February 1-7 2006#Black light power, Nuclear fission or Nuclear fusion
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146#Blippy
• http://en.wikiversity.org/Cold_fusion/Theory/Hydrino_theory

OK, I have carefully studied the article, references, and talk page discussion. Before I continue, I would like to address one minor issue: User:LeadSongDog, would you be so kind as to strike or delete your comment about forum shopping? Here at DRN we only discuss article content, never user conduct.

Getting back to the case at hand, I am now opening it up for discussion. Please note that it is my duty as a DRN volunteer to remain neutral in matters of editorial judgement and consensus building, but to also take a stand if I believe that Misplaced Pages's core principles are being violated.

As I hope everyone already knows, this page is under standard discretionary sanctions, according to the following arbcom ruling:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion, 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who has not done so to at least read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and if possible to read the details of the case. It has many parallels with what we are discussing here. Pseudoscience pages often devolve into one side wanting too turn Misplaced Pages into a public relations arm of a particular pseudoscience (arguably, many of User:Blippy's proposed changes over the 9 months he has been working almost exclusively on this page fit this description), while the other side tries to turn Misplaced Pages into The Skeptics Dictionary while a few lonely voices stand for Misplaced Pages's core values.

I have looked over this page carefully, and it is my considered opinion that the editorial choices to include the terms "fraud" and especially "loser technology" show that the current article lacks WP:NPOV in spots, is unencyclopedic in spots, and may very well contain WP:BLP violations. I don't see anything that leads me to believe that Philip Warren Anderson is qualified to differentiate between someone who is committing scientific fraud and someone who truly believes a particular bit of pseudoscience. I see no reason why we aren't simply quoting IEEE Spectrum magazine as saying that "most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence". Adding the "loser technology" is blatant editorializing and completely unencyclopedic.

I also have not seen a good argument for excluding European Physical Journal D. Certainly Blippy's suggestion ("In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterized the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion") goes way too far in the other direction into advocacy, but why can's we just neutrally describe the paper and then neutrally describe the accompanying comment and editorial? It really looks like we are applying a higher standard than used in other pseudoscience topics.

Finally, the comments by User:Ronnotel -- an experienced editor and an administrator -- appear to have been dismissed with any real effort to seek consensus concerning the issues he brings up.

Based upon the above observations, I am going to recommend that we have a discussion here and attempt to come to an agreement on the above issues, and if we cannot do that, to escalate this to a less-informal forum. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, Guy. In particular, I appreciate you pointing out that my concerns on the page have never been adequately addressed, especially the use of the term "fraud" which is a continuing source of injustice. I believe this is a direct violation of WP:BLP, no where else on WP am I aware of this type of language being used on so flimsy a pretext. Ronnotel (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed at BLP/N which I believe led to the current wording. Alexbrn 14:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That discussion, as well as this comment, is similarly unresponsive. How does the language in the article meet the demands of WP:BLP? Ronnotel (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A theory (the "it" of the phrase in question) is not a living person. Does BLP apply to ideas? (Add: the point is it's wrong to say this hasn't been discussed, it's been discussed at a noticeboard where editors with BLP expertise are assumed to be on hand.)Alexbrn 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

An interpretation of WP:BLP that relies on highly legalistic reasoning is a red flag. The intent of WP:BLP is to look for reasons to exclude possibly defamatory language rather than reasons to include it. Ronnotel (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing legalistic in saying a criticism of a scientific hypothesis as being bogus (which is what fraud means in that context) does not fall under the remit of WP:BLP. It is you who is crying BLP. There is the hydrino hypothesis, it was criticized in robust terms by a eminent scientist, he was quoted and published (and is still published online) by the Village Voice – who as a professional outfit presumably take care in what they publish. Misplaced Pages cites that criticsm to give the mainstream view in line with our core policy. As Guy has wisely said, we need to paid heed to the core principles of Misplaced Pages. Neutrality is one of them. Alexbrn 15:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we agree on the need to be skeptical regarding the theory. We can do that without using the word "fraud", which is poorly sourced and therefore must be removed per WP:BLP. Ronnotel (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed it was you who originated the BLPN discussion. I agree with others that only a bad misunderstanding of the word "fraud" in this context could lead to any suggestion of a BLP aspect to its use. Alexbrn 15:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've alluded to this a number of times, so now I'll make a direct request. Can you please address the specific language in WP:BLP that spells out the circumstances when poorly sourced, defamatory language is acceptable. I don't see an exception for "bad misunderstanding". Ronnotel (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The point is BLP doesn't apply to criticism of ideas, as you cannot defame an idea. I have no particular attachment to this particular form of words being in the lede, but invoking the BLP aspect here is badly off-beam in my view (and, it seems, in the view of those who frequent BLPN). Alexbrn 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So I'm afraid I have no idea how to proceed in a dispute resolution when told that referencing WP:BLP is irrelevant to a poorly sourced allegation of "fraud". Perhaps the moderator or some other uninvolved observer can provide guidance here. I certainly can't lend my support to this view - I don't believe that is how WP is meant to work. Ronnotel (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways I can say it. Let me give it one more go. There is no allegation of fraud against Mills. That is a misreading (as I and other have said, yet I'm not seeing any acknowledgment.) The hydrino hypothesis was described as "a fraud". You are insisting that somehow this criticism of the idea is transitive to criticism of one of its proponents. I and others disagree. Alexbrn 17:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I accept that you are making this claim in good faith. However, can you accept how a reasonable person might visit the page, fail to make this distinction and come away with the notion that the WP page has labeled Mills a fraud? Can you show me any other page on WP where a similar accusation is leveled at "an idea" on such flimsy evidence? Ronnotel (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP page has not "labeled Mills a fraud", as we have belaboured at some length, and as has been repeatedly observed. People may infer what they will. We do not spin for a desired outcome, we neutrally report what is so. The evidence that the hydrino hypothesis is considered bogus is not flimsy: it's the unanimous consensus of all authorities. Alexbrn 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

bogus is not a synonym for fraud. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As the DRN volunteer who is trying to help you folks resolve this case, I am going to ask the two of you to slow down, let someone else weight in, and try to avoid creating a "wall of text" with rapid-fire responses. If you desire, you can continue the back-and-forth discussion on the article talk page, but DRN needs to be more structured and deliberate. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I would like to address one point brought up in the above discussion: the value and authority of prior discussions. Some prior discussions, such as arbcom rulings and warnings by uninvolved administrators, are authoritative. We can point at them and say that they settle a particular issue. Noticeboards such as Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and indeed DRN itself -- can be good indications of consensus on a particular issue (if a bunch of uninvolved experienced editors say that something is or isn't a BLP violation, it is a good idea to listen to them), but the actual decision as to whether something is or is not a BLP violation must rest with an uninvolved administrator. It is, of course, far better for us to come to an agreement here rather than asking an admin to intervene, but BLP/N discussions -- especially ones with only a handful of participants -- are not authoritative. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few working definitions (subject to debate, of course: DRN volunteers purposely have no authority):

• BLP Violation: Anything that violates WP:BLP, anywhere on wikipedia. Specifically not limited to actual biography pages, but must refer to a living person, not just a company or a theory. That being said, some companies and some theories are so closely associated with an individual that BLP protection extends to them.

