Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.77.192.207 (talk) at 08:43, 27 December 2011 (→Stallion: I repeat my request for administration. The "victim", Pesky, admist herself to have raised false claims of me trying to "out" her. All the same, I continue to be slandered of having done so, and corresponding public accusations remain). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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

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

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

• Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Misplaced Pages demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Example3 (talk)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace

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

Dispute overview

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

There exists a dispute between myself and two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic, "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" from the article lede. The case they make is based on the linguistic etymology of the names already covered in the Etymology section of the article, which suggests other meanings as well. They say that it's not NPOV to only have these two. I have argued and showed that these English meanings are the most commonly known for the name of the city in the two languages that are the most pertinent to its modern manifestation, and that they are there on that basis, not on the basis of the name's historical etymology which is covered in its own section.

The dispute mostly centered on the English meaning of Jerusalem 'Adobe of Peace'. I posted 14 sources to support that this is the widely held meaning of the name Jerusalem today. They dispute a few of the sources, but even if their assertion is accepted, there are more than enough reliable sources, 5 of which are from publishers of academic scholarly books, that support my position.

A third editor stepped into the discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to strike a compromise, which culminated in the motion remove also the widely held English meaning of the Arabic name of the city "Al-Quds ". I have tried to point out that the Arabic name is also not an exact translation of the English meaning and that it's there because it's the most commonly known meaning of the name in Arabic.

Jerusalem is a unique city with a burgeoning history of conflict, culture, theology and spirituality, recognized throughout the world. These meanings which reflect the modern day recognition of the city are there rightfully in the lede. Removing them compromises an important element of the city's identification in the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)

Though I believe I tried extensively to argue my position in good faith and with due respect, I found little such consideration from editors Nishidani and Zero000. They have both distorted my words repeatedly, focusing only on the etymology of the name and ignoring most of my comments regarding the reliably sourced validity of keeping these meanings in the introduction to the article. Their discourse towards me has been often derogatory and uncivil. Nishidani does not reply to the content of my comments on the widely held popular meanings of the name, but hurls repeated personal insults about my understanding of linguistics, when the inclusion I'm insisting that should remain is not based on the etymology issues they raise. I have ceased to try reasoning with them, though I would certainly make an effort if they'd display a change of tone and ability to discuss things civilly.

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

• Nishidani: Yes.
• Zero000: Yes.
• Oncenawhile: Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jerusalem: Abode of Peace}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

We've discussed it extensively on the article's talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

I believe we need an outside look into the discussion on the talk page and some advice on whether the inclusion of these meanings must truly be based on etymology alone, which would necessitate including other meanings or removing them all. My position is that these most widely held English meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names, both of which might not be etymologically or linguistically correct translations of the names, are nonetheless the most widely recognized and the only relevant ones to the city's modern manifestation, and should thus be maintained as they are in the lede.

MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace discussion

Opinion of Zero0000

A big part of the problem can be seen at the start of this submission. MichaelNetzer wrote about "two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic". In fact, removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise when MichaelNetzer insisted on including, without even noting there is a dispute (i.e., in violation of WP:NPOV), a "meaning" for the Hebrew name that the scholarly consensus believes to be incorrect. This type of misrepresentation of the views of other editors, together for a penchant for not addressing any substantive points that others make, is characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that. I have to go to work now, but I'll come back later to make a brief summary of the real issues. Zero 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to correct you Zero:

1. I initiated nothing. It was Nishidani who first proposed removing the Hebrew meaning, to which I began to respond.
2. These meanings have been there in the introduction long before I came to this page. I did not insert them nor "insisted on including" them (which suggests my inserting them). I am only defending their inclusion, and trying to show why they should not be removed.
3. I said clearly above that the dispute started with 'Abode of Peace', and that the suggestion for the removal of the meaning in Arabic was due to a proposed compromise. I misrepresented nothing, as you say. Please read what I've said carefully before making unfounded serious accusations about misrepresentation.
4. Though scholarly sources reflect on many etymologies for the evolution of the name, this is not the basis for which they are included in the lede. There exist enough sources, 5 of which I've posted by publishers of scholarly academic books, to show that 'Abode of Peace' is the most commonly known popular meaning of the name Jerusalem, and has taken root for nearly 2000 years, irrespective of other ancient meanings.
5. The discussion on the talk page, like your comment here, speaks for itself concerning who is misrepresenting the issues. It speaks for itself about who tried to address the others' concerns and who tried to remain respectful in the face of excessive personal remarks and condescending tone since the beginning of the discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue in a nutshell.

1. The canonical Arabic name of the city, Al Quds is uniformly translated "The Holy" and there is no dispute that this is the meaning of it. The word "quds" and its variants are in fact common in Arabic and carry the concept of holiness or sanctity. There are no scholarly debates over the meaning as far as anyone demonstrated.
2. The canonical Hebrew name of the city, "Yerushalayim", is a word whose meaning is uncertain. The majority opinion of scholars is that the "shalayim" part, which was "shalem" in ancient times, comes from the name of the Canaanite god Shalim. The origin of the "Yeru" part is unclear and several options have been proposed. Although the name (at least the "shalem" part) originated more than half a millennium before the earliest attestation of the Hebrew language, early Jewish writers connected "shalem" to the Hebrew root ShLM which gives us "shalem" (complete) and "shalom" (peace), and from this a popular belief arose that the city's name means "City of Peace" or "Abode of Peace". This belief remains with us today. It is possible to find sources including historians who give this as the meaning of "Yerushalayim", but much harder to find this opinion amongst the experts in ancient languages, who overwhelmingly prefer the Canaanite god theory. Some sourced notes on this that I wrote a few years ago can be found here.
3. MichaelNetzer claims that the modern "meaning" of "Yerushalayim" is different from the original, but has not brought any source in support of such a two-stage process. In fact it is easy to disprove. If "Yerushalayim" now means "Abode of Peace" regardless of the etymology, a Hebrew speaker who wished to discuss some other abode of peace could use the word yerushalayim to denote it. But this is impossible, since the word yerushalayim means the city and nothing else. (In contrast, an Arabic speaker wishing to call something holy can use the word quds and this is normal and commonplace.) Alongside the meaning of the word "Yersushalayim" as the name of the city, we find a majority opinion of the scholars expert in the subject that it means something about a Canaanite god, and a very common popular belief that it means something about peace. In other words, when someone says "Yerushalayim means Abode of Peace" they are stating a belief in the origin of the name, not claiming that it now means something it didn't mean before.
4. In summary:
   1. It is reasonable to write "Al Quds (The Holy)" in the lede, since this can be well sourced and is not disputed.
   2. It is not reasonable to write "Yerushalayim (Abode of Peace)" in the lede, since this gives sole prominence to one of several competing theories (violating WP:NPOV) and would mislead readers into believing something that the majority of scholars don't believe (violating the aim of producing a good encyclopedia).
   3. One way to deal with this would be to write something like "Yerushalayim (believed by scholars to be derived from the god Shalim but popularly interpreted as Abode of Peace)". A second way would be "Yerushalayim (uncertain meaning, see below)". A third way would be to leave mention of the meaning to later sections. As a compromise to promote the third way, even though the facts don't demand it, the meaning of "Al Quds" could also be left until later.

Zero 14:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see my colleague Zero's long answer above, recognizing the need for exposition sometimes, after having pejoratively characterized some of my answers as "characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that". It's also peculiar that he made no such comment about Nishidani's answers to me, which were on the average about 150% the length of mine. This is maybe consistent with a particular prejudice Zero displayed throughout discussions with me in which he makes remarks of a personal nature, or intentionally misleads readers and misrepresents issues as he does in his new answer above.

1. Zero has tried to change the direction of his argument by misrepresenting how the Arabic name and meaning appear in the lede of the article. Fortunately, even a child can see that it does not presently appear as "Al Quds (The Holy)", in support of this misleading case he makes. What is on the page and has been there, long before I came to it, is "al-Quds The Holy Sanctuary". For 90% of their argument to remove the Hebrew 'Abode of Peace', Zero and Nishidani, did not once mention that the present appearance of the Arabic name is also not a literal translation. "Al Quds" is truly known as "Al Quds ", but the proper translation of the words into English, which no Arabic language scholar would deny, is "The Honored Holy" not "The Holy Sancutary". The reason it appears that way is because "The Holy Sanctuary" is the most common English meaning of the Arabic name, even though it is not a literal translation. (see response to this by Nishidani below this comment)
2. As Zero states above "removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise". This affirms that Zero and Nishidani were more than happy to maintain a non-literal translation of the Arabic name, but would not tolerate the same for the Hebrew name that they so aggressively argued for removing. It exposes an unfortunate POV push on their part and a prejudice against Hebrew associations. As a result of my making this case for the appearance of the Arabic meanings, Zero now tries to take the position of demanding a literal translation for the Arabic and throws sand into everyone's eyes by arguing for the use of "Al Quds (The Holy)", when that is not the way the Arabic name now appears or has appeared in the article lede since they raised their objection to the Hebrew.
3. Zero also continues displaying a prejudice against the Hebrew name by equating an ancient meaning with a present one. While no Jewish scholar denies the pre-Hebrew foundation 'Shalem' relating to an ancient god, it is frankly irrelevant to the present state of the city. It is an ancient naming, and we do not even have evidence that the people who claimed it (the Jebusites) were the original founders of the city who named it. So we cannot even be certain that the meaning they gave relevant to the god "Salim" is the original one upon which Shalem is founded. But this ancient meaning has no relevance whatsoever to the current city because there is no Jebusite culture or people in the world claiming the city for themselves today. This ancient meaning belongs to antiquity, is properly expounded upon in the Etymology section, and has no place in the lede next to the common Hebrew and Arabic meanings that are most commonly recognized today for the city's modern demographics and culture.
4. On the basis of this coy POV push and prejudice, I've shown that scholarly sources affirm 'Abode of Peace' and 'The Holy Sancutary' as the most recognized modern meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names. Equating them with ancient names, given by cultures that are no longer in the world today, is not supported by any scholarly sources. It is a misleading argument intended for removal of the Hebrew meaning only, as about 90% of the discussion on the talk page shows. It is not proper for Zero to now claim a more correct Arabic meaning when he made no such case for most of the discussion. I beg the listening ear of editors and admins here to try to understand the validity of this distinction, and discern the sound reasoning for maintaining the lede as it is.

(Response by Nishidani to #1 in comment above)'

Wrong again. I'm getting tired of correcting these. People complain of my longueurs, but I leave a lot out mindful of our mortality. I could have added, as I will to the etymology page, this, which would have cleared up the misapprehension you are labouring under here. Namely, al-Quds (lit. 'the Holy') came into use as a borrowing from Aramaic qudsha in the phrase qarta de-qudsha (Compare Isaiah.xlviii.2) It was understood not as “city of holiness”, but as “city of the sanctuary”, as any rabbi in your area will tell you. This meaning in the combined Hebrew-Aramaic hermeneutics on the Isaian allusion filtered into Arabic to colour the contextual connotation of quds with the idea of 'sanctuary'. Back to silence.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: I've moved this down here because it disrupts the numbering and confuses the reading when inserted into the middle of my comment. I think it's better not to insert responses to specific points into the middle of comments. Placing them afterwards with a reference to the specific points avoids confusion and maintains an order to the text. As to the point of what you say, it seems to support the inclusion of 'Adobe of Peace' in the lede next 'The Holy Sanctuary' on the same grounds, because they are both derived meanings that have taken root in both languages, each in its own way, even though they might not conform to a strictly literal translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite futile for you to keep harping on your ideas and opinions. Read again, you haven't understood the import of that indication. You have, from day 1, simply insisted you know better than the sources, and have not adduced one skerrick of evidence for your primary assertion, disproved by google hits analysis, that 'abode of peace' is the default meaning of 'Yerushalayim'. Neither I nor Zero have a personal opinion here. We have consistently provided scholarly sources that show you have been wrong on virtually every assertion you advance. It's quite pointless to rehearse a debate that concluded with a consensus on the Jerusalem talk page, as you are doing here, tediously and in what looks like wilful obstructionism. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You and Zero have done nothing but give opinions. I'm the one who posted reliable academic sources which you only give your slanted, distorted and deceptive opinions on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It isn't obligatory or expected to include the literal meaning of a city name in the first sentence of its article. Indeed, flicking through some city articles, it seems to be sometimes done, but not usually. If a reader wants to know the meaning, it seems to me unlikely that they will feel inconvenienced by having to scroll down or text search, or that they will find it odd that they may have to do so. If there is *significant* dispute as to the meaning of "Jerusalem" (or, indeed, al-Quds), then it would seem wrong, per NPOV, to make it seem, in the first sentence of the article, as if there is a definitive meaning. If there is such a dispute, then it would also seem wrong per WEIGHT to incorporate the whole of the dispute into the first sentence of the article. I must stress that this opinion is fairly uninformed as to the substance of the issues, but I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about not mentioning any literal meaning in the first sentence and instead leaving it for a section lower down. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree it's not obligatory but the question is whether the article is made better by it or not. I think it certainly is in this case because Jerusalem is a unique city with rich meanings that are a significant part of its history and character. I also haven't found that there's a dispute about these meanings being the most widely recognized today. The disagreements are mostly around the origin of the ancient name of Jerusalem because history becomes more vague going back so far. But I haven't seen sources that dispute these meanings having taken root over time and becoming the most commonly recognized for the modern city. It's not as if there are other meanings that compete with them for current notability. I don't see a POV or WEIGHT problem in that regard. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you seem to be suggesting that there is no dispute about the meaning, but there is a dispute about the origin. Could you explain that a bit more? Because I'm having trouble working it out. Surely two different origins is pretty much the same thing as two different meanings (?). --FormerIP (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I would correct myself here and say that there is also no dispute about the ancient origin of the name, because we do not know the origin of the name. No scholar claims they know that the Jebusites who presided over the city before the Israelites were its original founders. So, we cannot even be certain they were the ones who originally gave the name Shalem. They might have conquered an existing settlement named Shalem but we have no archaeological or scholarly evidence either way to affirm or deny that the root origin of the name is based on the Jebusite god 'Salim'. It is simply the most ancient name that scholars have evidence for but it is not conclusive for an origin. There is also no dispute about the ancient meanings. No Jewish scholars deny the pre-Hebrew Jebusite name and its meaning. No one disputes the evolution of the name from ancient antiquity to today. Likewise no one disputes that 'Abode of peace' has become the most recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem for the modern city. I have argued against the removal of the Hebrew and Arabic meanings because of this distinction between the ancient names that are no longer relevant to the city's modern culture and demographics. Such ancient meanings belong in Etymology while recognized modern meanings belong in the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

From all the different comments I am still having trouble piecing it together. Is this a fair summary...

It is common ground amongst academics that the name Jerusalem is something to do with the god Shalim. However, Michael's argument is that Jerusalem means Abode of peace or similar in modern Hebrew, which is attested to by sources. However odd it may seem to outsiders, many Hebrew-speakers therefore believe that Jerusalem means "Abode of peace" and what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article.

--FormerIP (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair summary at all, FormerIP. It is further somewhat odd that you ignore what I said above and insinuate that we should not place a sentence in the lede based on what "many Hebrew-speakers" say, as if I said such a thing when I've consistently based my position on scholarly sources. Where did you get such an idea from anyway? I ask you to be more careful not to make such misleading summaries of what I say. If you'd followed the link I gave to a recent scholarly source above, or the others I cited on the talk page, you'd see these are not "Hebrew-speakers" at all, but a consistent scholarly opinion relative to the modern times meaning of name Jerusalem in English. If it's difficult for you to piece this together, then I suggest you try to stop assuming this as an issue of Hebrew against the encyclopedia, and then maybe it'll become more clear. Here are some expanded scholarly sources to further clarify.

1. Denise DeGarmo is a professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. She was recently a faculty fellow of the Palestinian American Research Center, an affiliate of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers. At Center for Conflict studies, she writes: "Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic {Al-Quds} it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’. "{Al-Quds}" is my addition for clarity.
2. C. Edmond Bosworth in Historic cities of the Islamic world writes: Various Arabic versions of Hebr.(source) are found in the sources even in ancient Arabic poetry. Whether Dar al-salam "Abode of peace" corresponding to Heb. ir hash-shalom, (source) found in Geniza letters of 11th century, was used also by Muslims has not yet been ascertained. indicating the prevalence of the Hebrew meaning. Originally published by Swedish Koninklijke Brill NV, "Over three centuriess of scholarly publishing".
3. Oxford Universty Press: Millennium: a Latin reader, provides the following: "'Jerusalem', (Hebrew) 'abode of peace', has an alternative trans. 'vision of peace' used from the Augustine onwards of the Church in heaven." This also shows 'Abode of Peace' being the prevalent recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem.

