Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanscottwalker (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 6 February 2012 (→Thanksgiving discussion: question to steve and add break). 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 19:46, 30 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)

Thanksgiving

• Thanksgiving (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 months long dispute in this article about the lede. The very short lede, in the opinion of several editors over the months, is deficient in not summarizing the content of the article. Apparently, there are some editors (Glider87 and Fnagaton) who are adamant that nothing remotely religious be in the lede. The problem with that is the article mostly discusses the origins of this holiday, including religious origins. See, Talk:Thanksgiving#Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution for the most recent discussion. Anupam is accused of pushing POV in the opposite direction. Generally, odd policy rationales, threats of dire wiki consequences, obsessive focus on the history of the dispute instead of moving forward, etc. seem to be employed in the service of preventing progress. In addition, recently, Smallbones has suggested that Glider87 and Fnagaton are single issue editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs)
• Glider87 (talk · contribs)
• Anupam (talk · contribs)
• Fnagaton (talk · contribs)
• Smallbones (talk · contribs)
• JimWae (talk · contribs)
• Johnlumea (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (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=Thanksgiving}} --~~~~ 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 talk on the talk page. There was an RfC by Anupam, where no conclusion was reached. I most recently requested mediation to no avail.

• How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on relevant policy, and help restore reasoned discussion, in the service of making progress on the article.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanksgiving discussion

OK, there's a lot to read through. My initial thoughts after reading the article at present is that there is minimal mention of the religious aspects in the article at present, so it doesn't make sense to me to add that information in the lede of the article. A lead section summarizes the content of the article, it shouldn't add detail that's not already in the article further down. I did come across this version of the article from 2010 which may be suitable, however. It does detail the historic religious aspects of Thanksgiving, which is cited to a few references (and if troubles occur there, you can always be super formal and phrase it along the lines of "X source says that Thanksgiving initially was a religious thing" or something of that structure (X source says Y about Z). Give that a go, see what you can work out. Steven Zhang 10:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When you refer to the 2010 article, the second sentence of the body of the article reads: "Typically in Europe, festivals were held before and after the harvest cycles to give thanks to God for a good harvest, to rejoice together after much hard work with the rest of the community." citing, Morill, Ann "Thanksgiving and Other Harvest Festivals" Infobase Publishing, ISBN 1-6041-3096-2 p.28. Apparently, that has been edited in the present article by at some point deleting "to God" but not the citation. The rest of the first paragraph discusses transfering that thanksgiving tradition to the "new world" using the same source. Can we tell when that was done to see if there was any discussion about it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look through the history of the article, you'd be able to find it eventually. I'm at work today, so I unfortunately don't have the time to find the edit myself. If you do find it, poke me and let me know. Steven Zhang 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there should be an easier way but this is it done by an IP last August without explanation or disussion. Also, btw, another user named User:Kenatipo reinserted it sometime today. I don't recognize the User. At any rate, it seems this edit at the top of body of the article makes explicit what may otherwise be implicit about historical associations of "thanksgiving." Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To add to what Steven said, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the article. This means it should cover all of the important facts, but avoid going into too much detail. There is very little mention of the religion origins of the holiday in the article, so it should probably not be in the lead. However, if more information (reliably sourced) about religious origins can be found, there may be scope for its mention in the lead. ItsZippy 11:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had thought there was (still) enough about religiuos tradition in the current article to give brief mention in the lead but perhaps the focus should be to discuss restoring some of the information that was deleted, as Steven suggests above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the best way forward in this situation. Steven Zhang 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't made an edit to the actual article until 3 very short edits this week. But I had noticed a very bizarre thing about the article and pretty nasty stuff on the talk page a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving and since. The bizarre thing about the article was that its obvious religious origins were almost completely missing - folks do know that it is named after a religious service, don't they? On the talk page it was all about bullying behavior and an RfC that was used only to confuse matters and bully further. In any case I've included a couple of very reliable sources under further reading and will get around eventually to including the material in the body of the article and then the lede. Please don't be complete sticklers though - sometimes it's a bit easier to organize things by editing the lede then adding material to the body! And just to underline the facts - there is no doubt that the holiday has religious origins. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Smallbones on this issue. A small group of individuals are pushing for the complete removal of the religious origins of the holiday as well as the modern practices associated with the holiday. The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 7 states that:

Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer. It is celebrated in the United States and Canada.

Similarly, the Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 states:

Thanksgiving Day is the day set apart for special services in the churches for expression of the gratefulness of the people for the benefits bestowed by the Almighty: it is the day, too, of home-comings and family reunions in the genial warmth of the spirit of the season; the day of bountiful feasts graced by turkeys and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pies, in deference to a custom almost as old as the coming of the pilgrim fathers, for it was with them that it originated.