• Financial Fraud: What most people think of when they see the word "fraud". Source must be reliable on the subject, such as a prosecutor or grand jury for accusations of financial fraud, and a conviction in a court of law for financial fraud.

• Scientific Fraud: Purposeful falsification of data or results. Source must be reliable on whether the scientist was purposely lying as opposed to being mistaken or even being a crackpot who believes his own pseudoscience. An example would be a university making an official finding of scientific fraud by one of its researchers. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"some companies and some theories are so closely associated with an individual that BLP protection extends to them" ← I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons". Alexbrn 03:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By your own analysis Alexbrn, a theory is not a living person and so cannot commit or be a fraud of any kind. Only a natural or corporate person can do that, so there is unfortunate ambiguity built into the use of this quote in the lede - compounded by the fact that the article is about Mills and Blacklight Power - not the hydrino theory - so a reader could be forgiven for thinking that the it being referred to is one of those things which can commit fraud. This is completely avoidable, and to my knowledge there has been no proof of any fraud in the intervening 15 years - if anything Mill's case has gotten stronger (e.g. the editorial in question) - so it isn't clear to me what NPOV or WEIGHT benefit accrues from such an extreme and old quote being used so prominently in the lede. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, a theory is not a living person. So the word "fraud" applied to it must have one of that word's meanings that apply to things (e.g. "something false or spurious"). Anybody who thinks the "it" here is anything other than the hydrino hypothesis would lack basic reading skills; we don't write for such people, but assume at least basic competence in reading. As I have said, I have no particular attachment to this particular word. But the point is that the hypotheis has long been dismissed by reputed scientists as tosh: if some way could be found to convey that by paraphrasing I'd not argue with it. (And I'm not entirely sure why this is being raised now anyway, since it was not a matter included in the DR request). Alexbrn 13:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that isn't how the word is predominantly used - the usage you suggest is more akin to fake, not fraud. Here's a quick definition from the web where you'll note the tone is decidely one of deceit:

fraud frɔːd/ noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds

wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. "he was convicted of fraud"

synonyms: fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing, duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement; informal monkey business, funny business, crookedness, hanky-panky, shenanigans, flimflam; informal jiggery-pokery; informal monkeyshines; archaic management, knavery a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"

I would suggest that since at least three editors here consider it to be ambiguous, then perhaps - by definition - it is. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "some companies and some theories are so closely associated with an individual that BLP protection extends to them" ← I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"

My reasoning is at as follows: Consider the following extreme case: A company consists of one person and the person and the company are intertwined in the public eye. Would Misplaced Pages really be allowed to say things about the company that would be BLP violations if said about the person? I think not.

Re: I don't believe that's in the policy, which reads to me as being tightly circumscribed to "living persons"

The very first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page" (emphasis in original). If we cannot accuse Randell L. Mills of fraud directly, we cannot call his theory a fraud either. And, as I pointed out before, Philip Warren Anderson is not a reliable source on the question of whether Randell L. Mills has committed scientific or financial fraud. WP:BLPGROUP specifically says: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."

I think that we have heard all the arguments on both sides of this issue, I am going to give it a bit more time for discussion, (I am really hoping for something from someone who has not already weighed in) and if we cannot arrive at a compromise that everyone agrees with I am going to close the DRN case and put out a call for a couple of uninvolved administrators to deal with what some experienced editors believe to be a BLP violation while other experience editors think it is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(Could you please sign that, Guy.) I consider myself very uninvolved here. (I semiprotected the article once for a couple of weeks, that's all.) Just to place me in general, even if it does involve mentioning a user: I most often find myself in agreement with Alexbrn on fringe and pseudoscience pages. Not on the question of talking about "fraud" in this article, though. Fraud means "an act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain". It implies dishonesty on the part of the person(s) perpetrating the fraud. Compare the quotes above. Bogus means "Counterfeit or fake; not genuine". "Not genuine" can, depending on context, sometimes imply deception (that would be the fake/counterfeit aspect), but doesn't necessarily do so. (I'm quoting the wiktionary definitions.) Fraud and bogus just aren't synonyms, to my sense. I feel strongly that the word "fraud" is a BLP violation, and shouldn't be used in the article. Shouldn't be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages unless deliberate deception has been proved, preferably in a court of law.

On the other hand, the quoted editorial from the European Physical Journal shouldn't be used either. The phrasing can't bear the weight put on it. Especially, it doesn't support any conclusion that the hydrino hypothesis is worthy of further scientific discussion, in my opinion. Saying so would be drawing a conclusion that the journal doesn't itself draw. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

Just to be clear, I also don't think that the quoted editorial from the European Physical Journal bears the weight put on it or supports any conclusion that the hydrino hypothesis is worthy of further scientific discussion. I think that it should be referenced (and possibly *appropriately* quoted -- that's an editorial decision and not something a DRN volunteer should try to influence) in such a way that we end up with a purely neutral description of what the paper actually claims and a neutral description of the editorial and the notes pages, mentioning how uncommon such additional comments are. Nothing added, nothing implied, just a straight NPOV description. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You might like to rewrite WP:SYNTH before promoting that idea. DRN volunteers should not inflame cases such as this article where a company promises to revolutionize physics and provide inexhaustible and cheap energy. Such topics do not warrant grasping-at-straws editorial comments on why a particular paper was published (are the journal editors experts on hydrinos?). It is reasonable to discuss whether "fraud" should be mentioned in the lead, but conflating an article on a company with BLP is not going to fly because the article does not assert than an individual committed fraud. Note that the "sure that it's a fraud" comment is attributed to an American physicist who won a Nobel Prize in Physics—that's not your average smear, and a very good reason would be need to omit it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything in the article is correctly sourced and Blacklight is a company not a person. Nothing more needs to be said. Bhny (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully considered all of the above arguments, and it is my considered opinion that the article in its present state clearly violates WP:IMPARTIAL. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Guy, many thanks for taking the time to review the article and provide your feedback. I agree that there are many problems with the article as I have mentioned above. However, given that ArbComm has placed the article under discretionary sanctions, many editors are reluctant to edit the page and risk falling under these sanctions. For instance, User:Blippy has been cautioned for his behavior for simply trying to raise these issues. Do you have any guidance on how we can move forward? Ronnotel (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So on the stated matter for which resolution was sought (the use of an editorial), the conclusion is ... ? Alexbrn 13:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN cases don't actually have any "conclusions" other than the participants coming to an agreement or a compromise. In particular, the opinions of DRN volunteers like myself are, by design, non-authoritative and may be ignored without any consequences. That being said, DRN volunteers may make suggestions and administrators and users who have worked with us in the past often pay close attention to those suggestions.