These sources and others clearly show scholarly recognition of the English meaning of Jerusalem. Many other sources across world culture affirm it as the most widely recognized meaning as well. None of my argument was ever based on "Hebrew-speakers". --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Conclusively shown to be not RS, and indeed a garbled statement, on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
2. That 'dar al-salaam' (abode of peace) may or may not translate 'ir hash-shalom' (city of peace) has nothing to do with the discussion of the etymology or 'common meaning' of Yerushalayim, as noted on the original talk page.
3. The author is a Latinist. Construe this correctly. The source notes two ways of translating Jerusalem current in the 4th century CE, one 'abode of peace' the other 'vision of peace', neither of which is accepted by contemporary scholarship. This third source also says nothing to support your assertion that 'abode of peace' is the commonly accepted meaning throughout history and today of Yerushalem. A Latinist is not a RS for Hebrew, as argued on the relevant talk page. Sorry for the bolding, but you don't appear to read any answer to your adventitious opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I asked you earlier not to insert your comments into the middle of mine. You did it again here in a further display or rudeness, lack of consideration and disruptive editing. Please take this request to heart and don't do this anymore. Here are my responses to your three criticisms that I've moved out from the middle of my comment:

1. There is nothing conclusive or sensible in your reason to reject this source. The writer is a reliable scholar and her meaning is perfectly clear.
2. It has everything to do with our purpose. The writer acknowledges 'Abode of Peace' as the meaning of Jerusalem. That is the only part that matters.
3. 'Vision of peace' is an alternate Christian translation and in no way changes the veracity of the default original Hebrew meaning that the writer acknowledges.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's your right. But I suspect when this order is followed, no one has the foggiest notion of what is going on. All your comments above are are pointless, being personal convictions, so I won't reply, except to repeat that Yerushalayim has no meaning in Hebrew other than 'Jerusalem'. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you purport to know better than professors and academics who publish the meaning 'Abode of Peace' in scholarly publications. Well, you are entitled, but I don't see how that empowers you to remove the meanings from the lede, given WP guidelines for RS content. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be giving a folk etymology in the lead sentence in a way that makes it appear authoritative. Incidentally, the one meaning Britannica mentions, both online and in the hardcopy, is "Foundation of Shalem (God)". --JN466 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not "folk etymology" any more than "Foundation of Shalem". Please read this discussion and the talk page to understand that even "Foundation of Shalem" cannot be asserted to be the original meaning because no evidence exists for the Jebusites having founded the city and given it its original name. In that regard, all the meanings of Jerusalem are "folk etymologies". The scholarly sources I cited in the response above establish "Abode of Peace" as the recognized meaning of Jerusalem by academic scholars. Your point has been answered exhaustively and I'm sorry I need to repeat it if you haven't read the discussions and sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on three accounts. (a) It is called a folk etymology (b)no one ever said the Jebusites had anything to do with the name of Jerusalem, which is several hundred years older than both the Jebusites and the Hebrew language and whose probable meanings is determined by the abstruse discipline of semitic philology (c) You are now saying the results of semitic philology are to be put on the same level as folk etymologies, i.e., arcane science is just the same as uninformed opinion. You see why it is impossible to continue this humongous thread, now? You just talk past everyone, and create new errors and cause editors to waste time correcting them. Why do you persist, when no one can see anything but your POV trampling over any disciplined analysis of sources?Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss anything with your because of your personal attacks, distortions of what I say and inability to understand the simplest things about scholarly research of history. No scholarly linguistic source in the world asserts they know exactly when or how the name Shalem originated or what it meant originally. I persist because your painfully evident bias and offensive uncivil conduct in this discussion will not succeed in silencing me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, I'm just trying to work out the back story. It would seem fair to say that you are rejecting anything based on popular belief (?). So, is it a dispute about whether the etymological meaning or the literal meaning is best for the first sentence? And, as a side question, is "Abode of peace" a translation of the modern Hebrew for Jerusalem, or do the two merely sound similar? --FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, alright. But if you weren't trying to insinuate anything, then please be more careful. When you say: However odd it may seem to outsiders, many Hebrew-speakers therefore believe that Jerusalem means "Abode of peace" and what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article. - this is a grave insinuation of a racial nature and something that I never said. If you're not aware of it, you should be. And you should also not deny that the insinuation exists if you hope to improve your communication skills. And it's also not your job or mine or anyone else's to try to "work out the back story" as if there is something to this dispute other than what's been said in it. The only story here has been argued extensively and you are expected, as an editor, to assume good faith and accept the arguments for what they are. You are not required to try to figure out ulterior motives of "back stories". If that's not what you meant, then you should know that this is what you're insinuating by saying 'back story', and causing unnecessary mayhem in this discussion because you are confused and cannot communicate what you mean clearly. Now, here are answers to your three questions:

1. "It would seem fair to say that you are rejecting anything based on popular belief (?)" No it would not be fair to say that and I never said such a thing.
2. "So, is it a dispute about whether the etymological meaning or the literal meaning is best for the first sentence?" No it is not. I can't speak for the other side trying to remove 'Abode of Peace'. You might ask them what their dispute is if it's not clear to you already.
3. "And, as a side question, is "Abode of peace" a translation of the modern Hebrew for Jerusalem, or do the two merely sound similar?" What does it matter when scholarly sources affirm that this is the meaning of the word? Considering so many sources exist, the only way to dispute the inclusion in the lead, is to show scholarly sources that say 'Abode of Peace' is NOT the most widely known and recognized English meaning of the name of Jerusalem. I doubt you'll find such a source because I have never seen a source dispute it. Otherwise, it's not anyone's prerogative to try to second guess anything about these sources, and it certainly violates WP:OR for you or I or anyone to try to apply qualifications to them that they don't provide themselves. Especially when their intent is so clear in the sources themselves. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you pulled the 'antisemitic' insinuation out of the rabbit's hat in 'deconstructing' the putative motives behind an innocent request for clarification. A 'Hebrew-speaker' is not ipso facto someone of the Jewish 'race' ('racial'). To use this ploy again suggests you are reading behind arguments rather than addressing them.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You intentionally lie about what I said, Nishidani, and deceptively distort the discussion. I did not say 'antisemitc'. FormerIP did not say "A Hebrew speaker". He said "Hebrew-speakers" in plural form, clearly referring to the Israeli/Jewish culture, the only one whose mother tongue is Hebrew and from which the meaning of the Hebrew name Jerusalem originated. Your deception, incivility and aggressive personal attacks have risen to new heights here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When anyone tells another editor he has made 'is a grave insinuation of a racial nature,' no amount of wikilawyering caan wriggle around the meaning, which is that FormerIP was making a serious racial insinuation against Jews. The problem throughout these arguments is failure to closely construe things, references, blurbs, or other people's analyses.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are not many other ways to construe "what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article". It would be the same insinuation of a racial nature if FormerIP had said "Italian-speakers" or "Chinese-speakers", that's why I didn't say "anti-simetic". I accepted that he didn't intend it and explained to him that it's wise to be more aware of the insinuation, and take care to be more precise in saying what they mean. I don't see that I misconstrued something here and thought that I acted well and in good faith by explaining it nicely to the editor. I also don't see a problem here, except for the one you insist that exists, which doesn't seem to exist at all. Thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think by "back story," FormerIP just meant the context of the dispute, as it is a little complicated for those of us who are not familiar with this topic. Here is what I understand from the above:

1. No one is claiming that the Hebrew name for Jerusalem is derived from "Abode of Peace."
2. No one is claiming that Yerushalayim is a literal translation, or is close to a translation, of the English phrase "Abode of Peace," either in ancient or modern Hebrew.
3. There are many reliable and scholarly sources that state that the English meaning of the name of Jerusalem is "Abode of Peace."

I think what is confusing here is that usually, when we say that the name of a place "means" something in English, we are referring either to its etymology or its literal translation. Am I correct in understanding that "Abode of Peace" is a commonly accepted meaning, but that it is neither a literal translation nor a derivation? FCSundae ∨ (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite correct, FCSundae. Generally, linguistic scholars will disagree about strict literal translations because differing languages have varying ranges of meanings to their words. This is especially true of Semitic languages such as Hebrew or Aramaic, where the meaning of Jerusalem is derived from. I've qualified what I've said before about this because some scholars do accept 'Abode of Peace' as a literal translation of the Hebrew 'Yerushalem' given the more broad meanings of the two parts of the name. 'Yeru' in Hebrew can mean 'To lay a foundation' such as a foundation for an 'Abode'. 'Shalem' can mean 'Peaceful' or 'Whole' or 'Perfect' and is written with the three root consonants (Sh-L-M) which are the root of the word 'Shalom', meaning 'Peace'. This is the reason that this meaning has taken root in the Hebrew language and why many scholars worldwide accept it as the meaning of the name 'Jerusalem'. It's also the reason your first 2 points are incorrect. I hope this helps clarify your effort to summarize. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Michael. Here is my updated understanding of the debate:

1. The argument that Jerusalem means "Abode of Peace" is not based on the ancient origin of the name of the city. However, the name's transition from the ancient Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalayim may reflect a shift in meaning.
2. Yeru can be translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful." Because of this, one possible translation for "Yerushalem" is "Abode of Peace." One of the core disagreements among editors is whether the expert consensus supports this translation. The sources MichealNetzer is using to support this are disputed by other editors of the article. At issue are the sources' reliability and the correct interpretation of their meaning.
3. "Abode of Peace" is a commonly given English meaning of Jerusalem, and all editors agree this meaning should be discussed in the article. The main point of disagreement here concerns its inclusion in the lede.

I hope my continued efforts to summarize are helpful at identifying the main issues here, to work towards a solution. FCSundae ∨ (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that in semitic languages yeru might mean "to lay a foundation", which is why "Foundation of Shalim" is one of the translations proposed by experts. However, getting from "to lay a foundation" to "abode" is a big stretch, and I wonder if MichaelNetzer can provide a source for that derivation. Usually "abode" is suggested as a competitor for "foundation", along with other options that include "vision", "fear", "heritage" and "possession". FCSundae, note that MichaelNetzer has not (and probably cannot) provide a source for a shift in meaning. All that can actually be established is that theories about the meaning have been many and varied. No excuse has been offered for placing just one theory in the lede and excluding others. It would violate WP:NPOV quite directly. Zero 09:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FCSundae, maybe we're getting close. Here are some modifications/additions I'd make to further clarify.

1. There has been a long-standing consensus presence of the English meanings of the name Jerusalem, in Hebrew (Yerushalem: Adobe of Peace) and in Arabic (Al-Quds : The Holy Sancutary) in the lede of the article on Jerusalem.
2. The ancient pre-Hebrew name of Jerusalem, "Shalem", most likely signified the ancient god "Shalim". In its transition from the ancient Shalem/Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalem, the common meaning of Jerusalem became "Abode of Peace", based on a literal translation from the Hebrew name. Yeru is translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful"
3. Likewise the Arabic name "Al-Quds" which means "The Holy" took root in the Arabic language as meaning "The Holy Sanctuary".
4. Recently, two editors began proposing to remove 'Abode of Peace' from the lede because of the ancient pre-Hebrew meaning, saying it violates NPOV to only have the one meaning (Abode of Peace) that's in the lede now, and not the ancient one as well. MichealNetzer contends that the ancient meaning is expounded on in the Etymology section but is not of the same significance to the modern city and does not cause a POV conflict in its omission from the lede.
5. The two editors then proposed a compromise to also remove the Arabic meaning "The Holy Sanctuary". MichaelNetzer did not see this as a compromise and objects to removing either meaning of the names, saying they are both significant to the city's modern incarnation of demographics and cutlure. He further says that Jerusalem is a unique city with a rich character and history and that these meanings enrich the article and improve the recognition and identification of the city by appearing in the introduction.
6. MichaelNetzer has posted scholarly reliable sources to support the meanings 'Adobe of Peace' and 'The Holy Sancturay', but the two editors argue that the sources are not reliable for linguistic etymology. MichaelNetzer refutes this saying that the sources show scholarly recognition of the common meanings, and are not intended to support etymology, thus asserting their reliability for use as such in the lede.
7. "The main point of disagreement arose when two editors tried to remove a long-standing consensus presence of 'Abode of Peace' from the article's introduction. They agree to include these meanings in Etymology section, but MichaelNetzer says this will compromise the quality of the introduction to this unique city. He suggests the ancient etymology of the name belongs in the Etymology section while the most commonly known modern meanings best serve the article by remaining in the lede.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero: I've found the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. "The Origin of the name Jerusalem and its meanings". It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Google Translate garbles it up so we can use a good translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In its transition from the ancient Shalem/Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalem, the common meaning of Jerusalem became "Abode of Peace", based on a literal translation from the Hebrew name. Yeru is translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful"

If this were true, which it isn't, then it would be impossible to explain why the mysterious Yerushalem generated over a dozen different etymologies from late Biblical times through to Rabbinical midrash. It would be impossible to explain why 'Yeru-shalem' took on the form 'Yeru-shalayim which rather than assimilating 'shalem' to 'shalom', actually shifts the connotative nuance away from 'shalom', for 'shalay-im' has the aspect of a dual, implying two things, not a singular 'peace'.etc.etc. Michael has no evidence for the various elements of his imagined 'shift'. His thinking is developing, but it is always a matter of WP:OR, trying to figure out possible explanations for problems everyone else can see in his hypotheses, instead of simply following best practice, i.e., the consensus of sources.(b) as to the 'consensus' for keeping this in the lead, most editors have not the foggiest notion of what etymologies, and the historical shifts in language, meaning, etc., involve. That a misleading passage was retained speaks for nescience of the relevant issues involved as much as for some hypothetical 'consensus', which turns out to be a tacit consensus by the uninformed in a coalition of those who don't notice things. Finally, the lead as it stands is contradicted by the Etymology section, which leads should not do. Leads summarize the sections, and to put 'abode of peace' only to have the reader find out that it meant no such thing etymologically, and that this is just one of a baker's dozen of rough guesses, is improper, and not encyclopedic. To the contrary it is incredibly clunky, or clumsy. Whatever Klein says, the source you require is one by a historical linguist affirming that 'abode of peace' is, in English, 'the common meaning of Jerusalem' throughout the ages.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The article of Yaakov Klein cited by MichaelNetzer doesn't have anything not appearing in English sources, but seems to be a fair summary. (Incidentally, Google Translate scrambles it because it sees the text in reverse order; it seems very hard to work around this.) The article recounts the various ancient names, supports the derivation from the name of the god Shalim (noting correctly that it can't be proved). Then it describes how the Midrash introduced the idea that it meant "city of peace" or "foundation of peace" and how this became popular. Zero 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Efforts toward a possible resolution

Okay. I think I understand better the issues here. It actually seems to me that there are some significant points of agreement, which may point to some possible ways to resolve this dispute. The editors seem to agree, first, that the ancient name of Jerusalem (Urušalimum) was probably derived from the name of the god Shalim, and second, that the "Abode of Peace" interpretation of Yerushalem is, at the least, popular. It therefore seems to me that one way to go would be to find a good, neutral way to mention both of those facts in the lead. I see that a somewhat similar attempt, above, did not meet with consensus, possibly due to the dispute over giving the derivation of Urušalimum as the derivation of Yerushalem. Michael, if the lead contained something like "ancient name Urušalimum, probably after the god Shalim," but did not say that Yerushalem is related to the god Shalim (and did say that "Abode of Peace" is a current common translation of Yerushalem), would that work for you? How does it sound for the other editors? Does it seem like something of this nature could be feasible? FCSundae ∨ (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason a similar suggestion wasn't agreed to before has nothing to do with connecting between Urušalimum and Yerushalem, which is well established in Etymology. The reason was because this ancient meaning is no longer relevant to the city, as the Hebrew and Arabic names are, and has not been relevant for nearly 3 millennia. Bringing it into the lead next to the current meanings gives the impression that there is "Shalim" significance to the city today, just like the Hebrew and Arabic that are mentioned. This is bad encyclopedic form as there is no NPOV violation in the lede as it is. It is a perfect POV representation for what Jerusalem means relative to its two predominant cultures. The entire push to change the lede is misguided and entirely ignores a well balanced consensus on what the lede should include. Nishidani and Zero's focus on historical etymology alone to justify the change never once addressed this point or even showed they've understood it.

It does not seem correct to seek a compromise that brings in an ancient meaning that has no relevance to the modern Jerusalem, and give it undue weight, on the grounds that it's part of the name's history and etymology. This is precisely the reason we have an etymology section which already covers everything they say. Nishidani and Zero ignore this distinction, never once show they've given it consideration, and make a misguided push to change a perfectly balanced lede, on grounds that are irrelevant to what should be in it. That said, I tried to see how it would look with the addition you suggest:

Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n (audio), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym, "Abode of Peace"; Arabic: القُدس (audio), al-Quds , "The Holy Sanctuary"; Ancient Urušalimum, "Foundation of Shalim") is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.

To me, it looks somewhat ridiculous and entirely out of context. It should be clear to anyone that the ancient name is out of place here and gives it undue weight as if there is a current "Shalim" culture or significance next to the modern Hebrew and Arabic ones. I don't know what else to say in order to stress how wrong this is from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. At this point, I remain strongly opposed to it. Maybe if Nishidani and Zero would show a sign of considering why consensus apparently decided on the way it is presently, instead of thinking they know better than everyone else about an issue they don't even seem to grasp. Maybe if they show they've considered what I've been saying and try to respond to it, instead of ignoring what I say entirely and only respond about etymology, then we can find a way to discuss the actual issue with a mutually respectful attitude, and arrive at a common understanding. I'm only asking for basic consideration and AGF towards the point I'm making, that would allow us to try to solve the dispute. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yerushalayim does not mean 'abode of peace' in any Hebrew dictionary I have consulted. It means Jerusalem.

Michael has never shown that 'abode of peace', one of a dozen etymologies, reflects the most common folk etymological explanation of Yerushalayim. Google hits are available to anyone. I've done several variations. No result backs his hypothesis.

Michael's premise is that how we gloss 'Yerushalayim' is subject to a condition: the choice of gloss must show a relevance of meaning to the current political situation of the city.(WP:RECENTISM) I.e. political considerations avowedly influence his choice of 'translation'. This flies in the face of WP:NPOV, as well as flying in the fact of the historical and philological facts which contradict everything he has stated here.

Michael argued his point, and it ended in a 3/1 majority in favour of a change. All three in the majority suggested compromises, not of which is acceptable to Michael. He still won't accept any compromise. Like the Bolsheviks (see the etymology of that word, and that of Menshevik), he wants to call his view a majority when the vote shows he is in a minority. This has been one vast pointless exercise, because Michael won't consider any alternative to his own.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, nor a linguistic thesis on the articles it writes. An encyclopedia is a compilation of the sum relevant knowledge on any subject. Nishidani seems incapable of understanding something so basic that appears to be outside of the narrow discipline he bases his argument on.

I posted 14 sources, 5 by scholarly publishers, and there are countless more, that affirm 'Abode of Peace' as the most recognized meaning of Jerusalem. But that's not enough for Nishidani who disqualifies them as if they don't even exist, and dares say here that there are no sources to support the meaning. This is an extreme and outrageous denial of evidence and a disingenuous way to make a case.

I never once said the word "political" nor inferred it. I repeatedly referred to the current cultures and peoples presiding over the city, and how these two meanings reflect its recognition. Nishidani misrepresents what I say and boldly lies about it, in order to further confuse the issue and avoid responding to my point.

I've tried exhaustively to explain all this while ignoring most of Nishidani's abrasive tone, but have found no such reciprocal consideration. I don't believe his attitude is exemplary of WP guidelines for collaboration. I don't know what more I can say so Nishidani might reconsider, and at least discuss the actual point I make respectfully. There has not yet been a plausible reason given for making a change in the page. No compromise is needed because the push to remove the meanings is not sound, nor based on the relevant reason for their being there. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 14 sources were analysed twice, once comprehensively, and shown to either fail WP:RS (11) or, when scholarly, irrelevant in two cases, and not relevant because made by a Latin scholar mechanically repeating in a gloss to a 4th century Latin text one of many folk etymologies as though it were the meaning of Yerushalayim, which all scholarly semitic expert sources deny. You ignore my repeated reminders of the fallacies of that 'evidence'.

You twice, see the page, indicated that the folk meme you are attached to is the best one because it best reflects the current political situation of the city. That admission itself cannot be wikilawyered to mean anything other than that you are pushing a political edit into a phrasing that must represent the facts, not a 'factoid' partial to one party, i.e. yourself.

I am not 'abrasive' (appreciate this new addition to the numerous descriptors you invent to caricature my insistence on quality sourcing, precise erudite information). I am persistent and have like others been etraordinarily generous in reviewing minutely your endless repetitive rehearsals of an argument poorly justified by inferior or distractive claims about sourcing. I might add that saying my approach consists of 'boldily lying' is a personal attack on my bona fides that violates WP:AGF. I never act on personal attacks, because it is a waste of admins' time, and the evidence only tells against the persons who make them. You appeal to AGF when it suits you ('I'm only asking for basic consideration and AGF towards the point I'm making, '), but violate the selfsame policy when responding to others.

By the same token, persistence in kicking a horse dead long after the vet and coroner have declared it to be in an advanced state of decomposition is not collaborative. It might equally be read, however 'courteous' the tone, as an aggressive, exhausting technique of attrition (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

Note once more that you do not reply to a query where I asked you to adduce evidence for your assertion that 'abode of peace' is the most popular interpretation of Yerushalayim.

Three editors proposed a compromise, which they aren't obliged to offer, you refuse to compromise.

Being a majority of one against three, you insist that the questionable disinformation on the page cannot and must not be altered. Wiki works by consensus, and the consensus is as it ended on the talk page. You cannot exercise vetoes over a majority determination. To try to block a rational edit in this manner constitutes in my view a clear example of obstructive POV editing. Arguing further is pointless, because you are just repeating your personal views against both the relevant scholarly literature, and misinterpreting even those third-rate sources you bring along, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, not only by myself. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nishidani, you asked for sources and I brought academic sources. You dismiss them but you are wrong. The sources clearly prove academic recognition for 'Abode of Peace' as the popular meaning of Jerusalem. I'd also point you to Stephen Binz who is the academic source cited for "Foundation of Shalem" in the article's Etymology. In the next sentence he writes: "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "Shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness." Additional academic sources cite both "city of peace" and "abode of peace" together, while others clearly indicate Jerusalem means 'Abode of Peace'. These sources cannot be dismissed. They are not dictionary definitions, but rather popular meanings recognized by academic scholars worldwide. Why is a Latin linguist any less competent to cite this popular meaning of a Hebrew name than an English one? What you say to dismiss these sources is inconsistent. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary and the lede is not meant to be an etymology. But even based on linguistic sources, your argument fails by standards of academic scholars.
• Of the two times you said I referred to politics in the discussion, the first one had nothing to do with this subject. It was about the Sunni political gloss of dār al-salām before we began discussing the Hebrew. It was a whimsical answer to your whimsical astonishment over it, if you remember: "If this is devastating to you, then please register a complaint with Sunni politics that glossed the more ancient Hebrew, without any backing in the Qur'an or Hadith."' You then proceeded to try to drag the discussion into politics and insinuated that this was my motive for a total of Five times in your responses. I then replied once about there not being a Christian political presence in Jerusalem, and you jumped on that as if to prove my motives are political. I can understand how you'd see that but it was your insistence on dragging me into a political issue that needed a response. I never mentioned the word again, but you continued to hammer it into the discussion several more times. You tried to bring it into this discussion again now, but I will not be dragged into it. I have not made such an argument. Anyone reading our exchanges can see that. On the other hand, I used the word "cultur" a total of Four times in the previous discussion and a total of TEN times here, on which to base my case for the relevance of using the Arabic and Hebrew meanings. If I was making a political argument, I would not insist on keeping both the Arabic and Hebrew because there is little common political grounds between the cultures. The meanings in Arabic and Hebrew are in the lead strictly based on the cultural significance of the city in modern history. You may not have meant to do this intentionally, but you have seriously misrepresented me. You've distorted the issue to say I'm making a case that I am not. If you're not aware of it, you should be. The record of these discussions speaks for itself. Your efforts to drag us into a political issue are misleading, and please forgive me for saying so, but it is a deceptive tactic that doesn't work.
• Perhaps you don't realize it, but you have been very abrasive, and if you'll forgive me again for saying it, you've been hostile, somewhat pretentious, condescending, inconsiderate and repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Again, maybe you didn't intend to do all this but that's how it comes off. Anyone reading these discussions can feel the contempt in your tone and see the insults you hurled. I've tried to be more than patient but you need to be made aware of what you're doing. That's why I answered you harshly. But look back on our exchanges and try to understand that I've withstood more than any fair share of derision from you throughout, and have refrained from addressing you in the same way. I admit it's not easy.
• I've responded to everything you've said. I've shown that I've taken it all into consideration. I don't see you trying to do the same. All your responses are about the same thing, as if you are writing a dictionary or a linguistic thesis. But even at that, your responses are amazingly incorrect and ignore a prevalent reality in the academic world. I'd like you to try to respond to that aspect. Why do you insist on turning the lede into a dictionary entry when that's what Misplaced Pages is not? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As there is no consensus to give both meanings in the lede, it really looks to me like the best option is to move the whole thing to the etymology section. Michael, I do understand your concerns that this will remove valuable information from the lede. I would only echo FormerIP, above, in noting that having all the information on a city's name in a separate section seems to be fairly normal practice (see Hong Kong, Phnom Penh, Helsinki, etc.). Moving it down would make the article in line with a common practice on Misplaced Pages, and would therefore not seem to me to be necessarily a statement on whether any of these meanings is primary. FCSundae ∨ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the compromises we have already offered, and I think reasonable. The lead should not contain controversial elements as facts. I have provided numerous examples where in dealing with both Israeli cities, and their counterparts in the Middle East, there is no etymology or 'meaning' assigned in the lead,and therefore to relegate this to the etymology section would also elide the anomaly here, and make the Jerusalem article conform to the general model not only of city articles in this area, but in articles on cities generally. Thanking all for their added input here.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, FCSundae. However...

1. You are mistaken about the consensus. There already exists a longstanding community consensus on both meanings in the lede as they have been there for quite some time. A new consensus is needed to remove them. The two editors seeking their removal cannot override the community - and they have established no such WP:Consensus.
2. This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors.
3. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
4. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.
5. The argument for removing the meanings is based on linguistic etymology and dictionary. This violates WP:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary
6. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.
7. Both editors refuse to recognize reliable academic sources that support the inclusion of the meanings.
8. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
9. The editors have not addressed these guidelines, making the quality of their argument flawed for achieving consensus.
10. One editor has engaged in personal remarks and uncivil accusations, and blatant distortions of my position, instead of responding to these core issues, further compromising the quality of their argument for consensus.
11. It is prudent for you, in trying to mediate the dispute, to take all concerns into consideration. Instead, you suggest a one sided compromise. They are wrongly demanding removal of well sourced material from the lede, in violation of the above WP guidelines - and you are mediating a so-called compromise, proposing the material be removed as they wish. It's somewhat astonishing.
12. If these issues are not considered as they should be to achieve a consensus, and if no other editor/admin steps in to address them, then I will consider this dispute resolution effort a failure and will seek a solution at a higher hierarchy for arbitration.

I thank you again for your effort. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And if, I'm being as neutral as possible, 3 editors can see a large problem of misleading and hitherto unsourced information in just two words in the lead, you are saying, Michael, that because it has lain their unnoticed for donkey's ages, it cannot be touched without your consent? Over 750 people who have this page bookmarked, have not cared either way and left it to us 4. Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office! Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The meanings are affirmed by scholarly institutes and are not misleading. I know you care, and I think I do also, but I wouldn't presume that everyone else, or the 750 watchers, don't care.

You may not believe, Nishidani, that I share your anguish over holy writ run amok in pursuit of wealth and power, while leading large populaces into wars, ignorance and oppression. It is a grave travesty of purpose and needs to be resisted with all our might. But holy writ has also become intertwined into our culture. It has contributed to our evolution on levels that can't always be measured by the naked history.

Our job here is to represent the facts about our world, without prejudice against holy or unholy writ or deed. Our highest academic institutes recognize this aspect of history and culture, and have affirmed the portions of it that are relevant to our sum knowledge, and to this encyclopedia for our purposes. 'Shalim', by measure of prejudice, is also holy writ and could be contested. But we rise above our prejudice to bring history and current affairs into light, based on recognition by academic decree. Jerusalem was founded on holy writ from its start. The mentions in the lead, relative to modern Jerusalem are justified in that academia recognizes the popularity of these meanings with no reserve. Their presence in the lede enhances recognition and knowledge of the city. I'd suggest we try to let this lay for a while and allow it to rest in the realm of consideration, so maybe we can hopefully approach it a little more peaceably.

You and I, two old geezers with stubborn streaks that have produced way too many words on these pages, would benefit from a cup of tea and talk, and come to know that we perhaps don't differ so much on the essences. I want you to know that I'm very sorry for the tension and apologize if I've said anything that's been out of line. But I can't let this go without the insistence and clarification that needs to be made. You continue to amaze me with eloquence and passion that I've not seen often. A red carpet awaits should you ever come this way. Peace. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm stubborn - from the beginning I've ventured several compromise solution - I'm a sticker for details and highquality RS, that's all. And, whatever the impression I give, I write and work in here with equanimity, and am relatively immune to 'tension'. If I were tense, in the sorts of social and political situations I had to live in over many decades, I'd be long dead. So no need to apologize. You're familiar with pilpul. I with Tibetan scholastic debates, and Platonic modes of argument. In all three cases, one argues intensively (not intensely) to resolve a problem. It has nothing to do with personal animosities, and I'm sorry you have read my engagement this way. Nothing you've said has worried me personally.

I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race. I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits. I'm only interested in individual life-stories. I'm not eloquent, and feel ashamed at what the exigencies of rapid editing and discussion in this medium do to my former style. That said,

I think this is all a tempest in a teapot, like most things we have to cavil over. There are many folk etymologies for Jerusalem that are popular, and you have no evidence to show that the one for which you have a predeliction is more popular than any other, or privileged in Jewish lore. If you take Christian tradition 'vision of peace' appears to be favoured. In Jewish religious circles, you'll probably have several preferences depending on specific rabbinical lineage, so that one school will delight in the midrash on Gen.22:12 that tells of the dispute between Abraham's preference for 'Yir'eh' (see) and Shem's for 'shalem', in which God, not wishing to favour either side, drew up the compromise of 'Yir'eh+shalem ', so that Abraham called the name of that place 'YHWH will provide/see'. Others, will prefer 'foundation of peace' or 'vision of peace' etc.etc.etc.

The 'current situation' which you mention relates to a bitterly contested, and divided city. You wish 'abode of peace' to gloss it, which can sound like an admonition to the parties, or an assertion of an untruth, or even, to some ears on the other side, as a defiantly counter-factual glozing over tensions, in that the prevailing power is calling 'the Holy' city an 'Abode of Peace' when a significant minority don't experience it that way, etc.etc. The only sensible solution is, given the lack of reliably substantiation and strong evidence for the contentious meanings, is to relegate this to Etymology, as the majority if not all wiki articles on cities appear to do. To accept a solution along these lines is not to to lose the argument. In my personal view or POV one should best write 'Foundation of Shalem?' (note the interrogative mark), but I freely renounce that best RS solution. I only expect some movement from you, rather than a stolid defence of leaving the text as it is, on whatever grounds, since it is misleading and probably not neutral. We could write a wonderful etymology meaning section there and on related pages where all this is thrashed out for the curious, instead of bickering on this. Regards (ps. despite your claims, you are still relatively a youngster in my book, despite attempts to disguise the fact with an impressively Moseic beard.: In lieu of RS to the contrary, I'm the wheezing geezer in this joint:))Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nice to see the dialogue getting friendlier. :) I'd have no problem with mentioning the popular meaning, even in the lead sentence, if it's marked as such ("often/popularly translated/interpreted as 'abode of peace'"), but wouldn't like the lead sentence to create the appearance it's the current status of philological research. . (The OED has "interpreted as 'possession of peace'".) --JN466 10:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  The 1989 version of the O.E.D., which is the only one I have unfortunately, provides no etymology or meaning for Jerusalem (see vol.VIII p.219, col.1), unlike for most words.

  The source you cite, which I had mentioned earlier, opens: In Hebrew Scripture the very name Jerusalem indicates that the city was built as a "foundation (for the deity)Salem," who can be identified with Shalmon or Shulmanu ..In view of the theophoric character of the name Jerusalem. . .'

  This gives the etymology as the real meaning, and scholarship finds no problem in saying what the consensus tends to accept as the meaning of the toponym.

  After remarking how the theophoric component was equated with shalom 'by means of a popular etymology to generate the proverbial notion of a 'City of Peace' (not 'Abode of Peace' which is a distinct idea), it concludes overpage:

  'Alas, this popular etymology, which, indeed, has clearly discernible roots already in the Hebrew Scriptures, cannot be considered to have either a philological, or a historical basis. In actual history Jerusalem seldom ceased being a city of bloodshed and war'p.496

  Meaning the popular etymology is registered only to challenge its relevance to the actual historical meaning and the situation, current or historical, of the city of Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• One has 'abode of peace'. One could put 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), equally succinct and no impression would be thereby created 'of the current status of philological research', while the impression created that the status of one popular belief now functions as the true meaning would be eliminated. Is there any precedent for preferring one of many false, but popular folksy meanings to the probable meaning accepted by the community of scholars?Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw you'd referred to that chapter by Shemaryahu Talmon before on the talk page. He seems a good source to me. The OED quote is from a 1987 version of the Shorter OED, which has, in full:

  • In A.V. Jerusalem, Vulg. (O.T.) Jerusalem, (N.T.) Hierusalem, the latter repr. a Hellenized form with initial aspirate and consequent assim. to ἰερὀς holy, the former deriving from Gr. Ιερουσαλἠμ, which prob. approximates to the earlier pronunc. Yerúshálém of the Heb. name (interpreted as 'possession of peace').

  I note that the SOED says "interpreted as"; it doesn't provide an etymology to that effect. So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk. --JN466 11:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd be fine with that. It is indeed one of the 'shalom offerings' I made in the Jerusalem page thread, as a decent compromise (that doesn't compromise wiki's aspirations for reliability). But, intuiting some might object to the association of the city with a pagan deity, I then suggested just dropping as per wiki city articles normatively any reference to meaning or etymology in the lead. I'm inclined to think this latter is the best solution, but the earlier compromise satisfies all parties.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

    Sounds good to me. --JN466 12:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

My previous concern for introducing 'Foundation of Shalem' in the lede was only in the way it would appear within the Hebrew and Arabic definitions in the first sentence. One way around it is to remove the meanings from the first sentence and introduce them as part of the text flow. Here's a proposal:

Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n (audio), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio), al-Quds) is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such. The ancient name means 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace', while in Arabic, al-Quds means "The Holy Sanctuary". If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area, with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km (48.3 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City.