If I had to close this case right now, I would draft up a recommendation that it be sent to ANI with a call for two or three uninvolved admins to look into this and possibly a few other pages involving some of the same editors. Fortunately, I don't have to make that decision now, and I am still holding on to the hope that with further discussion we can arrive at some compromise that is agreeable to all involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that Guy, the "uninvolved" volunteer has previously edited this article, and specifically has made edits in line with his recommendations here. For example, he states "I have looked over this page carefully, and it is my considered opinion that the editorial choices to include the terms "fraud" and especially "loser technology" show that ...". Well, of course he thinks that, because that's an edit he made before on the wikipedia article under discussion. . His last edits on the talk page where June 2013 , and May 2013 . Second Quantization (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Before the above was pointed out, I honestly did not recall having edited that page two years ago. If I had, I would not have taken this case. Now that it has been pointed out, I am recusing myself and asking for another DRN volunteer to take over the case. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Considering there is an WP:RSN thread on the core issue, this DRN discussion is redundant. If there was to be another DRN, it should take place at a later stage once reliability has been discussed at RSN. Second Quantization (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the RSN discussion was started during an ongoing DRN case by one of the parties in the case. Do we want to set a precedent that says that anybody can shut down a DRN case by WP:FORUMSHOPING if they don't like the way things are going for them? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza_conflict#Hamas_began_firing_rockets_on_June_29_or_June_30 

Users involved

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs)
• Shrike (talk · contribs)
• -sche (talk · contribs)
• IRISZOOM (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Reliable sources--including news reports describing the attacks, official statements by the Israeli PM, and secondary analyses--state that Hamas began directly firing rockets at Israel on June 29 or June 30. Other reliable sources state that Hamas only began taking formal "responsibility" for rocket attacks after a July 6 Israeli attack on Khan Yunis killed Hamas members. Even though all of those sources explicitly attribute the latter claim to Hamas, and my opponents acknowledge the ambiguity of the "responsibility" language, outspoken anti-Israel activist editors have deleted the Israeli claims on the grounds that the sources are somehow less than reliable. The discussion on the talk page speaks for itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

You can examine the sources in a neutral manner and suggest a proposed wording.

Summary of dispute by Nishidani

Nothing to say here, because the report falsifies the evidence (all sources do not attribute to Hamas a claim that they took responsibility on the 7th. (b)'outspoken anti-Israel activist editors' is the editor's way of writing 'people who disagree with me', and implies the editor has already profiled people who do not agree with him as animated by some pathological hostility to a state. It's a smearing caricature.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kingsindian

The issue here is when Hamas rocket fire started. There is a long discussion here. The basic source here is Nathan Thrall. The full quote by Thrall is given here.

Several points now:

• The lead is a summary, and it was agreed to keep it as short as possible.
• Thrall is a neutral, highly respected analyst at the International Crisis Group. The source is eminently WP:RS. There is no "Hamas claim" which he is reporting.
• Thrall makes it clear that the rockets before July 6 were fired by non-Hamas groups. The last sentence by Thrall is slightly ambiguous, which can be read as Hamas taking responsibility for rocket fire after 6 July, or Hamas taking responsibility for rockets before 6 July.
• Other sources detailed in the section speak less ambiguously and each points to July 6 raid as the date when Hamas started firing rockets. There is only one exception cited there, J.J. Goldberg, who repeats the Israeli claim that the rocket fire started on June 30.
• There are some news reports, cited here by TheTimesAreAChanging which (mostly) report the Netanyahu claim, or cite the IDF that Hamas rockets started on June 30 or "Hamas involvement" in the rockets. A typical example is the Reuters report, which makes it clear (even in the title) that it is reporting Netanyahu's claims. Most of the other news reports either quote the IDF or Netanyahu. As far as I can see, there is exactly one report by Ynet, an Israeli newspaper, which states this in its own voice, but a cursory look at that article will show that it is based on IDF sources.
• Newspapers are meant to report real-time things and often they just report, "he said, she said" (often they don't bother about "she said"). The Thrall source (and others cited in the section) are neutral, third party analysts, some of them could be accused of bias for sure.
• I have offered earlier to include the Thrall quote with its slight ambiguity and with attribution. That was not commented upon, and I assume, rejected.

This is not the venue to be discussing conduct, so any accusation of "anti-Israel activist editors" is out of place. Needless to say, it is false, TheTimesAreAChanging has already made up his mind about me and nothing will shake it. Kingsindian (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shrike

We should stick to what sources say pretty simple .Thrall source its only one source and we may use it but there are other sources like analysis by Goldenberg that are too important and as TheTimesAreAChanging said we shouldn't advance one POV that rockets that where fired before was not by Hamas while other sources clearly say that where fired by Hamas member.We should definitely include this information.--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by -sche

Since someone in the discussion section has noted my silence, I suppose I'll comment out loud: meh. My main interest is keeping the article well-copyedited, I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the "30 June" claim should be included. On the talk page, someone discussed changing "which Hamas itself began following an Israeli airstrike on 6 July which killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis" to "which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas)". This was shot down (ugh, did I just make a missile pun?) because the July 7 date was not "according to Hamas", but "according to several sources independent of either Hamas or the IDF". Perhaps the solution is just to say that, i.e. to say something to the effect of "which Hamas itself began either (according to several sources) on 7 July after an Israeli airstrike on 6 July killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, or (according to Israel) on 30 June". -sche (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IRISZOOM

As others have explained here, the problem is not correctly described here. The claim is not made by Hamas but neutral authors. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not only one source, it's several of them. One more was noted by me yesterday, an article written by Noam Chomsky. See this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject: Z Communications is fringe. Chomsky is a notable polemicist. Nishidani favors keeping the Goldberg claim with attribution, but it is not clear why Thrall or Chomsky do not need attribution, or why the lead should not summarize that part of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky is a respected person.

Goldberg's claim can be there but it doesn't change many more sources say the opposite of what he says. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict discussion

The BBC source says "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility." Thrall says " Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets." (Which may include the rockets fired before.) Both of those claims are explicitly attributed to Hamas. By contrast, Goldberg says "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over. Israel was forced to retaliate for the rockets with air raids." Ynet reported: "For the first time since the end of the IDF Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, the Hamas military wing is behind rocket strikes on Israel, with a wave of attacks overnight Sunday (June 29) and early Monday emanating from central Gaza refugee camps completely under Hamas control. There a number of Palestinian factions active in Gaza and though Israel views Hamas as responsible for any rockets fired from the Gaza territory, the group generally avoids such direct attacks on Israel. In the past 24 hours, however, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have been launching rockets from the Dir al Balach, Bureij and Muasi refugee camps...Monday's rockets were of an older make known to be in the Hamas arsenal...The IDF said Mohammed Zaid Abid was killed after the army launched a targeted attack against his rocket launching cell minutes before they planned to fire at Israel. Abid was identified by Palestinian media as a member of the Hamas military wing." So Ynet cites the IDF and Palestinian media for information on Abid, but neither Ynet nor the later analysis by Goldberg directly attribute the claim of Hamas rocket fire on June 30 to Israel. Even if the Reuters article quoting Netanyahu were the only source, and this was an "Israeli government POV", it would be grossly misleading to suppress it in favor of the official Hamas POV. Nishidani and Kingsindian appear to believe, because they are fans of Thrall's work and have praised it on Nishidani's talk page, that Thrall had some mechanism for determining the earlier reports of Hamas rocket fire were false and for verifying the official Hamas claims. That is sheer nonsense.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thrall says it in his own voice, and is not quoting Hamas claims. He also says in his own voice, that the pre-July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas factions. The fact that Thrall did not repeat the Israeli claim, while he stated the facts in his own voice is operative. Your opinion about his methods is irrelevant here. I will take Thrall's analysis over a WP editor's. If you feel his last sentence is ambiguous, I have already made the offer to quote it directly, with attribution. Kingsindian (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thrall and BBC are no more reliable than Goldberg or Ynet. I was not aware of any proposal to quote Thrall prior to this DRN discussion, but since we are here I welcome volunteer input on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, I am MrScorch6200, the DRN coordinator. Please remember to keep discussion to a minimum until this case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks and regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not opening this case but I have a procedural question: Three of the five editors invited by the filing party appear to have chosen not to participate here. One has removed the DRN notice from their talk page. The other two have edited WP since the DRN notice was placed on their page. Is it useful to continue with this case in spite of their absence? What do the participants think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful to continue. I would appreciate a neutral observer's take on the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: I don't see any indication of meaningful participation here by the named parties. DRN participation is optional and if editors to not want to engage in moderated discussion we cannot force them to. So far only the filing party has said they feel that partial consensus would be valuable in moving the issue forward. If you want "a neutral observer's take on the sources" then I suggest a WP:3O as DRN is for moderated discussion not outside opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As a possibly unusual step I left notes for Shrike and IRISZOOM encouraging them to actively participate. It would be unfortunate if the DRN had to close due to their absence. DRN is one of our better methods of resolving disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has commented except Shrike, who only left a sentence on the talk page in the first place. You previously told us to limit our discussion before a volunteer got involved. There is no reason why an impartial opinion should be this difficult to obtain. Thank you for the suggestion on 3O; I will try that if Shrike's absence is really so crucial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not used WP:DRN before, so I am puzzled about the procedure. The talk page discussion is already listed, and we were told not to discuss more without volunteer input. Now there is a 24-hour closing notice (on the heels of a 48-hour closing notice, which I was equally puzzled by, and which was withdrawn after I clarified matters). As to the statement by IRISZOOM, they can speak for themselves, but my feeling is simply that they didn't elaborate because it would simply repeat the talk page discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Four days ago I asked the participants if they felt a discussion by a limited portion of the parties listed would be useful and beneficial. Only the filing party responded. There was no other support or input. That created doubt in my mind about the will of the participants to continue. As a few others have now responded and indicated they want a moderated discussion. So I'll allow the case to stay open a bit longer in the hopes that a volunteer will take the case soon. Thanks for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Attn: Nishidani,Kingsindian, Shrike,-sche, IRISZOOM and TheTimesAreAChanging

• My time is limited so it is with reluctance that I take this case. However, since no one else has come forward or responded to my plea on the DRN talk page, I am opening this discussion. All participants have faithfully come to the discussion table and posted summaries and deserve to work out this issue in a neutral forum such as DRN so I will do my best to serve in that role.
• Please be reminded that we are here to discuss content only. I understand emotions sometimes run high but please refrain from personalizing the discussion by making comments about bad faith, bias etc. Let's focus solely on the content.
• First we need to agree on the core of the dispute. Am I correct in stating that the core of the dispute is over how to characterize the media reports sources regarding Hamas' involvement (or non-involvement) in the rockets fired at Israel in late June? Is this correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not media reports. That is just one source. For instance, the Nathan Thrall source is not a media report. The issue is how to describe the situation in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since both conflicting claims are in the body, both should be mentioned in the lead, with wording we can all accept.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I"ve changed my statement to read "sources" instead of "media reports".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That is still imprecise. The nuances are already discussed in the background section. The issue is how to describe it in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok then please propose your own succinct version of the core of the dispute and we'll see if we can get it ratified by the other participants. Identifying and agreeing on the boundaries of the dispute is the first step in the resolution process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The core of the dispute is how to describe the chronology of the rocket fire in the lead. Currently, it states the following (paraphrasing). "Non-Hamas factions in Gaza started rocket fire in response to various events (crackdown in the West Bank, itself in response to kidnapping/murder of three teenagers). On 6 July, an air strike killed 7 Hamas militants. After this, Hamas began taking responsibility for rocket fire." TheTimesAreAChanging wishes to add the statement (properly attributed) that Hamas actually started rocket fire on 30 June, which is the Israeli claim. My view is that the neutral sources describe the chronology as currently stated. In my view, the nuances should be described in the Background section, as is the case now. Kingsindian (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Ynet or Goldberg are truly less neutral than Thrall or Chomsky, or that the Israeli position is irrelevant to this war between Israel and Gaza.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's take on thing at a time. We are not discussing proposed changes yet. What we are doing is gaining consensus on what the core of the dispute is. This should be easy, let's not make it complicated. The proposed 'core of the dispute' is:

• How to describe the chronology, of this summer's rocket fire on Israel, in the lead of the article.

Can we all agree on that? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Praveen Togadia#Non_notable_controversy

Article is being discussed on Misplaced Pages:BLPN. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:South African_Republic

No activity on this since the date of its filing. Also, the filing party does not outline a specific content dispute but instead makes general complaints about other editors. Likewise other participants summaries only complain about the filing party's behavior. In the meantime there was an ANI filed by an opponent of the filing party here which was inconclusive. I'm closing this case but Zapboer or others may feel free to open a new filing if and when there is a specific content issue that had significant talk page discussion and is still not resolved. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Lviv

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Taivo (talk · contribs)
• Xx236 (talk · contribs)
• Pichpich (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Refusal to follow the Gdansk rule precedent, condoning ethnic cleansing, and general antipolinism. It appears that there is one rule in Misplaced Pages for using the historical name of present day Polish cities which had been German before WWII, and another rule for the cities of Second Polish Republic from which Poles were ethnically cleansed by Stalin and other antipolinist nationalists. Rather than following the Gdansk rule precedent which has been used in Gdansk, and Wroclaw, there is hostility by other editors to the Gdansk rule in Wiki: NAME It is not seriously disputed that from 1340 to 1944 the city had a a majority population of Polish speakers comprised of a plurality of ethnic Poles combined with large numbers of Polish Jews, but certain editors object to usage of the Polish name Lwów during this long history prior to forced Soviet deportations and annexation.