Sources are already given in Etymology. If this works, or inspires a better idea, we're likely getting close to a solution. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

'Ancient name'? Yeru-salem was its ancient name, and Jerusalem is its modern name in Western languages. Its phonemic shape has scarcely altered over 4 millenia.

Transform the glosses into an independent sentence, and you get a lead summary sentence, which explodes the compactness of a gloss, and therefore must synthesize the etymology section in a line. Thus the detached sentence will begin to read something (at a minimum) like this.

'Originally denoting perhaps Foundation of Shalem, the name Jerusalem was later interpreted variously to mean 'vision', or 'abode' or 'foundation' of peace. Its Arabic name means 'the holy (sanctuary').

'Abode of peace' is not (google hits) anywhere near the commonest or most popular name. In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page.

I prefer (a) to leave it out of the lead (b) if forced to chose, then a gloss after Yerushalem/Yerushalayim as as Jayen suggests. (c) If, as Michael now prefers, a separate sentence, then it takes the form of a lead summmary statement, and must be expanded along the lines I just suggested. Perhaps rather than clinching a shaky personal deal here between aged combatants, we should wait and get all participants to put in here? Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

With so many prejudices that affect your editing, it's a wonder that you were even allowed to register here, let alone touch an article with a keypad.

"I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits. I'm only interested in individual life-stories."

Misplaced Pages is not to be shaped by such a pretentious ideology that would erase most knowledge of a civilization entrenched in collective nationalism. That you admit your disdain motivates your editing is outrageous. There are way too many things we don't like in this life that we need to accept as facts to contend with here. You are expected to keep your prejudices out of the editing process yet you flamboyantly declare yourself unable and unfit to do so.

It is now painfully obvious why you display such disregard for Misplaced Pages guidelines and choose to rely on "In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page." If this is the level of competence you base your editing on, then any discussion with you now proves itself useless. Add to that your disdain for "holy writ" as explaining why you reject scholarly opinion on it, and we have an editor so motivated by their personal biases that they should be forbidden to even open an editing box in Misplaced Pages.

As things stand now, your entire input into this dispute, including your initial push to remove the meanings from the lead, are to be dismissed as the rantings of an editor who should be disqualified from opining on this subject altogether. I am disregarding this entire fiasco as a waste of our precious time. Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition. It is time you begin understanding that this encyclopedia is about sum knowledge, including the things you personally disdain, which you should learn to keep outside of the work being done here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remarkable.'sordid prejudices, disdain, rantings', because I said what Jewish past masters from Eric Hobsbawm, Elie Kedourie, Ernest Gellner, Hans Kohn, Léon Poliakov and a dozen others taught me as a youth about the way nationalism was inextricably bound up with the lethal consequence of the Holocaust?, and a neutral eye in here, who has never crossed my path on wikipedia reading my comments, took them (percipiently but naturally, to be friendly!!!! You are incapable of understanding the tone of any of my remarks, and conjure up a monster out of a minor note in what was an amicable response to your friendly overture. Delicacy becomes 'ranting', careful weighing of words 'disregard for policy', . . Your response is so, well, 'astonishing', out of left field as the yanks say, or off-point, it spins so bizarrely a few untroubled words, that I won't worry you with an answer. I'll just bold your remark.'Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition.- a funny way to characterize yourself. I arrived at a compromise with Onceinawhile and Zero over this defective text. In dissent you brought it to this forum where I think third parties have suggested two compromises both of which I accepted. Result? A threat to revert me relentlessly if I touch the lead you alone want, since I am a person unfit to edit wikipedia. Fine. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I made what seems like a reasonable proposal based on the discussion between JN466 and yourself. I explained why it is out of context to introduce "Foundation of Shalem" within the Hebrew and Arabic definitions in the first sentence.
2. You reject it and drag us into another effort to bring the Etymolgy section into the lead, disregarding the clear WP policy on encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.
3. Several of your recent statements in which you admit you are allowing your ideological prejudices to dictate your editing, show why this entire dispute is baseless. You ignore policy for content and collaborative work, distort arguments and positions, and engage in manipulative contentions, all apparently meant to apply your prejudices to an otherwise neutral encyclopedia of sum knowledge that has no room for your exclusionary devices.
4. Enough is enough. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Having submitted this dispute resolution request, it seems the discussion reveals no plausible grounds for the dispute, nor for the editor's position who initiated the proposal to remove well sourced content from the lede of the article Jerusalem, based on their professed prejudices affecting their editing. For my considerations in making the submission, the request can be closed unless other editors have additional comments. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no plausible grounds for the dispute, does that mean you will not be editing the relevant part of the lead? --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The lede is fine as it is until a proposal is made for changing it based on WP guidelines. If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism ("These are the prejudices I bring to edits."), lack of knowledge of facts ("In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page") and bias towards "holy writ" ("Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office!"), in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer has severely misunderstood Nishidani's above comments ("prejudices I bring to edits"). Nishidani is clearly saying that he has no prejudices other than a desire to see WP:NPOV prevail. It would be helpful to focus discussion on what problem is to be resolved, and what reliable sources say about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I commend your ability to overlook Nishidani's blatant remarks that reveal severe prejudices. How you can interpret these statements as NPOV is beyond me. How you see "a desire to see WP:NPOV" without some ingenious WP:OR confounds even more.

• Nishidani disapproves of nationalism and admits this affects his editing in favor of "personal stories", yet has made no such issues about other nationalisms relative to 'Shalim' and 'Al-Quds'.
• Nishidani had no prior knowledge of 'abode of peace' and thus deems this lack of information as the basis for dismissing scholarly sources that have referenced it as the meaning of Jerusalem for more than 100 years up to the present. He has miraculous knowledge of most everything else about the name yet this very prominent instance has somehow slipped beneath his radar.
• Nishidani betrays his derision for this particular "holy writ" as "infallibility associated with some office!" while making no such allusions to holy writs of 'Shalim' or 'Al-Quds'.
• I'm sorry, but I fail to see any neutrality here.

I have been dragged through an enormous waste of time arguing Nishidani's responses in good faith without replying in kind to his personal remarks, distortions of what I've said, and inexplicable disregard for academic sources I posted. I have focused discussion on the problem and what reliable sources say. I have made my arguments for why the lede is worded this way but have never received a reasonable response from Nishidani that addressed the concerns I raise. I believe in light of his recent confessions, it is entirely evident, and reasonable to conclude, that Nishidani has engaged in a procedure intended to impose his personal dislike for what the content in question represents. I would be more than happy to discuss this amicably should Nishidani desist from these prejudiced practices. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but there is pretty substantial agreement on the edit that Mr Netzer says he intends to revert. That is unacceptable. One editor cannot hold an article hostage. There isnt a dispute here, there is a consensus. And if an editor wants to edit war against that consensus, well, he can try doing that. I wish him the best of luck in doing so. nableezy - 05:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy guidelines indicate a failure to achieve consensus so far, as I've shown above. But thank you for the well whishes, Mr. Nableezy. I do hope we don't get into another war. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, unsurprisingly, you think you have the stronger argument, and everybody else is wrong. You can keep thinking that, but it wont fly. nableezy - 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I have a stronger argument and you are wrong. Thanks for helping me say that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny, it seems as though a consensus says your argument is weaker and that you are wrong. You can edit-war against that consensus if you wish, though I can tell you what the result of that will be. Dont let me stand in your way though, I would very much like to see you make good on your threat to disrupt the project because everybody but you is wrong. nableezy - 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this dispute without saying a word up till now. I was glad it was slowly appearing to make progress until Michael Netzer posted his egregious personal attack above at 16:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Michael Netzer, did you read the edit notice, displayed in bold at the top of this screen, "This page is not the place to flame other users."? In my opinion, you should apologise to Nishidani, and withdraw your attack. --NSH001 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC) note: I will be out and unable to respond for most of the rest of today. -- NSH

Your opinion and suggestion are very interesting, NSH, but you might have checked the history of this discussion, especially the talk page that preceded it, to see that what I said was relatively tame compared to what's been hurled at me by Nishidani. He never once thought there was a need to apologize and I never asked for it. But in this diff I did say I was sorry about the general tone of the discussion, in an effort to try to bridge the gap between us. His answer was "So no need to apologize. You're familiar with pilpul. I with Tibetan scholastic debates, and Platonic modes of argument. In all three cases, one argues intensively (not intensely) to resolve a problem. It has nothing to do with personal animosities, and I'm sorry you have read my engagement this way. Nothing you've said has worried me personally." So later when a proposal made here was passionately dismissed by Nishidani and he then made his remark about his prejudice, I felt a need to explain why this his attitude is compromising the effort to come to an agreement. I admit I did it harshly but it wasn't a personal attack as you say. It's how we appear to best get our points across to each other. Seeing how we both are big boys and able to take care of ourselves, it seems that your stepping in with this out-of-context observation, seeming to have little understanding of what preceded it... well, it's a little out of line and somewhat useless, I'm sorry to say. But I appreciate your concern nonetheless. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Insults are water off a duck's back. No apology needed. I would appreciate it if you were to desist from using words like 'passionate', 'disdain,' 'personal dislike' 'prejudiced practices,' which since they are ungrounded in evidence, suggest you are trying to push me towards an extreme response I am incapable of making.

For the record, you completed distorted my remarks, as our conversation on my page shows. Lastly, neither on the Jerusalem page nor here have your idiosyncratic, policy-averse opinions won any support. You have threatened more or less to revert me if I proceed to make the edit several fellow editors have approved of. Consensus does not mean unanimity. The edit will be made, and I would advise you to respect the consensus we have secured.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have shown above why no consensus has yet been achieved. "Several editors" opinion cannot override Misplaced Pages policy for achieving consensus. Under the present consensus, any edit based on the reasons given till now will be reverted. I have taken your comments about my wording to heart and hope to not ruffle any more such feathers. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of friendly advise and direction, I would remind Nableezy and Nishidani of the following discussion in the same article, which both editors participated in, and where a unanimous consensus over a dispute was hammered out through extensive and careful consideration for all concerns voiced there. In that everyone insisted on this level of agreement for the map, it is perfectly proper, just, and pursuant to WP policy on consensus, to expect the same for the meaning of the name in the article lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, unanimity is not required for consensus. You cannot demand that your view alone is what counts and everybody else is wrong. You have not shown that no consensus has yet been reached, you have only shown a dogged refusal to an accept a consensus that you are on the other side of. It happens sometimes, and, being completely sincere, it is in your interest to accept that consensus. nableezy - 06:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Michael, take it to RSN/Noticeboard. The process here has been exhausted, and only repeats the conclusion at Jerusalem/Abode of Peace. A majority either backs the consensus on the latter page, or has tendered compromises we have agreed to, and you continue to decline. Attempts to distort my technical arguments by attributing to me malicious motives for what is a technical argument that shows your 'thesis' is ill-founded have a use-by date of roughly one second (just in the last few days, you have asserted re myself:‘unfounded disregard’; ‘take offense’; ‘his admiration for linguistic innovation’(?); ‘careless disregard’;‘blatant remarks that reveal severe prejudices’; ‘betrays his derision’; ‘personal threats’; ‘have never received a reasonable response from Nishidani that addressed the concerns I raise’ (replace Nishidani with ‘anyone’); ‘intended to impose his personal dislike’; ‘prejudiced practices’; ) Consensus is not unanimity as any experienced hand will tell you. So take it to RSN if you are convinced a dozen voices aren't impressed by what appears to be an idiosyncratic lone-defense assertive bulwark manned by just one editor. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You might try to stack the deck as much as you like but you'd be hard pressed to qualify support here as "a dozen voices". 1 or 2 is not the same as 12 is it? Unless of course we try to pull an optical illusion. I think we're done here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we are done, we have a consensus for the edit. If you refuse to accept that, well, we can see what happens. nableezy - 14:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's warning: Please stop talking about one another and limit all discussion strictly to edits, content, policy, and what's best for Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia. Not talking about one another includes talking about one another's alleged prejudices or POV; we judge NPOV by the content of edits, not by editors' motivations for making those edits. I would note that this discussion is subject to standard discretionary sanctions under the ARBPIA case. If the personal discussion continues this thread will be closed and a report will be made to arbitration enforcement. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

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

Dispute overview

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

There is a dispute about whether the term "military support" (of Pakistan to the Taliban from 1995-2001) should be included in the relevant lead sentence. Anyone please take a look at below sources and tell us your opinion whether you think

• 1) Pakistan is being accused of "military support" in these sources, and if so
• 2) it is due or undue to mention that in the lead sentence ("From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it.")

Sources

Encyclopedia

• "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
• "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia

United Nations

• "The resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."
• "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."
• "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals."
• "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."

Human Rights Watch

• "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting , Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."
• "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."

Academia

• ”Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …” (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)
• ” Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance”
• "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."
• "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."
• "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."

Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)

• "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."
• "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."
• "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."

International Governments

• "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."
• Head of European Parliament: “ …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society.”
• ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”
• "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan."
• "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."
• French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (talk · contribs)
• TParis (talk · contribs)
• JCAla (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

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

The issue was discussed on the Taliban talk page. There is neither a consensus to use the term "military support" nor a consensus to not use it.

• How do you think we can help?

You can help by considering above sources and then provide your position in response to the two questions posed above.

JCAla (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Taliban discussion

Clerk's note: Mediators/clerks here at DRN should take note of the special conduct limitations regarding this dispute (set out here by sysop Magog the Ogre), which extend to discussion of this dispute by the disputants here at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the use of them having given military assistance, this is widely reported upon and there are sources from the academic press which discuss the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, the support has explicitly been characterized as "military support" in and by the reliable sources and it constitutes a majority position. Therefor it is verifiable and due to present the nature of the majority position correctly. There is no case for dropping a single term explicitly used by the reliable sources to characterize the nature of the support. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - if this is another attempt to jam through JCAla's point of view by getting more people to opine and say "support, the other side is wrong" - then it is poorly intentioned. This issue is quite resolvable if the parties simply discuss the issue without all the side tangents. While I recommend anybody interested post their opinion here and even come to Talk:Taliban, I remind all parties that Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and adding more editors of one's own POV will help nothing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I was about to say, votes? I think User:Darkness Shines's "vote" was copied from the talk page and should be listed as a quotation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not "another attempt to jam through" anyone's point of view. This is simply an attempt to get other people to join the discussion on the very core question. People might be discouraged to join the discussion on Talk:Taliban because of the pure length and missing oversight. Positions are quite deadlocked on this very issue and there has already been a very long discussion. This being a content dispute resolution board, it seems the right place. I think I was able to pose the question in a fairly neutral way. A discussion and possible consensus can go either way. Thanks for assuming the good faith you asked us to assume. (Removed the "votes" formulation so it can't be misunderstood.) Any input on the topic from your, Magog, side or any other interested side on the disputed content is greatly appreciated (whether it is in support of the use of the term or in opposition). It is now up to wikipedia editors whether they want to see that term or not. JCAla (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This has an extensive discussion on Talk:Taliban and it would be tiring to start it all over again here while it can be WP:TLDR for editors here to read that. A related consensus is also present at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The consensus mentioned above by TopGun is not meaningful for this discussion. The discussion was about another time period (2001-today), the specific term "alliance" and the infobox. The current discussion is about 1995-2001 and the addition of one verified term to an already existing agreed-upon lead sentence. 1995-2001 is a period on which there are a lot of studies and the obvious (see sources) majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support" to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very much relevant; editors are free to review the issues stated in the opening and closer's comments. The specific term 'alliance' in infobox and time period were 2 of its aspects. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication

• Augmentative and alternative communication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Two related issues

Two editors might suit some outside opinions with resolving two related issues. Firstly, there is a difference of opinion on the answer to the question of "Are the peer reviewed proceedings from academic conferences considered acceptable sources for wikipedia?" (Two pertinent facts may well be that a: both editors would like the article to go to FAC and have the required high-standard of sourcing and b: the conferences in question are often computer science ones that may be treated differently by some editors).

Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about a paragraph being included in a section of the article, when the content is surmised in the History section of the article. The paragraph in question is

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Failedwizard (talk · contribs)
• Poule (talk · contribs)

There is a great deal of mutual respect between both editors, the conversation has been measured, sedate and reasonable on both sides thoughtout; however it certainly appears (to me anyway) that this is caused by deep differences in philosophy and I think both of us would welcome editors who might be able to offer some opinions.

This step was proposed in advance on the talk page, will post back to talk page now.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

• How do you think we can help?

It is my believe that the dispute is relatively technical in nature and if editors who felt experienced in that particular field where to give us their interpretation of wikipedia's policy on either or both of the issues then I think either or both of us would happily accept the consensus and return to working productively together.