Edit to note that the action of the named editors also violated Wiki Reasonability Rule: "Consensus occurs only when the community as a whole agree that a particular action or presentation is reasonable in nature... Similarly, it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Misplaced Pages policies (for example, insisting that a material fact is contrary to that presented in reliable sources)." http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reasonability_Rule Here these editors have unreasonably decided to have a separate rule for cities of the Second Polish Republic from which ethnic Poles were deported to pre-WWII German lands than in the formerly German cities to which they were sent. This is unreasonable. It is also discriminatory. Lwów, Wilno, and other formerly Polish cities are the opposite side of the same coin as the formerly German cities which are now Gdansk, Wroclaw, and Szczecin. There is no objective reason given for the different treatment.

Per Wiki:NAME, Treatment of alternative names, "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article.": https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names Yet these authors, who do not contest that the Polish name of Lwów is more appropriate than other names during times of Polish sovereignty, or perhaps other names at other times. (Edits using the German name of "Lemberg were also deleted.) They simply refuse to follow the rule, and want to edit war because I invoked it.

Also, the discussion to which they wish to rely is a reactionary statement from Taivo that "This is a Ukrainian city and its Ukrainian name is the title of the article. Its Ukrainian name should be preserved throughout the article." Some, including a Ukrainian nationalist contributor who prefers to refer to the Eastern lands of pre-war Poland as "occupied Western Ukraine", agreed with Taivo. The rationalizations for not following the Gdansk rule is that it is too messy or confusing to use other more appropriate names.

In fact, there is nothing messy or confusing about the postwar history of Lwów. Over 100,000 ethnic Poles were forcibly deported Westward from Lwów after the city was annexed without their consent or their government's while thousands more who served in the Polish military were unable to return to their homeland. It would be difficult to find a clearer case of mass anti-polinism than this. In the modern world we call the forced deportation of a civilian population a crime against humanity. and it is against the Geneva conventions. (I didn't use the term genocide, although the Ukrainian nationalists in the larger area did participate in genocide against Jews and ethnic Poles.) These editors are using their subjective judgment of "messy" and "confusing" to actually obscure a crime against humanity. It is unreasonable, and unacceptable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.54.47 (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Uniform application of the Gdansk rule and precedent, and the involvement of more neutral editors.

Summary of dispute by Taivo

There is no "Gdansk rule", there is only a "Gdansk option". Naming in any individual article is not based on an invariable rule, but upon local consensus. The existing consensus for naming Lviv through history is to use the current name "Lviv". The anonymous IP who is pushing to use the older, Polish name for the Polish era (but inexplicably ignores the Russian name for the Soviet era and the German name for the Austro-Hungarian era), has done nothing whatsoever to build a consensus on the Talk Page, but has resorted to falsely calling the Gdansk option an invariable "rule". --Taivo (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that other formerly Polish cities in western Ukraine follow Lviv's example. Rivne, for example, is "Rivne" throughout and doesn't switch between Równe and Rovno. Lutsk is also "Lutsk" throughout and doesn't alternate with Łuck. Even more to the point, Uzhhorod is known as "Uzhhorod" throughout and not "Uzhgorod" or "Ungvár", despite the fact that until WWII up to 80% of the city's population was Hungarian. The suggestion that this amounts to genocide is rather extraordinary, to say the least. --Taivo (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Xx236

I understand that I have to start 500 votes regarding names of former Polish places and institutions and it's quite probable that I'll loose all of them because Polish editors aren't active here.

There exists the problem of nationalistic (including Polish) content in this Misplaced Pages in general and in this article specifically.

If such perfect consens exists since one year why doesn't the article apply it?

Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pichpich

Editors of the article on Gdansk were locked in a bitter dispute for quite some time which was resolved by a fairly simple rule: use Gdańsk in the title and in the rest of the article except in the history sections where the German name Danzig makes more sense (Danzig is also used in the lead sentence). This case is cited as an example in the policy WP:NAME but it is not prescribed as a rule despite claims to the contrary. It merely notes (very wisely, I think) that "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article". Discussions about the use of Lviv vs. Lvov vs. Lwow has been discussed many times on the talk page and in particular during a one-year old compromise that reads as follows:

• Reduce the number of times the city is named in the history section
• Use Lviv throughout when the city must be named
• In the first sentence, whenever the name changes due to a change in ownership, the form of the name in the ruling power's language (Lviv > Lwów > Lemberg > Lwów > Lvov > Lviv ) is noted in a parenthetical note after "Lviv"

This is different from the solution used in Gdańsk but it does follow the spirit of WP:NAME's suggestion to use alternative names in the article. I prefer this consensus as I think it avoids any confusion and increases readability.

Let me finally note that it's absurd to equate this choice with an anti-Polish slant or as condoning ethnic cleansing. Pichpich (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lviv discussion

•  Clerk note: I notified Xx236 of the DRN request, however he has been fairly inactive the past few weeks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect all parties involved and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct. Issues concerning user conduct, including accusations of pushing a particular POV, should be taken elsewhere.

With that, let us move onto the dispute. It is my understanding that the issue being discussed is the usage of alternative names in the history section. I'm assuming that there are no disputes concerning the usage of 'Lviv' for the title or any other section (e.g. Government). It is also my understanding that the city has had different names throughout history, which includes Lwów. Is this correct? Please respond below. KJ 10:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lviv has had four relevant historical names, three of which are simply linguistic variants of the same name: Lviv (Ukrainian, the modern name), Lvov (Russian, during the Soviet period, Lwów (Polish, during the centuries when Poland controlled the city), and Lemberg (German, during the Austro-Hungarian period before WWI). These names have had differing amounts of international usage in English. Ultimately, the issue is all about usage in English, particularly contemporary English. Many, many articles in Misplaced Pages use a single modern English name throughout the article for clarity to our modern readers. I haven't done a count, but I daresay that the vast majority of articles on cities follow that practice. But of particular relevance to Lviv are the articles that cover western Ukrainian cities such as Rivne, Uzhhorod, Lutsk, which have changed hands one or more times in the last two centuries. Uzhhorod, for example, started the 20th century in Austro-Hungarian hands, then became (in succession) Czechoslovakian, Hungarian, Soviet, and finally Ukrainian. During most of that period it had a majority Hungarian population (Ungvár is its Hungarian name). Yet rather than changing its reference name in the History section to match the owner at the time of the event being described, or using Ungvár for the long period where the majority of the population was Hungarian, Misplaced Pages uses "Uzhhorod" throughout for ease of reference to ease the job on the reader. The "Gdansk option" (it is not a rule as the anon IP would like you to think) has not been used in any other article on a Ukrainian city (that I can find) for that reason--keeping things simple for the reader. --Taivo (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kkj11210 I think you're aware of this but just in case, let me point out that the current dispute (insofar as I understand it) is only about the use in the history section. However, both the title and the use of alternative names in the lead section have been discussed periodically on the talk page starting in 2004 (!!!) and as recently as April 2014. The current use in the history section follows the conclusion of a fairly civil discussion in August 2013. Pichpich (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As a followup to my comment about changing names in Ukrainian city histories, I looked at Dnipropetrovsk. This is a case of a city that has remained under Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian control since it was founded as Yekaterinoslav in the 18th century. In the history writeup, the original Russian name "Yekaterinoslav" is used until the city was renamed "Dnepropetrovsk" after the Soviets took control of Ukraine. However, that original name is always shown in italics. After the city was renamed, only "Dnipropetrovsk" (the Ukrainian form) is used, never the Russian form. --Taivo (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

keeping things simple for the reader is a speculation, we don't know why.Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk uses the formula The city that is now called Dnipropetrovsk. The article follows the Gdańs/Danzig logic.