Failedwizard (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication discussion

Hi Failedwizard, and thanks for posting here. Sorry that this dispute has been sitting here for so long with no reply - it looks like it slipped through the cracks. Are you still having problems here? Let us know if you are and I'll have a look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions would certainly be welcome - work on the article has been at a standstill since this was posted. :( Failedwizard (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the United States public debt

• History of the United States public debt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Editing conflict. The first issue should be extremely simple -- is it more accurate to attribute the Federal Government's 2009 budget to Bush, or to state that it is a transition budget influenced by both Bush and Obama. I believe the latter is more accurate, because (for example) the stimulus was passed after Obama took office, as well as the omnibus spending bill. I edited the table to point this out, and my edit was promptly reverted as "POV motivated." I will freely state that I do have a conservative point of view. However, it remains a factual statement that the transition budget should be attributed to both Administrations.

The second issue is that the article includes what I believe to be POV information from the Obama Administration and the NYT, with no countervailing right-wing point of view. Well, if they want to have their lefty POV stuff that's fine, but they should be willing to admit that it is POV, label it as such, and be equally willing to balance it out with some right wing POV. Then we would have a balanced article that includes both sides.

However, when I tried to include some right wing POV, they simply reverted it, stating that it was POV. Apparently they think their POV is fine and mine is not.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• William Jockusch (talk · contribs)
• Achowat (talk · contribs)
• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)

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

Yes, I notified them both. Achowat and Lawrencekhoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=History of the United States public debt}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, I explained that a transitional budget is associated with both Administrations. This is perfectly consistent with the prior version of the article explaining its ostensible reasons for putting a transitional budget into one Administration. I also raised the issue of the lack of neutrality on the article's talk page. I notice there that I am not the first reader to have the same issue.

• How do you think we can help?

I don't know, I'm new here, but it seems just plain wrong that others are insisting on keeping a table that associates one President with transition budgets, even though the new Administration always makes changes.

William Jockusch (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the United States public debt discussion

In the sense of full disclosure, my role in this 'dispute' was merely in the removal of unsourced POV opining from the page, here, and discussing the issues of WP:V and WP:NPOV on various talk pages. That being said, (and I wish these issues were dealt with on Talk Pages instead of here), could I inquire as to the usefulness of citing a 'President' and having these tables based on percentages done by Republican/Democratic presidents? It seems to me that not only is the flavor of the Oval Office poorly indicative of the Budget process (since Budgets originate in the House, not the Executive Branch) and just ripe for these variety of POV disputes. Why not simply state the year, the Congress that passed the budget (101st versus 102nd, etc) without worrying about Red and Blue or Carter/Reagan? -Achowat (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's request to William Jockusch: As listing editor, please answer the questions in the "Resolving the dispute" section above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an actionable dispute. The government's budget is listed under the fiscal year (even if it were the calendar year it wouldn't matter that much) so 81 is Carter, 93 Bush, 2001 Clinton, etc. Marking budgets as transitional appears to be an attempt to associate Obama with the 2009 budget. The "second problem" listed in the dispute lends credence to this theory. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was motivated by noticing that they were putting a transitional budget into one President's column, the 2009 case being a particularly crazy example. But what's wrong with that? Just as I was motivated by my point of view, others were motivated by theirs. Are you saying that merely because I felt Obama should be associated with a deficit that he was in fact associated with, I don't have a point? And yes, I'm a conservative. But if you look at the whole design of the table, it appears to be intended to make Republicans look bad. Part of the way it does that is by putting transitional budgets into one column. Then there are "averages" at the top, with big red and blue lines indicating the party, and the ones for the R Presidents are worse, which is accomplished by tricks like putting the 2009 budget into the R column. The mere fact that I am motivated to correct that distortion makes my correction revertable "POV material"? Well, why not get rid of the whole table then, as it also appears to be POV motivated, accomplishing its end with a combination of starting in 1970 and the trick at issue here? This noticeboard appears to be saying their POV motivated material is OK, but my POV motivated correction is not OK.William Jockusch (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick point of order here, Jockusch. The fact at issue is whether or not the budgets can be considered "transitional". Do you have outside references to support that they are? Sleddog116 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

CBO estimates that the enactment of ARRA raised federal outlays by about $100 billion and reduced tax collections by about $90 billion through September 2009. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The House approved an $819 billion stimulus package on a near party-line vote yesterday http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012800196.html?hpid=topnews William Jockusch (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see where the dispute is. The only information that these sources provide is the actual numbers of the budget - not the fact that they are "transitional budgets" as you're trying to assert (except for the first source, which is a personal blog or student paper - generally not considered reliable under Misplaced Pages guidelines). None of these sources support the idea of attaching a budget to a specific President - as Achowat said, actionable budgets originate in the House, not the Oval Office. Regardless of the intent, however, the diff in question () is personal commentary. The objective of Misplaced Pages is not to provide a balance by filling articles with non-neutral statements on both sides; the objective is to present a neutral point of view throughout. The only way to do that, in this case, is to simply present the numbers and let them speak for themselves. Saying that something "clearly demonstrates the NYT partisan bias" (and similar statements - they were made by IP editors, so I'm not making accusations; merely pointing out rationales) is personal commentary - what is "clear" to one person may not be clear to someone else, and even if it were, no one on Misplaced Pages is qualified to make such judgments without reliable outside sources (though, in truth, I doubt you will find a credible, nonpartisan source that will accuse the NYT of political bias). Like I said; an article like this only needs to present the numbers, and let the numbers speak for themselves. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research, so it is not our function (as Misplaced Pages editors) to actually analyze the numbers - we should instead either let the numbers speak for themselves or cite content from reliable sources that make such analyses. We do not provide them ourselves. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not part of the initial dispute, but This section seems to be rife with unsourced and inaccurate statements about the Presidents legislative role, almost as if the sole reason was to justify the addition of Presidential terms to the table. I would propose revamping the table seen there, removing the columns "US President", "Party" and both "House Control" and "Senate Control" and putting the numbers in purely by numbered Congress. Get rid of the red and blue, take the politics out of it. Keep it 100% factual and remove this contention. -Achowat (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. First of all, Achowat's suggestion would work for me. Secondly, you are challenging my evidence for my assertion that the budget is transitional. But what is the evidence for the opposite view? And for that matter, if Widipedia should not present original research, then doesn't that apply to the averages at the top purporting to show that Republican presidents run up bigger deficits? Where are the sources for those figures? Those figures would themselves appear to be original research.William Jockusch (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Achowat, your section link doesn't work (hence the red), but your suggestion seems very sound. Jockush, I'm not not "challenging" anything, merely pointing out that your sources don't make any such claims, and the first source you provided is unreliable. Neither of the two reliable sources says anything about a "transitional budget" one way or the other. The budget is introduced in the House, not the White House. Don't make it a partisan thing. I agree with Achowat's suggestion; let's remove partisan politics from the tables and just let the numbers say what they will. If those numbers happen to make the Republicans/Democrats look worse than the other party, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign Web site. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Corollary: It actually doesn't apply to the averages at the top (someone else correct me if I'm wrong) because a mathematical average is common knowledge - all that information does is keep someone from having to put all those numbers in a calculator to get the same result. That's not "original research" - it's just simple arithmetic. Again, budgets are introduced by the numbered Congresses, so attaching them to a particular President doesn't seem appropriate in any case. I'm in favor of Achowat's proposal. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the only question the remains, Billy Jock, if this is an amicable solution to both of us (again, I have no dog in this fight except the Five Pillars) who is actually going to go and synthesize the information on the page? -Achowat (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I also can't help but notice, Will, that a simple discussion was significant to find a meaningful solution to this issue. I really don't think this ever needed to get to the point of the Dispute Noticeboard. -Achowat (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a shot at part of it. It looks like the NYT stuff was already gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'shot' you took at it included the wholesale removal of encyclopedic content from a reliable source. I have since reverted it and fixed the offending chart per this discussion. If you have any other issues with the article's POV, we should probably just handle this at the Talk Page, instead of taking up WP Space for such a non-dispute. Achowat (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

• Otis Redding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Recently I reviewed the article for good article status and failed it on the grounds that the prose is poor. When completing the review I saw that the article had been been self assessed as B class by the GAN nominator, User:GreatOrangePumpkin,diff1 although there was no evidence that a B-class review had ever been carried out. I re-assessed the article as C class.diff2. This was reverted by User:GreatOrangePumpkin.diff3 User:Binksternet endorsed the re-assessment at C-class.diff4 User:GreatOrangePumpkin reverted User:Binksternetdiff5 and has since aggressively stated that anyone can make a B-class assessment and demanded that I give examples of where the prose was poor, although that had already been done in the GA review. I have reverted back to C-class, but User:GreatOrangePumpkin refuses to accept this and has "promoted" the article to B-class again. I believe that if this sort of behaviour goes unchallenged the whole quality rating system of Misplaced Pages is undermined. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)
• Jezhotwells (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

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

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Otis Redding}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Attempted discussion on the article talk page but without any success.

• How do you think we can help?

Hopefully User:GreatOrangePumpkin can be convinced that they should accept the advice of two experienced editors that as it stands the article Otis Redding does not meet B-class standards and that edit warring is not a way to proceed on Misplaced Pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding discussion

How do you thin we can help?

Hopefully User:Jezhotwells can be convienced that anyone can assess an article, except if one of those Wikiproject it belongs to has an assessment department. And hopefully he just drop the stick and stop making point edits, because I commented rudely when he failed the GAN, but at least I apologized.

Have you tried...?

No, you did not.

This is a hopless case--♫GoP♫_{TN 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)}

I was an actor in this little drama—I saw the whole thing play out. I saw Jezhotwells assess the article as C-class, with the edit summary "assess as C , no B class review has been performed." I saw GreatOrangePumpkin revert him 90 minutes later, including the removal of JHW's talk page entry (not good!). I took some time to re-assess the article, determining that it was indeed at C-class, then I reverted GOP and added my endorsement of the C-class rating. GOP then posted a note on the talk page saying that anyone can assess an article, and a minute later restored the B-class rating that he had established. He posted his assessment with check marks to say each aspect was done. He then went to the user talk pages of me and JHW to say we were rude. On the article talk page I said it was not well-written. GOP said I needed more reason than that. JHW said it was not well-written. GOP said examples must be supplied.

Basically, two veteran editors who speak English natively say the article is not well-written enough for B-class, and a non-native English editor who was very much involved with writing the article says that it is well-written enough. In this case I would advise the involved editor to drop the stick. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I assessed it to Stub, because "no Start class review has been performed."; now are you satisfied? Thanks, because I don't want to discuss this nonsense anymore. Regards.--♫GoP♫_TN 15:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. After that, you might want to revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a C-class article, so I re-assessed to Stub. What's the problem now?--♫GoP♫_{TN 16:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)}

Could I suggest that we send the article to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests‎. They can probably settle any outstanding text issues well. As the B quality criterion for text is The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant", then for me, the C seems a very harsh decision indeed and B very much more reasonable. I hope that a third party copyedit will settle the matter and allow us to go on with our lives. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now sent it there. Now, I suggest everyone backs of and lets time sort it out. Leave the article as C for now and anticipate that it will be B to the contentment of all in a week or so's time, and, we hope, GA shortly after. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't imagine how much it was copyedited. So it does not make sense to wait one year until someone will copyedit a few things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The copy edit guild does not take that long. With the best will in the world, it doesn't really matter that much whether it is listed as a C or a B. Concerns have been raised. A third party copyedit is always a good idea. We can all get on with other stuff and let this process run its course. What's not to like? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

British Ceylon or Ceylon

• K. P. Ratnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• C. Nagalingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• V. A. Alegacone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• M. Alalasundaram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• V. A. Kandiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• P. Kandiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• T. Sivasithamparam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A. Amirthalingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A dispute has arisen as to whether the subjects' birthplace should be given as British Ceylon or Ceylon. Cossde believes it should be Ceylon and is demanding that sources are provided for the usage of British Ceylon. Everyone else believes it should be British Ceylon.

All the subjects were born when Sri Lanka was ruled by the British. There is an article covering this period - British Ceylon. The term British Ceylon is rarely used outside Misplaced Pages. Generally Sri Lanka prior to 1972 is known simply as Ceylon. But the problem is that Ceylon was ruled by different countries and there are different articles for each period (Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch Ceylon, British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon). My main concern is that when the reader clicks on the wiki link to the subjects' birthplace they are directed to the correct article. If they were to click on Ceylon they would be redirected to Sri Lanka. The subjects were not born in Sri Lanka. If we were to look at their birth certificate it would say they were born in Ceylon, not Sri Lanka. As a compromise I have suggested using Ceylon (note the piped link). Cossde has rejected this.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Cossde (talk · contribs)
• Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs)
• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• Sudar123 (talk · contribs)
• Blackknight12 (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=British Ceylon or Ceylon}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

The dispute has been discussed at the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Decide if we should use British Ceylon or Ceylon (with piped link) or Ceylon

obi2canibe 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

British Ceylon or Ceylon discussion

• Comment: What do biographies of the subject say? PiCo (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources I've seen don't mention the country, they only mention the town/city of their birth.--obi2canibe 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Instead of discussing the country and appropriate demographic adjective, why not circumvent the entire issue and put a reference to the geographical Ceylon. In other words, instead of using "British Ceylon" or simply "Ceylon", maybe it would be better to say "the island of Ceylon" (an obvious geographic reference instead of a political reference). Notice the piped link to Sri Lanka, whose article explains the geopolitical timespans of Ceylon's rulership. Just a suggestion that the involved parties may want to consider. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree: Yes, this suggestion seems very practical and acceptable. Cossde (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is that the Sri Lanka article isn't about geographic region, it's about a country/state/political entity. The fact it outlines the geopolitical history of the island pre-1972 (when Sri Lanka officially came into existence) is, IMO, not relevant. Many country articles contain history prior their official creation e.g. the history section in the United States article includes pre-1776 history and that in the United Kingdom article includes pre-1801 history. Would it be appropriate to state that, say, a native American chief born in the 10th century was born in the United States or that Alfred the Great was born in the UK? This is in essence what Cossde is asking for the articles under dispute.--obi2canibe 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Under People of British India, there are hundreds of them identified with British India; similarly why the personalities who were born in the time line of British rule in the island of currently named Sri Lanka, can't be identified as they were born in British Ceylon?Sudar123 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically I guess because the term "British Ceylon" isn't in common use, and the term "British India" is. I also suspect that British India was a phrase used back in the 19th century to describe the two-thirds of India that was under British rule; the other third was ruled by maharajahs and was known as Princely India. There was nothing comparable in 19th century Ceylon. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a search for "British Ceylon" and come out with the following hits Google Web, Google NewsGoogle Books and Google Scholar. I don't find "British Ceylon" is an isolated term.