Vilnius: The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323 but we don't know under which name. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Xx236, I mentioned Dnipropetrovsk because it varies the "Gdansk option" by italicizing one of the historical names and not including all historical variants. At Gdańsk, that is not the case. However, the great majority of city articles still do not follow the Gdansk option--whether italicizing the name or not--and that goes for Ukrainian cities as well. "Dnipropetrovsk" is not "Dnepropetrovsk" during the writeup of the Soviet era. Indeed, the reason why Yekaterinoslav is used at all in the Dnipropetrovsk writeup is because it is not simply a linguistic variant of the same name (as Lviv, Lvov, and Lwów are), but a different name entirely. Keeping things simple for the reader is one of the fundamental principles that always have to guide writing in Misplaced Pages. Using one name for a city, or, at the least, marking alternate names somehow (as italics does at Dnipropetrovsk), is our job. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think the focus of the debate is pretty clear. I think that we all agree on the facts presented above. @76.116.54.47: Some questions for you. Is it your belief that the article should use alternative names throughout the history only to conform to the Gdansk vote? Please note that the apparent consensus on the talk page, mentions alternative names in the first sentence in each part of history when ownership has been changed, and is maintaining this practice as far as I can see. Do you believe only the alternative names should be used for the corresponding time period? KJ 9:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is not to enforce the Gdansk precedent because it is the rule. The relevant distinction is that the change in names throughout the cities history is reflective of the changing political and/or cultural forces which shaped the cities history. The discussion starts with a conclusion, which is supported by editors who think that following the Gdansk rule is pushing a Polish POV, and then (some of them) come to the subjective conclusion that the Gdansk rule is too messy and confusing for the reader. Nowhere was there a discussion about using the best name "in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article" relevant to the dominant political powers and ethnic groups. This group just decided to short circuit that process, and based upon the subjective views of a small number of editors, now claim that the discussion has closed.

Furthermore, there are no special Wiki rules for Ukraine and present day Ukrainian cities. If our Ukrainian editors want to create their own online Ukrainian reference, they can call all of the cities in Modern Ukraine by Ukrainian names. The status quo to which Taivo refers is the result of these pages being dominated by editors, intentionally of subconsciously, with a Ukrainian POV. If there is confusion about the cultural changes in many cities of present day Western, it is because the editors of those pages have failed to address the post-war forced population deportations. (Read the comments on the cited Uzhhorod/Ungvár page about what happened to the Hungarian population of that city which before WWI was over 80% Hungarian.) The editors have an obligation to respect the dominant cultures which shaped these cities, as had been done in Gdansk, Wroclaw, and Szczecin by using the appropriate name for the city. The inconvenient truth is that before Stalin's crimes against humanity, Ukrainian culture was not dominate in the cities of the region. There is a connection here, and by refusing to follow the Gdansk rule precedent, this inconvenient truth is obscured.2601:B:8F00:7B3:993A:8D8:FB98:2697 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments might be a nice nod to Polish history, but they ignore the fundamental problem that readers have in identifying what is being talked about when the name of a city changes paragraph by paragraph. It has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or deportations--that is irrelevant to the issue of what to call a city in Misplaced Pages's narrative. It has everything to do with the ease with which readers can use our encyclopedia. Today the city is called "Lviv". It is called "Lviv" through the majority of the text. Switching the name from Lviv to Lwów to Lemberg back to Lwów to Lvov and finally back to Lviv makes no sense and makes comprehensibility to the reader difficult. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Gdansk Rule precedent is very clear. There is no reason not to use the most appropriate name for the city. Despite the clear wording of the rule, our Ukrainian editors have invented a reason to do otherwise. Whether or not these editors agree with the Gdansk rule is irrelevant. It remains the rule and it needs to be administered fairly, and without discrimination. It is unlikely that those not pushing a Ukrainian POV will agree with this novel loophole. I don't know if it is completely necessary to include Lvov or Lemberg too much if creating confusion was the issue, but there was never the appropriate discussion about this topic. (Undoubtedly, those who object to using Lwów over Lemberg for the Hapsburg era may not want to compare the treatment of Slavic cities elsewhere in Hapsburg lands on WP with regard to German vs. Slavic names. (cf. Brno, Ostrava, České Budějovice, etc.)) Avoiding reference to the city as Lwów, when the old city was built during Polish rule and during the Second Polish republic is completely unreasonable. 2601:B:8F00:7B3:74E7:17E1:E1C5:69E6 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Gdansk Rule". It is not a rule. That has been the fundamental flaw in your argument all along. You want to simply push an option on us by calling it an invariable rule. It is no such thing. It was the solution in one specific article that editors may employ in other pages, but are not required to employ. I've said this multiple times on the Talk Page, but you continue to ignore the simple fact that there is no rule, there is only an option. The fundamental issue is, and always will be, readability and usability. --Taivo (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@2601:B:8F00:7B3:74E7:17E1:E1C5:69E6: As the DRN volunteer, I must agree with Tavio concerning the interpretation of the Gdansk Vote. The Gdansk Vote is not a rule (i.e. neither policy or guideline) and is not intended to enforced in any other pages besides the page currently known as Gdańsk. Furthermore, Rules and policies are not supposed to be blindly enforced but efficiently adopted with the appropriate level of consensus, which is what we're here for. There also has been a previous discussion and consensus concerning the name to be used in the article, but consensus can change. Do you have any other arguments besides the Gdansk vote? KJ 05:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not correct. The Gdansk rule applies on all other pages that share a common Polish-German history: 'For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.' http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Wroc%C5%82aw This includes other cities, e.g., Szczecin, Wroclaw, Poznan, etc., and also biographies. The rule is there and the precedent has been set for places with changing political or cultural dominance. Even if we assume that the rule is not binding in itself in former Polish cities in the East, there is still the issue of reasonableness of having separate rules for Ukraine and discriminatory treatment of Polish history. (Poland is distinguishable from Hungary, or Romania in that Poland never allied itself with the Nazis, unlike the Soviets and Ukrainian Nationalists.) The relevant consensus is the larger Wiki community and not the ability of those with a certain nationalistic bias on individual pages to create local exceptions simply because they are dominating certain pages.2601:B:8F00:7B3:406C:E72A:7029:86B2 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How does Lwów not share a common Polish-German history? The Poles fought the German who occupied the area in WWII, along with the Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists. The Gdansk rule clearly applies in Lwów. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:8F00:7B3:789D:5BB8:66D2:62D (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I too must stress that there is no such thing as a Gdańsk rule. I also feel that people are way too sensitive about the whole matter. I don't understand how one can seriously suggest that changing half a dozen Lwów into Lviv is akin to "obscuring the inconvenient truth " and that supporting the current naming can only be the result of (at best) a subconscious Ukrainian POV. If the objective is to stress the Soviet-forced Polish emigration after WWII, the solution is simple: add good solid material in the relevant section. The actual name used has little to with it. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@2601:B:8F00:7B3:74E7:17E1:E1C5:69E6: Let me clarify. What I meant was that the sections of the vote clearly only referencing the Gdansk article does not generalize into other articles (e.g. 'For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945' would not be a general statement to be applied to other articles). As for the section you have mentioned, 'the first reference of one name in an article' does 'include a reference to other names.' See both the introductory sentence as well as Lviv#Names. Can we all agree that the Gdansk vote is followed on the Lviv article? KJ 22:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you just wrote. Lviv does not follow the Gdansk Option since it doesn't switch between Lwów and Lviv in the History section. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment. --Taivo (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about referring to other names with the first reference in the article. That appears to be the only general rule in the vote. Can we agree that that is the case for this article? KJ 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A note: the IP prefaces his comment with an inaccuracy: " It is not seriously disputed that from 1340 to 1944 the city had a a majority population of Polish speakers comprised of a plurality of ethnic Poles combined with large numbers of Polish Jews" I doubt that when Poles took the town in 1349 (not 1340) it instantly became majority Polish. The original Eastern Slavic inhabitants always lived there even after they were eventually outnumbered. But this is irrelvant anyways - English usage is what counts. The city was referred to by its Latin name (Leopolis) in English documents prior to Austrian rule, then Lemberg, then Lwow, then Lvov and now Lviv. It seems confusing indeed to keep switching the terminology. A single sentence at the beginning of the section ("Called Lwow during this period) should be sufficient, without referring to different names throughout.Faustian (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Start the various sections with a comment that "It was called Lwów/Lemberg/Lvov during this period" and then continue to use Lviv for ease of reference and consistency. --Taivo (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ebola virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_August_2014