Though we can't compare British India with British Ceylon, the term "Ceylon" was used before and after the independence until it gets the current term, "Sri Lanka" in 1972. So, I am not finding anything wrong to indicate the "Ceylon" before the independence as "British Ceylon".Sudar123 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you were to look closely at the articles Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch Ceylon, British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon these are documentation of the administrations of the particular eras such as Portuguese rule, Dutch rule and British rule. The reader would gain more information from the pipe Ceylon. Mind you there were no territorial changes since 1815 to present therefore British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon actually relates to Sri Lanka just as there is no difference between the Union of India and Republic of India. Therefore it can not be said that Sri Lanka was created in 1972. However British Ceylon is more complected as there was company rule in 1790's, British rule limited to the coastal areas from 1798 to 1815 and this article I found on Encyclopædia Britannica stating that British Ceylon dates from 1796–1900. Cossde (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right - there was only one Ceylon at any time so there was no need for contemporary records to add the "British" prefix. But we here at Misplaced Pages face the problem of having four separate articles and the prefix has become necessary.--obi2canibe 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Prefix problem could be solved with renaming the articles as British Colonial rule in Sri Lanka, Dutch rule in Sri Lanka, etc. Cossde (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A comment which may not directly help the dispute. It doesn't seem that there is any article on Misplaced Pages that gives any explanation as to when the island has been called Ceylon, when it has been called Sri Lanka, what the difference is and why it matters. There also seems to be a confusing interchangeability of use in different articles, so that, for example, the island is referred to as Sri Lanka in relation to a time when it would have been know as Ceylon. I don't know whether this is pure anachronism or what, but the difficulty is that WP isn't doing anything to help me understand. I would suggest that (a) there should be some section of some article about the name-change and that (b) having Ceylon simply redirect to Sri Lanka is not very helpful. Maybe there could actually be an article with the title "Ceylon" or else a disambiguation page. --FormerIP (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support your view that, "(a) there should be some section of some article about the name-change and that (b) having Ceylon simply redirect to Sri Lanka is not very helpful. Maybe there could actually be an article with the title "Ceylon" or else a disambiguation page."Sudar123 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple, Ceylon was referred to as Lanka locally in Sinhala before and after British rule, after the constitutional change in 1972 which lead to the country becoming a republic it was renamed as Sri Lanka, and the English version of the name was changed from Ceylon to Sri Lanka. It does not mean that these are two diffident countries just as there is no diffrense between Mumbai or Bombay since its both the same city. Cossde (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is really solved by giving an explanation on a talkpage, Cossde. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem could be solved to some extent some thing like the creation of: Zaire (disambiguation), Siam (disambiguation), Formosa (disambiguation), Zanzibar (disambiguation), Persia (disambiguation).....etc.Sudar123 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But the preference is, there should be an article with the title "Ceylon".Sudar123 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceylon (disambiguation) is already there. But we should come to some consensus whether to use the British Ceylon or a re-direct to Ceylon (disambiguation) or a new article on Ceylon.Sudar123 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So, given that there is no article titled "Ceylon", "Ceylon" should redirect to the dab page, rather than to "Sri Lanka", at least for the time being. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The current situation where it redirects to Sri Lanka is wholly wrong. There was no political entity called Sri Lanka prior to 1972. All birth certificates, passports etc issued before 1972 would have said Ceylon or something equivalent.--obi2canibe 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Agreed.It makes no point in having two different articles for the same thing. The political entity of Sri Lanka can claim its roots to 1815, as the the island became physically a single political entity/administrative territory in 1815 and constitutionally in 1819/1820. The current "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka" as it would provide the reader the best amount of information at present (not in the talk page). The article China leads to the PRC and not the Republic of China. Cossde (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, the China article doesn't lead to the People's Republic of China article, it's the opposite - the People's Republic of China article redirects to China.--obi2canibe 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is because they are one and the same. Cossde (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the disambiguation page for Ceylon, the name "Ceylon" is, itself, a British creation. The disambiguation page says, "Ceylon is the former English name given to Sri Lanka, by the British, under their occupation of the island nation in South Asia." While it's true that Sri Lanka did not exist as a political entity until later, the island itself has been Sri Lanka since at least colonial times (all of this is referenced in other WP articles about Sri Lanka; I can provide examples if anyone questions it). Before the island was inhabited by Europeans, it was divided into seven kingdoms (specifics of which would, of course, be rather impractical in the lead section of this article and also anachronistic). If you disagree with redirecting to Sri Lanka, what would you propose instead? (Keep in mind, however, that the Sri Lanka article does not refer to the political entity, but to the island itself.) To say that a redirect to Sri Lanka is not appropriate essentially means that you're saying the Sri Lanka article itself is in need of major, fundamental reconstruction. If that's the case, then so be it (I'm neutral in this matter, just trying to mediate), but there would have to be a lot of serious discussion on the Sri Lanka talk page before that can happen, and we'd probably need to enlist the help of some copy-editors. A possible third option: it seems like a long way around, but would it possibly be appropriate to create a piped link to the Sri Lanka article that points specifically to the section entitled "Sri Lanka under the British rule" (a link like "Ceylon")? At the top of that section, we could add a see also link that goes to the British Ceylon article. It seems complicated - and, in fact, it is, but if this were a simple matter, we likely wouldn't be here - but it might be the best option for doing a neutral link. What are your opinions? Sleddog116 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem complicated to me. It isn't about whether the name is British or Sinhalese, because redirects should never be political (in point of fact, the origin of "Ceylon" is Arabic, from when the island was under Mughal rule). The purpose of a redirect is to get the reader to the information they are looking for by the quickest route, and a reader who types in "Ceylon" is not going to the looking for information about what we now call "Sri Lanka" (or else that is what they would type in). --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether the biographies of various people should say they were born in "Ceylon" or "British Ceylon". I gather they were all born during the British colonial period. "British Ceylon" looks very odd to me in that context (see K. P. Ratnam for an example. I'd say "Ceylon", with a pipe if you like to the article on British-period Ceylon. PiCo (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If the piped link went to the dab page, that might obviate the need for a link with a | in it. The fact that there's a dispute about it might just indicate that we have our titling wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Id say leave the current pipe as it is since it leads to Sri Lanka, which states "Known until 1972 as Ceylon" in the first line of intro and the history section provides added information. Please keep in mind that Ceylon was used during British rule and post British rule as well. Cossde (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue - Ceylon may mean different things depending on the context. Simply redirecting the article to Sri Lanka ignores the four articles with "Ceylon" in their titles and gives the wrong impression to unfamiliar readers. The Ceylon article should either redirect to the dab page or preferably the Ceylon article should itself be the dab page.

Ceylon with a piped link to British Ceylon was my first compromise offer (rejected by Cossde). Around 30 other BLPs give the place of birth as British Ceylon suggesting that it's not that odd. This includes three prime ministers and three presidents (including the first PM of independent of Dominion of Ceylon and the current president of Sri Lanka). The British Ceylon article is a perfectly good article and shouldn't be bypassed.--obi2canibe 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent weight

• Apparent weight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Article was proposed for merger; consensus among small number of editors who discussed was merge. After no activity on discussion after six days, I merged the article. It was reverted against discussion.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Nobody Ent (talk · contribs)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed on talk page

• How do you think we can help?

Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Weight discussion

Well, I just don't see the necessary consensus to move the article. There was insufficient input in the merger discussion. And you can't then just count heads and declare that 3 for merger and one against is a consensus for merger after 6 days. Why not at least ask the previous editors of that page or aks other editors altoghether. In the first section of the talk page you can read why the article was created, most of the objections raised to motivate deletion/merger were actually answered right there back in 2005 when the article was created. Some of these editors still contribute to Misplaced Pages, they may want to know about an article that they created back then being proposed for redirection now in 2011 because 3 editors don't like the very concept of "apparent weight". Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: Being that the discussion Count Iblis references is from 2005~2007 and taking into considerartion Consensus can change is it not reasonable to let the merge request move forward? If editors can't be bothered to help support the article after they've voted it Keep at a Articles for Discussion then should we leave a unreferenced article in place? Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: 'Insufficient input' is a weak argument when determining consensus. Failure to vote (or in this case, failure to !vote) simply helps the prevailing side. All concerned editors (if there is a reasonable expectation that they are familiar with the issue) who have not commented are, in effect, simply saying "Either way is fine by me". We have to reasonably expect that anyone who has edited or intends to edit the article has the page watchlisted and is familiar with the goings-on of its Discussion page. Reading only your comments on this page, I feel fairly confident that 3 editors in favor and one lone dissenter does, in fact, meet the requirements of WP:CON for such a move. -Achowat (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, 6 days is nothing. I have had just 30 minutes or so in the last 6 days. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked WikiProject Physics for input, but I couldn't help to give my rather negative perspective on this whole episode there. The article being unreferenced isn't a problem for this type of article, and it isn't actually totally unreferenced; thing is that you don't need to cite the specific examples that are given (in practice you often can't cite such examples, you don't want to copy the same examples as given in a textbook). So,this is just an argument invoked to get the article deleted/moved, because they don't like it. I really can't make anything else of this. After all we do have many physics and math articles here for which exactly the saqme objections could be raised. And no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be invoked to counter my argument here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I just see that the consenus has evaporated, one new editor came along and agreed with me. Clearly, it was wrong to suggest here that 3 editors can constitute a consensus, at least in this particular case given also their previous stance taken on this issue. That leads to instability, as just one new editor can then completely change things. The whole point of consensus is that it brings with it a degree of stability. Count Iblis (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten from scratch with sourced material; I considered the matter resolved and propose closure. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

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

Dispute overview

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

There is a disagreement on how to best capture and present the weight of RS specifically in the context of a definition in plain English. In my opinion our article is currently not reflecting the weight of the sources, and is employing language which seems open to a wider range of interpretation than seems justified by available sources. My position is that we need to move closer to:

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Unomi (talk · contribs)
• Dannyno (talk · contribs)
• Robin Lionheart (talk · contribs)
• Modocc (talk · contribs)
• JimWae (talk · contribs)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs) 

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Lots of discussion on the talk-page spanning multiple sections:

• Talk:Atheism#Source_Review_-_Definitions.
• Talk:Atheism#juxtaposition_with_agnosticism_as_the_consensus_position

• How do you think we can help?

We need a mediator who is familiar with philosophy who can help us keep on track and help resolve potential confusion regarding terms of art.

un☯mi 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism discussion

I am not sure if sources from Talk:Atheism#Sources_re_agnosticism_delineation should be copied here wholesale or whether we should consider them one at a time? un☯mi 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm replying here because I have been listed as an involved party, and I have been a long-time editor of the page, but I actually have not been involved at all in the discussion that this request is about. As a long-time editor of the page, I'm very well familiar with the reasons for the brightly lit notice at the top of Talk:Atheism. The talk page perennially gets walls of text about, well, how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin. Editors chronically agree that the definitions of atheism, and of how atheism resembles and differs from related topics such as agnosticism, just don't quite capture the perfect précis that individual editors desire, but editors seem never to arrive at consensus for anything better than what the page says now. Largely at Unomi's impetus, we have recently made some helpful brief additions to the article about the relationship with agnosticism. I think those additions have been good. I'm aware of, but have pretty much stayed away from, the wall of talk page text about whether or not to include something or other from EB. I don't much care, and I have come to find such conversations to be lengthy and unproductive time sinks. From a distance, it looks to me like Unomi is taking one position about the EB material, and several other editors say that they are not convinced by Unomi's arguments, and that's how we got here. I think one good solution might be for a few more brave souls to wade into the source material and provide some third+ opinions. Another might be for Unomi to accept that their arguments have not gained consensus, and move on. Whichever way that goes, I wish those involved good luck and happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is made sufficiently clear what the dispute is about. I think the first para of the article is unclear. Why are there broad, narrow and inclusive definitions? What is the difference between "broad" and "inclusive"? Please don't answer these questions - I am just pointing out that they are likely to go through the mind of the poor, confused reader.

The problem with appealing to definitions in tertiary sources is that, although they might be authoritative (not necessarily definitive, but authoritative) as to current usage, they may not capture subtle shifts in meaning that have occurred over time. The EB definition above, for example, seems to me to be correct now, but it might not be adequate in describing things as they were a century ago. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, that thing about broad, narrow, etc., has been very much at the center of all that perennial talk. I understand how the poor, confused reader may feel, and I hope editors new to the issue will understand how the poor, confused editors feel. Gazillions of digital pixels have been spilled trying to find a better lead paragraph, to no avail. You'd be amazed to see how many even-worse versions can be generated. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the article could be said to be confusing because the myriad contradictory ways atheism is idiosyncratically constructed in the literature are also confusing. Misplaced Pages cannot resolve what is a problem in scholarship as well. I put that forward only partly in jest; there's a serious point there too. --Dannyno (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. We cannot do better than what the source material permits us to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've watched that page for years and have entered into the discussion on rewriting the lead in some of the seemingly monthly debates about it. The lead is in disagreement with all the other non-theist articles like agnostic and ignostic and the sources they use to define the terms contrasted with atheism. The one source that I consider the root cause of the lead's problem is the religioustolerance.org's essay on atheism. Their lead contradicts the lower section of the essay where agnostic is clearly defined. They openly admit that they capitalize Atheism because they consider it a religion.

The authors of the essay are not noted scholars on religion and some of the sources they use are not WP:RS and they have an agenda to change the meaning of the word. For these three reasons I will, as I have before, suggest it be excluded as a reliable source and the lead written from better sources. Alatari (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Tryptofish that this debate is endless and I have little hope of seeing this settled. --Alatari (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also have watched the article for a long time but have seldom participated due to the absurd debates over definitions, and resolution would be appreciated. I agree that religioustolerance.org is not a suitable source for any kind of definition because that site has an agenda (possibly a very noble agenda, but nevertheless they are promoting something and are not claiming any scholarly expertise in the field). If reliable secondary sources cover the points made at religioustolerance, keep the points with new references; otherwise, remove them. A word like "atheism" is always going to attract controversy (where some regard it as a deadly insult, and others as a badge of honor), but it should be fairly easy to define the term providing only scholarly sources are used (and it may be necessary to note differences of opinion about the term's meaning, but only if covered in scholarly sources). Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I opened a discussion on religioustolerance.org at RSN here.

I included editors that I felt were long-time contributors to the article because I wanted to ensure that any outcome of this discussion could be held to have had wider input.

Much of the discussion seems to have been prolonged unnecessarily due to interpretation issues with "reject", "positive denial", "extralinguistic referents" and other terms of art which I hope can be refereed more successfully here. I don't think that 3o would have helped build lasting agreement. un☯mi 09:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have always (since starting out as a contributor in 2005 I think)held that it is important to reflect the diversity of meanings "atheism" has. I would support a more in-depth, RS-supported, NPOV discussion of why this diversity exists. Comments above such as "it should be fairly easy to define the term" rather overlook the ink spilled in the literature by individual scholars arguing for their own understanding. Fact is, it isn't an easy term to define. Also, the discussion on the talk page is very fragmented. It can be hard to follow a line of argument. I would welcome Unomi giving a clear, concise, explanation of exactly what it is they are trying to do, and why. This is rather lacking at the moment, in my opinion, and I suspect it may be possible to agree on at least some of the problems even if we cannot agree how they could be fixed. --Dannyno (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am happy to see that we have more editors involved now.

As I stated when I initially opened this request, I would like to see a better usage of plain English in especially our opening definition.

From my reading of sources, a contemporary 'plain english' definition could be:

"Atheism is the position that the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition does not exist, it can also refer to a general position that no gods exist."

From there we can go into more detail regarding arguments and the position of the innocents ( newborns etc. )

Quality tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica support this plain English reading, imo. There seems to be widespread confusion regarding the definition due to statements made by popular writers such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins - but they seem to be giving a novel reading to the word which has not seen much in the way of support in scholarly works. un☯mi 13:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Disbelief...", "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs..." and "rejection of belief..." are similar constructs that can be more broadly interpreted than "the position that the god... does not exist". Some authors (and editors) such as Eller dispute that there is a difference between "not believe" (to be without belief) and "believe not" and argue for a strict conception such as the unambiguous position that deities do not exist. But, anyone can verify that there are in fact broader dictionary definitions for rejection, disbelief, denial and atheism; and the term "rejection" or any of these terms are by no means terms of art and each can be broadly or narrowly construed in accordance with their usage. Thus, to interpret the Britannica in such a narrow way only, is not only unverifiable, it would be the equivalent of stating "Atheism is the denial of gods or God" when a particular source says "Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of gods or God", thus leaving out the disbelief part. Dictionaries often give more than one definition too, precisely because they are not the same, and of course, the difference between "not believe" and "believe not" is essential to a nontheistic agnostic (or agnostic nontheist). Thus, its the rare argument that there is really no difference between these assertions, although it seems somewhat uncommon for agnostics to assert they "are without belief", but all self-identifying atheists certainly will. In addition, the most inclusive definition, which essentially identifies every nontheist as being an atheist, encompassed by the terms "absence" or "lack" is included in Martin's Encarta Encyclopedia piece,"Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."; the BBC website (as merely an example of its prominence at the very least) "Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings."; and the Princeton University's WordNet database as can be seen on Onelook "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Sure, the broadest definition is not a primary meaning as Martin is quick to point out, yet it is a minority position per wp:NPOV included in our article that should not be removed from the first paragraph, which defines the article scope, as proposed, nor does the Britannica text directly support the proposed text. --Modocc (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ninjutsu topic area

Dispute overview

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

Let's see, background...A while back I started editing the Togakure-ryu article because I had heard about it needing work from somewhere on Misplaced Pages. I quickly found out that both that style and all Ninjutsu topics are very much disliked within the martial arts world. Running up against Wikiproject Martial Arts users, I made compromises in the article to add qualifying words to point out author's affiliations with ninjutsu and how this and that is a primary source, ect. Since then, i've been doing small work here and there in the topic area, but i'm often appalled by how much effort is put into making sure the topics are described as being not real. For example, this book and the quote "The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja ... No ninja exist today" from pages 130-131 has been added to a vast number of ninjutsu topics to act as a negative comment on whether Togakure-ryu and other styles are real ninjas. However, the full quote adds, "Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on Ninjutsu", with Hatsumi being the leader of Togakure-ryu. So, it's easy to see that the quote is not meant by the author to be negative, but is being used with specific wording as something negative on Misplaced Pages. There's a bunch of other issues that have occurred that are similar to this.

However, the reason that broke the camel's back and spawned this report is because of this sort of edit, which has been done to two articles on the leaders of the Togakure-ryu style (Hatsumi and Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu) and the ninjutsu organization Bujinkan. (Note that the Bujinkan article was tagbombed a month ago by Wikiproject Martial Arts users.) And counter that to the addition of these sources, which don't even mention Hatsumi or Togakure-ryu (And the Iga museum one also being a primary source).

I don't know how to deal with this sort of editing. Any attempt to improve any of the articles within the Ninjutsu topic area is met with resistance and continued addition of negative, often unimportant and irrelevant, material. Along with the addition of tags and other things with no attempts at actually fixing the articles in question. Silverseren 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition: If you want to see a clear look at the negative POV pushing in this area, just look at the Modern Schools of Ninjutsu article. Silverseren 03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Silver seren (talk · contribs)
• Stvfetterly (talk · contribs)
• Wikiproject Martial Arts (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ninjutsu topic area}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There was a past discussion on this noticeboard here, which ended with a compromise on the Togakure-ryu article. In terms of the current issue that spawned this, I reverted the addition of primary source to the sources, but was reverted back by Stv. This report is supposed to be about the overall issue with the topic area, however, not any specific article.

• How do you think we can help?

Help explain which method is proper here, what i'm trying to do or what they're trying to do.

Silverseren 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ninjutsu topic area discussion

I have informed Stv about this discussion, but i'm not sure if i'm meant to inform Wikiproject Martial Arts as well. What i'm concerned about is that this discussion may become deluged with a number of the group criticizing this report (which may happen anyways if they watch Stv's talk page). Silverseren 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nobody on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Martial arts monitors my page, so if you have a grievance with a particular topic it might be a good idea to bring it up here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Alerts--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Identifying primary sources in Ninjitsu articles

I think this is the main issue Silver Seren is complaining about here (can't really tell from the above blurb - so please correct me if this is wrong).

I've added 'primary source - explanation of where the source came from' to references in various ninjitsu related articles. I'm doing this because the Bujinkan organization is the primary publisher of many articles related to their brand of ninjitsu. They have a vested interest in supporting historical/lineage claims. To the average wikipedian, it looks like there are many neutral references on the following pages: Bujinkan, Masaaki Hatsumi, and Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu when in fact they're largely composed of articles, books, and websites published by Bujinkan members. By adding to these references some context it helps to identify article information sources. Especially in the Bujinkan article which relies heavily on primary sources, this can be used to easily identify sections in better need of references (also helps to keep people from removing the 'primary sources' tag mistakenly).

I got the idea from the To-Shin Do page where primary sources are also listed. It seemed like a good way to be able to simplify the writing of the article without putting 'Bujinkan sources say...' everywhere. I checked WP: Reference and didn't find anything that expressly forbids this practice. If an admin deems that this is unacceptable then I'll remove this identification from the sources.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Silver seren, Stvfetterly - thanks for posting here and sharing your concerns. I think I can see where this dispute is stemming from. There seem to be legitimate reasons to doubt the authenticity of the historical lineage of modern ninjutsu, and it is not hard to imagine that the Bujinkan organisation could have a vested interest in making that lineage seem authentic. For this reason I think it would definitely pay to be careful about using primary sources in this article. On the other hand, we should be careful not to go too far in the other direction and treat the subjects in a negative light just because of the ancestry issue - taking Hatsumi as an example, it seems clear that he has made remarkable achievements in his life. We should not let any doubts about ancestry cloud the very real achievements he has made.

About Silver seren's initial complaint - it may be that we have systematic negative writing about ninjutsu, I'm not sure; however, I think it would be a mistake to claim that this is due to bias on the part of other editors or on the part of WikiProject Martial Arts. These are subtle editorial decisions, and I think the way to go here would be to take each decision in turn. As to the matter of references - I think it is probably an error to include the text "primary source" in the actual reference. It isn't really necessary for the reader, unless they are doing research (and then they should be able to tell that it's a primary source anyway). I do see how it could be useful for editors, though. As a compromise, how about including it as an HTML comment? (By the way, if you need any help with Japanese-language sources, I may be able to assist - I can't read kanbun though!) Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Sounds reasonable to me, adding as HTML comments would still keep the information for anyone who wants to look. Seren? --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with HTML comments, as that would only be for editors. It just wouldn't be neutral for our readers to see them. I'm planning on going through all of those articles soon anyways and fix them up. Silverseren 20:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As a passing observer (I was checking a dispute I am involved in) I chanced on this - I happen to have a broad familiarity with Hatsumi's work as a result of some related influences - I'm also vaguely looking for a new project - feel free to ping me if you have anything you want a third opinion on... (I've avoided MA articles in general because of this sort of issue but it's probably about time I got my feet wet. Failedwizard (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Ibrahim

• Khalil Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I have come to read the history of west of Sudan and request any historical evidence of the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa before new Sudan was formed. The issue is the article states that the main land of zaghawa is in Sudan and this does not conform to the fact that geographically the ancinet kingdom of zaghawa lied in the border of the kingdom of the Foour and the maps I have seen fall in Chad. The president of Chad himself is from Zaghawa and his tribe is tremendously influential there. The Foour tribe for example are non disputable as indigenous Sudanese people. However this is not the case with Zaghawa who face the question of their being indigenous (beyond the last 50-100 years) and that they are well known for being cross border citizens. How does the author of this article claims that the zaghawa are basically located in Sudan? what reference does he base this statement on? Could you refer to books that described the history and geography of lake Chad region for this would be an obvious fact!

Whether the old history or the present situation to my knowledge nothing conforms with this statement! And it is not a denial of their citizenship but it makes a major difference between being migrants and cross border citizens (with majority in Chad area) and being indigenous; whether to the understanding of the common reader to the background of things or to the reliability of this article as a source.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 197.252.76.8 (talk · contribs)
• 197.252.76.8 (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Khalil Ibrahim}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

197.252.76.8 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Khalil Ibrahim discussion

It is not clear that there is any dispute here. The Khalil Ibrahim article does not talk about the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa. The article on the Zaghawa people relates what medieval geographers wrote about the place where they live and which kingdoms they dominated, without mentioning a separate "kingdom of Zaghawa". There is an article Awlad Mana with a section The Zaghawa of Central Africa that does state "Long ago, had their own kingdom ... . The remnants of this ancient kingdom can still be seen today." There is no discussion of a more specific location than "Central Africa", and no source is cited for this statement, but verbatim the same statement is found elsewhere on the Web here, which gives "Text source: Bethany World Prayer Center", and from which the Misplaced Pages text may have been copied.

Perhaps the question is best taken to the Humanities section of the Misplaced Pages Reference desk.  --Lambiam 07:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion

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

Dispute overview

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

I added some additions to the "Stallion" article. Among them two resources on a site which was categorized as an unreliable source. As a consequence, my changes were repeatedly removed. After starting a discussion, it came out, after a very long discussion, why my contributions were deemed as unreliable. After having understood how important and seriously reliability is treated on Misplaced Pages, I found one of the major editors of the stallion article come from the same geographic area as a resource which already existed in the article. When reviewing that resource, I found no information about the author or publisher of that resource and raised the question about the reliability of that resource as well. I also indicated that one of the major editors happened to come from the same geographic area as that resource, which that editor had revealed herself. Upon this, my post was deleted, claiming that I had tried to "out" one of the editors. All subsequent posts inquiring about the reliability of that resource were also deleted. It was never my intention to "out" an editor, however, I would like to discuss the reliability of that other resource and whether or not it is a problem that one of the major editors happens to come from the same geographic area. I feel this should be possible without making false and abusive claims that I am trying to out that editor and subsequently delete all such posts. This is currently impossible as all my posts are deleted by other editors and I am told to handle it via Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution which I am hereby doing.

EDIT (IP): I just realized what the cause of the false and unjustified accusations of several administrators such as Tom Morris must be: I stated that one editor comes from the same geographic location as one of the sources of the stallion article. This caused Tom Morris and other administrators to delete my posts without a trace and publicly accuse me of having tried to "out" an editor. Apparently Tom Morris has not read the whole discussion and thus has missed, that said editor has publicly stated herself to come from that same geographic location. As such, I have not revealed *ANY* information about said editor whatsoever, other than repeating information which she herself has previously given in that discussion. As such, I ask all steps of deleting my posts be reversed, and all insinuations, that I had tried to "out" someone be removed and corrected. 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Myself, with various, apparently dynamic IPs: 83.78.114.68, 83.79.154.212, 152.96.235.11, 83.76.247.207, 83.77.224.209, 83.79.89.48, 83.77.194.41, 83.76.236.65, and 83.78.3.62 (talk · contribs)
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs)
• Pesky (talk · contribs)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs)

EDIT: I (IP) Forgot: 83.77.224.215 (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Tried to discuss this on the talk page and on my personal page (IP User talk:83.78.3.62 - my posts were deleted even there with fails claims that I am trying to out someone).

• How do you think we can help?

Ask existing editors to stop deleting my posts and allow discussion about reliability of said resource, also in connection with the coincidence of same geographic location of resource as one of the major editors of the stallion article. Indicating that an editor comes from the same geographic location and might even have ties to a resource, is not in itself an attempt to "out" someone. It can also merely be an attempt to discuss the consequences of an editor being related or linked to a resource, without thereby "outing" the editor in his identity, or trying to do so as was falsely claimed.

83.78.3.62 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion discussion

Having read through the long talk-page discussion, it seems evident that you are intent on using a source that other contributors see as clearly not meeting our requirements - and furthermore, using it, if I understand correctly, to cite material that others have stated can be sourced elsewhere. Can I ask you to clarify what it is that you wish to cite from this source that cannot be sourced from less controversial material? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Clear-cut case of WP:FRINGE. I see some of the material on the source web site has been taken down since I last reviewed it for content, but AndyTheGrump's comment is still relevant; nothing in there to add to the article that isn't already there and sourced to better, mainstream sources per WP:RS. Montanabw 03:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator's opinion (regardless of what the IP thinks, engagement is not involvement): Andy sums it well. We expect to see better sourcing than a single-purpose fringe advocacy site. The IP, who has gained no support through some very long, repetitive discussions, has chosen to try to discredit Pesky, who has very patiently and calmly discussed the subject with respect to Misplaced Pages policy. Dreadstar has removed the IP's speculation about Pesky. Three different admins have warned the IP about their interaction with Pesky. I don't think the speculation to this point quite rises to a blockable level, but it's enough to disturb Pesky, which is sufficient cause to give notice that such speculation on the part of the IP shall henceforth cease, and the IP may expect to be blocked if they resume; they have been amply warned. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AndyTheGrump for your help. I think it is direly needed here. This dispute resolution is not about me having wanted to cite any material. This dispute resolution is about false accusations, by numerous Misplaced Pages administrators, such as Tom Morris, that I had repeatedly tried to "out" someone, as well as about consequent deletion of my posts. The fact is, that an editor revealed information about her geographic location being the same as that of a resource which she had probably added herself. I questioned the reliability of that resource, and wanted to discuss the fact that said editor is from the same geographic location. Apparently Tom Morris (and others) has not read the entire discussion, or missed that said editor had posted the information about her geographic location herself, and thus, I had not done anything than to repeat information which she herself had given previously in the discussion. As a consequence, I am now being accused of trying to "out" someone, numerous of my posts were deleted because of this, some of them without leaving any trace, apparently by Tom Morris and also by others. I am extremely angry and unhappy with the repeated, unjust and public false accusations and insinuations that I had supposedly tried to "out" someone on Misplaced Pages and ask that this situation is resolved immediately and all such accusations are removed from the discussion page on stallions. Having hereby stated clearly what the cause of this dispute resolution was for me, I will answer your initial question:

Having read through the long talk-page discussion, it seems evident that you are intent on using a source that other contributors see as clearly not meeting our requirements - and furthermore, using it, if I understand correctly, to cite material that others have stated can be sourced elsewhere. Can I ask you to clarify what it is that you wish to cite from this source that cannot be sourced from less controversial material?

None of the material contained in the source that I added can be cited elsewhere. The source that I added contains relevant, valuable and in-depth information which no other source contains. I think this is undisputed up until now. The reason for deleting the source I tried to add is not that the same information can be sourced elsewhere, but only that the source were "unreliable" and "self-published", or "fringe". As such, it was deleted, despite containing valuable and in my eyes relevant information for the topic at hand: Stallions. No other source contains as much in-depth information as the two I tried to add about keeping stallions naturally in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. What am I talking about: The sources that I tried to add contain the following: The first source contained an in-depth description of keeping 4 stallions in a group. This source is, in PDF form, a 37-page document and represents a very elaborate and detailed report on keeping 4 stallions in a stallions-only "bachelor" group over several years in Switzerland and adjoining Germany. The report comes from a Ferdi Wirth, Switzerland and was both authored and published by Mark Schmid and his publishing organ, the animaldignity.org website. The other source I tried to add is, in its PDF form, a 12-page detailed general instruction and background on how to keep stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups, with very specific and relevant information to do so, even in close proximity. As stated, I felt that both resources contain extremely valuable and relevant information about keeping stallions in groups, as both give relevant information on the topic which no other source gives. However, I was not aware of the apparently very strict conditions under which Misplaced Pages deems a resource as "reliable" or "fringe". I do understand that a majority of the other editors, while not disputing the quality of the content of said resources (that was never discussed, and probably not even reviewed by any editors other than myself), simply stated that the animaldignity.org website in general is either not a "reliable source" (other than for showing that there are people who believe castration were a mutilation) or that giving additional information about keeping stallions in groups were "fringe", because that form of keeping indeed is still very rare (probably far below 0.00001% or whatever). As such, I was under the assumption, that the discussion about the resources I had tried to add had come to an end and was resolved, with the outcome, that the resources I tried to add were deemed "fringe" or "not a reliable source". Montanabw in my eyes falsely reasoned and justified the animaldignity.org website were not a "reliable source" for information on keeping stallions in groups because the animaldignity.org website had non-mainstream views on other topics, such as castration, and others, that are not related in any way to the subject matter at hand: Keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. Montanabw felt that, simply because the animaldignity.org website held views on other, non-related topics that are not main-stream, it were an unreliable source in general, even for the topic at hand. I disagreed, but dropped the discussion on that, as apparently I was the only one who felt that way. Many non-mainstream opinions are still noteworthy and bear mentioning on Misplaced Pages. This is demonstrated by the same group of editors who voluntarily added / left the resource to the animaldignity.org website about Mark Schmid's view on castration. In the same context I felt, Mark Schmid's view, or rather the report from Ferdi Wirth which Mark Schmid published and authored, on keeping stallions in groups, could also be added. Especially considering that was the topic at hand, not castration. Anyways: To make a long story short: This dispute resolution is about false accusations that I supposedly had tried to "out" someone here on Misplaced Pages. Not about my disagreement with the existing editors of the stallion article on the value and reliability of the sources I wanted to add.

Acroterion: Please stop immediately from making false accusations and publicly insinuating that I had tried to "out" someone. I regard this as abusive and perhaps even slander! Apparently you and others have not read the entire discussion. Otherwise you would (and should) be well aware, that Pesky herself has stated publicly that she comes from the same geographic area as one of the resources which possibly she herself had added. As such, me repeating this information can in no way be seen as an effort to "out" someone. Please do take credit of this fact and STOP making false accusations about me trying to "out" Pesky!! As such, all warnings given to me in context with this by numerous administrators, who apparently were *all* not aware of the fact that Pesky had made this information public herself, that it was *not* me who made this public (I wouldn't have known if Pesky wouldn't have made that information public herself), are not only moot, but disruptive and false. I ask that all such public accusations be removed immediately or corrected everywhere.

"Uninvolved" administrator's opinion by Acroterion: > Dreadstar has removed the IP's speculation about Pesky.

The animaldignity.org site is not a "single-purpose fringe advocacy site" in my eyes at all. It is also untrue that I have, qoute: "chosen to try to discredit Pesky". I see your posts as extremely abusive Acroterion and perhaps even as willful slander and direly ask you to stop doing that. I feel you should or are well-aware that I am in no way trying to discredit Pesky, who indeed, as you correctly stated, has at times, but by far not always, been very patiently and calmly elaborating Misplaced Pages policies. There was never *any* speculation about Pesky, not by me or anyone else. Nor an effort to discredit her. Pesky herself has publicly stated that she comes from the same geographic location as one of the resources which perhaps she has added herself to the stallion article. There is *no* speculation about the identity of Pesky on my part, only the fact which Pesky herself has made public in the long discussion on stallions. See so for yourself: (First) Arbitrary Break, quote:

Pesky: > Where I live, in the New Forest (UK), it's standard practice for our Forest-running breeding stallions to be kept together in bachelor herds once they are taken off the Forest (they only run out for a few months each year with the mares to avoid early-born and late-born foals, which may have trouble surviving).