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blehair (talk · contribs)
• Arjayay (talk · contribs)
• BrianGroen (talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the past 1.5 weeks I have repeatedly tried to inform the editors of the https://en.wikipedia.org/Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa page that their cumulative case/death figures under the Timeline of the Outbreak section recently included erroneous interpretations of WHO press releases.

I attempted again at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Aug_28_and_Sept_5_WHO_Updates to address another erroneous addition to the Timeline section and was simply ignored.

Directly from the WHO press release: "Data reported in the Disease Outbreak News are based on official information reported by Ministries of Health."

If one reads the actual reports from the Ministries of Health, they'll see that the figures posted on the wikipedia page for Aug 26th and Sept 5th are wrong, and reflect earlier dates.

In the absence of any WHO or CDC sources that accurately report the Aug 26th or Sept 5th number (since the section specifically uses WHO or CDC sources only), both of those rows should simply be eliminated. It is clear that the WHO does not intend cumulative cases "as of " to always be interpreted as including day X. Rather, it can also be interpreted as only including figures from the Ministry of Health reports released as of the specified date.

Since numerous statisticians are basing their projections off the numbers given by the WHO and by this particular wikipedia page, I think it's prudent to amend the error.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeatedly tried to engage any of the editors on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

When a self-admitted secondary source erroneously interprets figures, from the publicly available primary sources, as represented "as of" a particular date, it seems pretty clear that it should be removed from the wikipedia page.

Summary of dispute by Arjayay

I refused the initial ESP request, made on 28 August, as the reason given in the request was "because the report cited doesn't actually specify the time period" whereas " the 28 August report clearly states "As of 26 August 2014, the cumulative number of cases attributed to EVD in the four countries stands at 3 069" "

I was not involved in any of the subsequent discussion, but there seems to have been a certain amount of original research and/or synthesis taking figures from one source, and comparing them with another, rather than actually quoting the cited figures.

I would, however, like to know the reliable source of the statement made by User:Blehair, above, that "numerous statisticians are basing their projections off the numbers given by the WHO and by this particular wikipedia page" (my underlining), as any statistician basing their projections on a Misplaced Pages page, should be named and shamed - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BrianGroen

As for the 26 August there are two sources both from (WHO) stating as off date : As of 26 August 2014

1. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2014_08_28_ebola/en/ listed here states as of 26 August

2. http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/dpc/epidemic-a-pandemic-alert-and-response/outbreak-news/4264-ebola-virus-disease-update-west-africa-28-august-2014.html

"As of 26 August 2014, the cumulative number of cases attributed to EVD in the four countries stands at 3069, including 1552 deaths. The distribution and classification of the cases are as follows: Guinea, 647 cases (482 confirmed, 141 probable, and 25 suspected), including 430 deaths; Liberia, 1378 cases (322 confirmed, 674 probable, and 382 suspected), including 694 deaths; Nigeria, 17 cases (13 confirmed, 1 probable, and 3 suspected), including 6 deaths; and Sierra Leone, 1026 cases (935 confirmed, 37 probable, and 54 suspected), including 422 deaths."

As for the 5 September there is one source from (WHO) stating as at date: as at 5 September 2014

1. http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/5-september-2014-en.pdf?ua=1

"Total number of probable, confirmed, and suspected cases in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone as at 5 September 2014"

Total number of probable, confirmed and suspected cases and deaths in Nigeria and Senegal as at 5 September 2014

In my opinion the 26 August figures are correct. With regards to 5 September figures it is not unlikely that the results might have jumped drastically in one day, but since it is not stated as off, but rather as at this figures could be called into question. My opinion on this result might have been hastily drawn up by WHO in the Geneva meeting and it is likely that the date is incorrect. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Data reported are based on official information reported by Ministries of Health. These numbers are subject to change due to ongoing reclassification, retrospective investigation and availability of laboratory results."

This is an extract from WHO report. I can honestly not say why there is a discrepancy in totals ( i can only presume they use their own figures from the field workers as well) but i agree on the 5 September numbers not being correct. (this date looks to be 3 September instead.) My only opinion on this if we use individual reports we will have the same erratic data that were in the beginning stages of the Timeline and multiple reference files. BrianGroen (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blehair. I spent the whole day looking at the numbers. The date on the Who site is wrong for 26 August as well as the numbers. Found sit/rep 1 from WHO stating date as 25 August. With Regards to Sit/rep two the date of the report is 5 Sept, but the case load correlate with 3 Sept. Hence i changed the date. I have e-mailed Afro Who to get clarity but i don't expect a response soon. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gandydancer

Talk:Ebola virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_August_2014 discussion

 Clerk note: I have notified Arjayay (talk · contribs), BrianGroen (talk · contribs) and Gandydancer (talk · contribs). Thanks --Acetotyce (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what it means for a volunteer to open the discussion. Regardless, because BrianGroen did not actually address the points listed under the section Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014 of the talk page, I think a swift response is needed. Not sure why it didn't link in my original dispute form, so the oversight is understandable, the #... part of the link got removed for some reason. Whatever happened, it can be found here.