Obviously, this is the same geographic location as the resource: "New Forest Pony Stallions". There was no speculation on my part at all, on the geographic location of Pesky, nor on her identity, as Acroterion and others are repeatedly and falsely insinuating. I do admit that in one of my posts I asked, whether or not Pesky might be related to the publisher of the resource on the "New Forest Pony Stallions" in any way, be that by family, employment, friends or whatever. However, that is *not* a speculation about the identity of Pesky, but a speculation about the connection between her and the "New Forest Pony Stallions" resource, irrelevant of Pesky's identity. Pesky's identity need not be known, nor outed, nor is it relevant, nor did I try to find it out or "out" it, to speculate or inquire about her connection with the "New Forest Pony Stallions" resource. My speculation was, and continues to be, despite false accusations that I had tried to "out" Pesky, which is simply not the case, that I found it peculiar, that the "New Forst Pony Stallions" resource, which is located geographically in the same area as one of the major editors of the stallion article, was, unlike the resource which I tried to add, not deemed "fringe" or "unreliable resource", despite the facts that it contained A:) Far less relevant information on the topic matter at hand and B:) No public indication on who the author and publisher was. Obviously, a resource that does not even give the identity of its publisher and author, can in no way be more "reliable" than a resource which does so. Even if it was added by a long-time editor of Misplaced Pages. I agree that, as I wished to know, if it is true that the New Forest Pony Stallions resource was added not because of its quality, but because of its geographic location which might or might not be in connection with the geographic location of Pesky, that that would then possibly put a negative light on Pesky and even discredit her somewhat. However, that is not my true intention, but only "collateral damage" so to say, in my, what I feel is justified in this case, inquiry, why the "New Forest" resource is deemed more reliable than the one I tried to add, despite the "New Forest" resource not even giving any information about its authors or publishers (for as much as I could find when reviewing it). So yes, perhaps my inquiry and wish to discuss this might cause discredit to Pesky, but in my eyes only if it is true what I wish to discuss: If the "New Forest" link is deemed more "reliable" only because a major editor happens to be located in the same geographic location, despite the fact that it seems to not contain much relevant information, is "fringe" just like the entire subject of keeping stallions in groups (far below 0.0001% or whatever) and does not state publicly who published it or who its author was. This is what I wanted to discuss, which resulted in immediate censorship on the false accusations that I had thereby tried to "out" the identity of Pesky, which in no way is true. I am not interested in the identity of Pesky in the least, nor in making her identity public in any way. Far from it. The problem at hand here is an entirely different one. Namely, no matter what the identity of Pesky is, that she lives in the exact same geographic location of a resource, which I see as no more reliable than the resources which I tried to add and which were deleted by her and other major editors of the stallion article with various reasoning with which I agree with only in part. -- Regards 83.77.224.215 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Pesky

The "outing" borderline-transgression arises from the IP editor claiming that sources mentioned were "Pesky's own site" (which was actually an entirely false accusation in any event). The source for the fact that, in this area, breeding stallions are kept in groups together (refers to "22 stallions are in the grazing at Cadland") comes from the New Forest Verderers' Court which has legal powers for the area. My concern was that this IP editor might - deliberately or otherwise - actually hunt down my genuine own site, at which point it's easy to find my real-life details. The IP editor was getting so extremely aggressive, making false claims that I was attempting to censor the article "in order to promote my own horses" (which I would think was abundantly clear to almost anyone as an attempt to discredit me, by stating that I was using, and censoring, Misplaced Pages in order to promote my own horses) and suggesting that the sites cited may be run / owned by connections (friends, family, employers) of mine (also not true), and stating as an almost-certainty that one of the sites was "Pesky's own site" (also untrue), that I had to give serious consideration to the possibility that their next step might be to dig up information on me in order to "out" me, as they had already come close to a real attempt to do so, with their speculations on site ownership. Giving the benefit of any doubt, and to be entirely and scrupulously fair to the IP editor, they may not have realised that speculating on the identities of another editor's website ownership, real-life friends, family or employers amounts to "attempted outing". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from IP: I haven't read this newest post yet, sorry. This whole ordeal is starting to take an emotional toll on me. I need some time to rest. Please have a little patience for any further replies from me. -- Regards. 83.78.152.226 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, do, take a little break, go out for a walk, have a cup of tea, etc. Dramah like this does take a severe toll on one's stress levels - it's horrible to find oneself tangled up in this stuff, especially when one's dropped into it at the deep end. As far as group-keeping of stallions goes, I'm actually wholly onside as to it being probably the best way of keeping stallions. It's only that we can't give this more weight in that article, by Misplaced Pages policies. I had, when I came back to WP after a long break, an extended discussion with other editors about something else horse-related, but happily discovered some really wonderful editors and mentors here, and have since been able to work in a delightful collaborative atmosphere with the people who had to gently steer my own enthusiasms in the right direction. We don't hate you - we just need to find a way of using all that wonderful energy you have in a really productive way, to the benefit of readers for generations to come. Just adding - if I could give you a real-life granny-hug (>**)> - and take you gently by the hand and lead you, saying "Walk with us this way - this way works; this way causes you no pain, this way you'll find amazing people to work and collaborate with," - then I would do it. There is a way forward which you'll find rewarding and invigorating; trust us and walk with us. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now added another citation to the Verderers' Court minutes referring to the group-keeping of stallions, and clarified in the citation of the nfstallions site that the site has photographs and video of group-kept stallions. Hope this helps. Note: actual video of group-kept stallions, regardless of ownership of the site on which that video is hosted, is considered "reliable" as to the contents of the video. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@IP: Take a break if you want, there's no deadline, and please remember that this is only an encyclopedia; it's not worth stress in real life. Pesky is one of our most patient editors, and her advice is well-meant and worth taking. I was (and remain) concerned that you're taking this too seriously. The object here is not to win, but to collaborate with other editors to create a better result than any individual might achieve. This isn't easy, as you've doubtless noted. It may also mean that well-meant efforts are rejected by consensus as not meeting Misplaced Pages policies. You've stepped back from the personal inquiries that concerned us (if it had continued, you'd have been blocked - the fact that you're not blocked is evidence that the matter has been resolved). Acroterion (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify for the non-equestrian folks here, the point is NOT at all about what this IP calls "group-keeping" of stallions, because what the rest of us call by various terms -- "natural management" or "herd management" -- is actually quite commonplace in stallion management worldwide. The IP has three basic problems: 1) Trying to "out" another user, 2) Trying to use this web site as a RS for information on natural management when far better material exists, and 3) Failing to understand that his web site source is fringe and thus only useful as a source for the statements of those with fringe views (i.e. the position that gelding of male horses is psychologically damaging to them). Pesky's info on the New Forest Ponies is supporting information (along with the material on Lipizzans) that shows that natural management IS one of several mainstream stallion management concepts, contrary to this IP's claim that somehow it is not. Montanabw 06:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeat of original Request by IP

With this ordeal here, it has become clear to me that the abuse of power unfortunately is indeed very possible and perhaps frequent on Misplaced Pages (much like in other places I guess). And it saddens me tremendously to have to see and experience this. I had much, much better expectations about Misplaced Pages, to which I am new. But I guess it's "human". All the same, no reason to tolerate it in my eyes. I can only repeat: I am being slandered here by several editors and administrators, even after it has become clear that these are entirely false and totally groundless claims, that I had supposedly tried to out someone (Pesky) which is not true in any way at all. I feel this has been and continues to be done with ill or even criminal intent by several editors here, Acroterion, as seen above and Montanbw being two of them. If a supposed "victim" herself states that her alarm was a false alarm, caused by her own, unfounded and irrational anxieties alone, and such editors continue to state that it was not so, that I indeed had done something incorrect or not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and continue to accuse me of it, delete my posts, threaten me with banning me, etc, that is a clear case of slander and abuse of administrator and editor powers which the people in question wield. I ask that the editors in question be warned and stopped from doing so. Especially Acroterion has clearly shown that, even after it has become obvious that his claims that I had tried to out someone were false and unfounded, continues to make such claims and accusations, which comes down to being plain and pure slander. I ask that Acroterion at least be stopped and warned about slandering other people here on Misplaced Pages. Pesky herself admits clearly that it was not in any way the case that I had tried to "out" her. Pesky now claims she was supposedly "afraid", because of my "extreme aggression" (as she describes my inquiry to the validity or her sources). She can not show any evidence of any kind of "extreme aggression" on my part though. She merely perceived an inquiry about her sources as "extreme aggression", obviously not being used to someone questioning her sources as other sources, such as mine, are questioned. In her surprise of having her own sources examined, and her unfounded anxiety of being "outed", these emotions supposedly had caused her to raise and make the false and abusive claim that I was trying to "out" her. And this claim was believed by numerous administrators and editors, who immediately, and without further questions or examinations deleted several posts of mine and uttered very dire threats about being banned. Yes, I might have speculated out loud if Pesky's source is connected to her, directly or indirectly, which seems a justified question to ask when one examines the reliability of a source. The exact same thing was done with me and my sources and appears to be standard procedure when examining the reliability of a source. I find it grotesque and revolting to discover what is being done here: Because I dare question the validity of a resource that was added by a long-time editor with many friends here (obviously), and subsequently she raises false claims I were trying to "out" here thereby, I am being threatened, repeatedly, by numerous people, that I had overstepped acceptable lines, would be banned and am being slandered repeatedly in public as trying to "out" her, all my posts in this regard are deleted, some without leaving a trace in the history of the discussion page.

With the statement of Pesky herself above, it becomes clear that the claim of trying to "out" her was a false alarm and a false claim, caused by an overreacting and in my eyes irrational and unfounded attack of anxiety that was caused by her surprise of having her own sources being examined. Next thing, I am being accused publicly and repeatedly of trying to rape someone, simply because some people here perhaps happen to be afraid of being raped and I question a resource added by them. Please do consider, if you publicly accuse someone of a crime, even someone as me who you might not happen to agree with, with things such as trying to "out" someone, and I think that is a "crime", repeatedly delete his posts, repeatedly threaten to ban him, just because he is making perfectly justified inquiries about the validity and reliability of a resource, you are seriously overstepping your boundaries and abusing the rights and privileges which Misplaced Pages has granted to you. If you do so without purpose and being aware of it, that is one thing. But if you continue to do so even after you have been told that you are in mistake, that is another thing.

The resources which I tried to add were repeatedly deleted by Pesky, Montanbw and others in their group of friends, but when I question the validity of one single source which they have added, I get accused of trying to "out" Pesky, threatened with being banned permanently, my posts are censored, even arguments that are not in connection with that, etc. The people who have done so should be ashamed of their behavior and step down now. Say you are sorry for your mistake(s), apologize and correct what you have done wrong. Do so now. Remove all slander and accusations that I were trying to out someone, or had done so.

Montanabw: You have expressed extreme disagreement with the animaldignity.org website in the discussion, based entirely on reasons that are in no way relevant for the topic matter at hand here (site supposedly would promote "bestiality", author thinks "castration is a mutilation", etc.!). If you have a personal problem with the author, or the other, non-related subjects discussed on the animaldignity.org website, I think that is your personal problem. Even if said views on the animaldignity.org site are indeed not mainstream. Please don't abuse that as a ground to disqualify otherwise valuable and relevant resources. I feel the animaldignity.org website delivers very valuable, objective, "scientific" and relevant information about horses, namely, about keeping stallions in groups, regardless what you, Montanabw may think about the animaldignity site, its owner or about his opinion on other, non-related subjects. And for the other non-horse people here: It's not like what Montanabw is trying to make it look like here: The dispute about the resources which I tried to add is not about the terminology that is used as a name for keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. Whether it's called "Stallion Group Keeping" as the animaldignity.org website does, or "natural management" or "herd management" as Montanabw calls it, is irrelevant. Obviously, the same thing is meant, so it is irrelevant which exact terminology is used. The relevant thing should be the content, the quality and the relevance about the topic, not the wording of a title.

I can't help but notice, that Montanabw is continually gripping for straws here, to justify her, in my eyes, unfounded rejection of the two valuable and relevant resources which I tried to add. Obviously, if all she can complain about in a resource as she does here, is the particular terminology used to describe something, i.e. "group-keeping" instead of "natural management" as she or others may call it, it becomes obvious just how few valid arguments Montanabw has against said resource and thus how unfounded, arbitrary and thus non-relevant Montanbw's opinion is in this subject. I think Montanabw is not capable of judging the resources I tried to add on a neutral, objective and scientific base, as she should as an editor of a Misplaced Pages article. This has become clear in several posts of her on the discussion page, where she tries to discredit said resources, always with reasons which are in no way connected with the validity, value, relevance or quality of the material at hand. In short: Mantanabw obviously has very different and conflicting opinions about the castration of horses and other things which are informed about on the animaldignity.org website, and therefore wishes to discredit that resource as a valid, relevant and in my eyes reliable resource (even if admittedly, it is not perfect or ideal as to Misplaced Pages's guidelines - but which site is?).

But as said, all this dispute about the content of the stallion article is not the original and primary reason why I called this dispute resolution. Even if I do disagree with the opinion that the resources which I tried to add were not valuable or relevant, the reason for this dispute is that I am being falsely accused and slandered as trying to "out" someone. As the supposed "victim", Pesky, admitted herself, her claim that I was doing so was based on unfounded anxieties on her part, not on any actions on my part. Except if you consider an inquiry about the reliability of her sources as a form of "extreme aggression" as she supposedly perceived it. The only thing I did, or tried to do, was to question the reliability of the resource which probably Pesky added, because it happens to be from the exact same geographic area as she comes from. I have the opinion, that if the resources I wanted to add are taken under scrutiny and examined closely, that I too may take resources from others under scrutiny and examine them closely. Such as those added by existing editors. Obviously so far, this is not the case. Because I am not a long-time editor here, with many friendship and sympathy ties to other editors and administrators such as my opponents without any doubt have, I am *not* allowed to question the reliability of resources added by them. If I do so, I am falsely accused of trying to "out" them, am repeatedly threatened with being banned and have numerous posts, including arguments about other topics, be deleted without a trace. That is a mistake.

I ask Misplaced Pages people in power to correct the mistake(s) that were made here. Obviously, my opponents, the editors and administrators which I am obviously at odds with, are incapable of this. Some even continue to slander me, despite Pesky's public admittance, that her claims against me were raised on false grounds (her unfounded anxiety). While I am all for a lively debate and discussion, about all topics and without censorship, this which is being displayed and done here, false accusations of trying to "out" someone, and subsequent deletion of posts and threats of banning should not be ignored in an discussion that should be open and equal. It's enough already that I am not an administrator or an editor here on Misplaced Pages, nor have their powers, nor their friends. I don't need the added hurdle of slander and abuse of powers by existing editors and admins to deal with. Please: Do correct this mistake / these people. Apparently they are incapable of doing so themselves, but instead continue to slander me. I can only repeat what I have already said. Especially with Pesky's own admittance that her claims that I were trying to "out" her were false, you, the other admins of Misplaced Pages have all information and all means in your hands to right at least this wrong. Please do so as soon as possible. Other than that, I don't see anything else I could say or do. 83.77.192.207 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

• Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This is about the Occupy Wall Street criticism section (first paragraph only). I wanted to write a paragraph about how OWS had been characterized by opponents. I wanted to use reliable, secondary sources which directly summarized such criticism. I began looking around, and I found some. They all said the same thing, in much the same words- whether they were conservative or liberal-leaning sources. I took those words and wrote a couple of sentences about how conservatives et al had characterized the Occupy protesters. Unfortunately for my ability to get it into the article, not only did all the sources say about the same thing, they said it in words which sounded hyperbolic and extreme. It would have been impossible to summarize accurately and faithfully what the sources said, without sounding the same way. However, this certainly didn't sound like normal encyclopedic language, and it certainly didn't make everyone look good. The entry was reverted, and heavily criticized. Most of the criticisms fell flat in the face of the sources, and the dispute culminated in a call for me to do all the work of re-arranging the sources so that each word of the summary would point directly to text from which it was taken. I considered it obvious what the sources were saying and that I had given a faithful or near-faithful summary (one can always improve). I had also included extensive quotations in the references. I feel that editors who criticize my summary should at least read the quotations provided. I also feel that Misplaced Pages editors have the leeway to summarize sources in their own words, so that not every word of the paragraph needs to be sourced as taken directly from the sources (though most of the controversial words did come directly from the sources). I offered to compromise by summarizing in a different way, by using attribution, or by using quotes. No one would take me up on this. In the end, I agreed to take out the most controversial word "ingrates," and asked for further objections. There were none after weeks. I inserted the paragraph, minus the offending word. It was reverted by Somedifferentstuff.

See this section of the talk page for full details, and this section for the paragraph we're working on and this for the paragraph as I most recently inserted it. There is current discussion on the talk page here.

See this section for quotations from the sources.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jacksoncw (talk · contribs)
• Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs)
• Becritical (talk · contribs)
• 98.92.184.135 (talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
• 완젬스 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• David Shankbone (talk · contribs)
• Factchecker_atyourservice (very peripherally) (talk · contribs) 

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Just give it a quick gander, and if you feel you can give some enlightenment do so. Otherwise give us a recommendation to go up the line of DR.

B——C_ritical 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street discussion

1. Largest city:
   • "… modern Jerusalem, Israel's largest city …" (Erlanger, Steven. Jerusalem, Now, The New York Times, 16 April 2006.)
   • "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city." ("Israel (country)", Microsoft Encarta, 2006, p. 3. Retrieved 18 October 2006. Archived 31 October 2009.)
   • "Since 1975 unified Jerusalem has been the largest city in Israel." ("Jerusalem", Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 2006. Retrieved 18 October 2006. Archived 21 June 2008)
   • "Jerusalem is the largest city in the State of Israel. It has the largest population, the most Jews and the most non-Jews of all Israeli cities." (Klein, Menachem. Jerusalem: The Future of a Contested City, New York University Press, 1 March 2001, p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-4754-X)
   • "In 1967, Tel Aviv was the largest city in Israel. By 1987, more Jews lived in Jerusalem than the total population of Tel Aviv. Jerusalem had become Israel's premier city." (Friedland, Roger and Hecht, Richard. To Rule Jerusalem, University of California Press, 19 September 2000, p. 192. ISBN 0-520-22092-7).
2. "Press Release: Jerusalem Day" (PDF). Central Bureau of Statistics. 24 May 2006. Retrieved 10 March 2007.
3. "TABLE 3. – POPULATION(1) OF LOCALITIES NUMBERING ABOVE 2,000 RESIDENTS AND OTHER RURAL POPULATION ON 31/12/2008" (PDF). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 26 October 2009.
4. "Local Authorities in Israel 2007, Publication #1295 – Municipality Profiles – Jerusalem" (PDF) (in Hebrew). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 31 December 2007.

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