All WHO updates, aside from the ones listed under the Timeline of the Outbreak section for Aug 26th, Sept 5th, and Sept 6th, are within around 10 or less of the reported figure from the Ministries of Health. In the link provided earlier, I present the primary sources for the Aug 24th figures, which were 3 off the reported WHO figure for Aug 26th, rather than 81 off.

There is a pattern by the WHO to use "as at" or "as of" interchangeably, to mean either figures as of that date, or figures reported as of that date. Even in BrianGroen's link for the Sept 5th figure, they said "...West Africa was 3685, with 1841 deaths, as at 31 August." That figure was accurately attributed to the 3 major countries affected for Aug 31st. In addition, BrianGroen's 2 links for the Aug 26th figure are the exact same press release from the WHO. In fact, I've tried contacting those from the afro.who.int, and none of their emails work.

Further, in the link provided for the Sept 6th figure under the Timeline section, the WHO specified that Liberia's figures for Sept 6th are not included, and so it is misleading for us to list it under the Timeline section as if it were. "For Liberia, information is as of 5 September 2014."

I simply think it would be wise to double check all WHO reports with the primary sources that they are drawing their figures from. The WHO has demonstrated an inconsistency with how they use and interpret "as of" or "as at", and it has resulted in 3 of the last 4 updates under the Timeline section to be incorrectly listed. Blehair (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

At the stage of the talk discussion i was not involved in the table there fore i did not comment. BrianGroen (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: DRN is not a place for continued non-moderated discussion. Please use the article talk page for that. Therefore, no further discussion (here) please until a DRN volunteer has formally accepted the case for moderation. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative question: It appears that User:Gandydancer has chosen not to participate in this process. Do the participants feel it would still be valuable to have a moderated discussion here at DRN even without GD's particpation? Please respond below. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RGloucester (talk · contribs)
• Niele (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a "dispute", if one call it that, over whether the page Russo-Ukrainian War should be a disambiguation page or a redirect. My concerns are simple. Firstly, according to the guideline on disambiguation pages, these pages are only used when multiple articles exists at variants of the same exact title. So, for example, Glass (disambiguation) provides links to Glass (surname), Glass (band), &c. This is not the case here. We have no articles titled "Russo-Ukrainian War" anywhere, and for good reason. This "title" is not used at all to refer to the events specified by Niele, the other party in this dispute. At present, the supposed "disambiguation page" links to variety of articles. It makes a claim that there is a "1917–1921 Russo-Ukrainian War", which frankly doesn't exist. It lumps together two wars Ukrainian–Soviet War and Ukrainian War of Independence in an WP:OR manner that is not supported by sources. These wars are never called "Russo-Ukrainian War" (in any form), with maybe one or two random exceptions. In fact, it is important to note that a redirect from "Russo-Ukrainian War" to those articles never existed in the history of Misplaced Pages until Niele made-up his "disambiguation page", proving that the name is about as low on the notability totem pole as could be.

As far as Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), the original title of that article, which was essentially a PoV fork of War in Donbass, was Russo-Ukrainian War. When that page was moved, a redirect was left behind. This is the redirect that Niele later made into a "disambiguation page". Only some few WP:FRINGE outlets and WP:SOAPy opinion pieces use the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" for the present situation in Ukraine. However, I would say that that is enough to warrant a redirect, which is why it was left behind. That's why I tried to restore the redirect. This page is clearly not a disambiguation page, for there is nothing to disambiguate. There are no articles Russo-Ukrainian War (2014) and Russo-Ukrainian War (1917–21). The early 20th century wars are never called "Russo-Ukrainian War", and anyway, even if they were, the WP:DAB guidelines make clear that the proper solution would be a hatnote, not a disambiguation page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Sadly, I was forced to go to WP:AN/I, as Niele decided to attack me for my supposed "political affiliations". That thread didn't go anywhere. I've attempted to discuss it on the talk page, but he is stalwart. This seems like the last resort to solving this rather trivial, but quite annoying matter.

How do you think we can help?

Assess my assessment of the disambiguation policy, and whether or not this page qualifies as a disambiguation page.

Summary of dispute by Niele

Russo-Ukrainian War discussion

I was filing for AFD, unaware that this dispute was being simultaneously submitted. Widefox now has the page tagged for speedy delete, on much clearer grounds than I was giving for AFD. I suspect this Dispute resolution is moot. Alsee (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The db-g6 deletion-procedure should only be asserted for non-controversial maintenance.

It speaks for itself that this is a controversial issue and not a non-controversial maintanance-issue.

Therefor I ask that this move will be ondone.--Niele (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I also do stand by the point I made that effords to hide, deny and downplay of the large and proven involvment of Russia in this war is disturbing to many Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, civilians that died in this war. I regret that a user is taking this as a personal attack instead of trying to undertand the sensitivity a'm trying to explain of this matter.--Niele (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)--Niele (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The terms 2014 "Russo-Ukrainian War" OR 2014 "Russian-Ukrainian War" OR 2014 "Російсько-українська війна" give 872 results on google news. This is a significant number. I regret that the disambiguation is again cleared, before consensus is reached on the talk page or a deletion discussion page. The clearing of the page results in confusion for many people who use this term. The term Russo-Ukrainian war was also removed earlier on the first line of the page 'War in Donbass' '(also known as the War in Ukraine or War in Eastern Ukraine) ' without discussion on the talk page beceause of political motives of trying to hide/deny the proven prominent involvment of Russia in this war. I request that the person who cleared the disambiguation page, restores his/her move before a consensus is reached.--Niele (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)--Niele (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keysanger (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Was the 14 February 1879 the beginning of the War of the Pacific or another date in a chain of pivotal dates in the road to war?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A RfC failed to find a solution: Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?

How do you think we can help?

To find an adequate wording for the lede

Summary of dispute by Keysanger

The closer of the RfC states: There are WP:RS on both sides here, and people working in good faith can come to the opposite conclusion as to which the the right answer is. The Context matters bit is important however, and some of the sources are certainly less reliable for historical analysis than others.

Therefore I think that Darkness Shines's sentence The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 doesn't meet the WP rules for neutrality. I proposed:

1. The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta,
2. Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population, occupied the port city of Antofagasta (83% Chilean population), as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA, although the first battle occurred in Topater on 23 March 1879, after the Bolivian Declaration of War and before the Chilean Declaration of War.

Both proposals have been reverted by DS, those only proposal has been The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879. There is no mention of any other dates or sources.

I ask DS to make a proposal considering the other sources that have analysed the significance of the 14 February (Sater, Farcau, and Pike). --Keysanger (Talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

WP:Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? discussion

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