It makes no sense to remove information a critical piece of information from the lede when other reliable sources explicitly mention the religious origins of the holiday. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think that incorporating the information from this version of the article into the current version would be the way to go. If really required, do it by attributing the comments to the source, but I don't think that will be necessary here. Steven Zhang 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang, thanks for your suggestion. Many individuals still observe Thanksgiving by saying Thanksgiving grace and attending prayer services and masses. Moreover the official presidential proclamations still pay homage to God. As a result, I think it would be more accurate to state that the holiday involves a mix of religious and secular attitudes and observances; another option would be to remove the third sentence from the introduction you suggested altogether. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Arlington Catholic Herald article "Thanksgiving" argues that historically Thanksgiving had religious as well as civil roots.Geremia (talk)

It seems to me that some form of religious roots are all but implicit in the name itself. I have never encountered anything in reliable sources to the effect that the Puritans were being "thankful" to the Indians for their help. That being the case, and the rather obviously religious nature of the Plymouth colony itself, it strikes me as being an all but unarguable reference to their being "thankful" to their god. I grant that, over time, the religious element has to some degree been downplayed, and perhaps, given the secular nature of modern society, rightly so, but that is a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Anupam and John. To eliminate the historical religious origin and present day religious context of Thanksgiving does a tremendous disservice to the reader. Is this more Wiki-correctness or just foolishmess? The sources substantiating the religious nature of the holiday are plentiful. – Lionel 10:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow up comments User:Geremia, User:John Carter, and User:Lionelt. It seems like we have agreement here on the issue at hand. How would it sound if we used User:Johnlumea's sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday."? I look forward to all of your comments. With regards, Anupam 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I might tweak the sentence a little, saying something to the effect of a variety of traditions and activities have developed, both secular and religious, but think the idea in general is a good one. John Carter (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Ditto. I stress the importance to not only update the lede, but the body of the article as well. Steven Zhang 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:John Carter, your suggestion sounds fine to me. Would you mind proposing the exact sentence you had in mind below? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally agree with John and Steven and I would consider keeping the present first sentence of the lede and inserting "secular" before holiday. Then summarizing the history sections in the lede like a variation on Johnlumea, including religious, and then go to present day observance, but as of right now there is relatively little in the body of article about the present day that is reliably sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker, since the word "secular" is mentioned in the sentence that User:John Carter proposed, I might suggest we use the adjective "civil." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would not recommend the word being used twice. But the problem I see is the article still does not much discuss the present. So, the focus for the lead would still generally have to be on the history, after the introduction of it as an at present officially secular holiday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments User:Alanscottwalker. Exactly, if we use the adjective "secular" as an adjective before holiday, then the word will be used twice as it will already be used in the sentence that User:John Carter suggested. This is why I recommended the word "civil." What User:John Cater, User:Lionelt, User:Geremia, and I seemed to agree upon is that the holiday in its present form incorporates both religious and secular traditions. The article about Thanksgiving in the United States includes a section on the religious practice of "Giving Thanks" as is practiced today. Moreover, all the official presidential proclamations to date acknowledge "Almighty God" (see reference). As such, we must not christen the holiday as being "officially religious" or "officially secular." In actuality, the holiday incorporates both aspects for many people (Thanksgiving grace, worship services, family reunions, parades, etc.). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all along. The holiday is BOTH religious and secular. Moreover it originated as a religious holiday. WP:DUE requires that this be represented in the article. I think Anupam's proposal is reasonable. – Lionel 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the same kind of miscommunication plagued the talk page. Again, I'm not suggesting it be used twice, only once. The holiday is legally secular in both the United States and Canada because that's what their laws require. No government official in those countries is going to tell anyone they have to pray or otherwise observe the holiday in any particular manner. Anupam then refers to another article and other things that are not in this article, but because they are not in this article they cannot be in the lead of this article. Is that clear? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why we are not labeling this a secular or religious holiday, but rather, a civil one. The holiday incorporates both religious and secular customs as I demonstrated above and therefore, as User:Lionelt and User:John Carter suggested, the sentence will state something to the effect of "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." (Yes, the word, secular is included). On a side note, were you aware that the United States has a government holiday called the National Day of Prayer? Is that secular or religious? This example illustrates why the word "civil" might be a better adjective to use before the word "holiday." I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you ask about the National Day of Prayer. That has nothing to do with Thanksgiving (let alone, Thanksgiving in the United States and Canada) and it's also secular in that its not requiring anyone to pray or do anything at all. It's also not a legally secular holiday because its not a holiday. Finally, where are "approaches, practices and responses," discussed in depth in the article? The article discusses origins and history in depth but little else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, when you say "civil" and then go on to discuss "religion," it confusingly sounds like civil religion, but that's not what this article is about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you comments Alan, but I do not perceive an objection to Anupam's proposal. On that note, we should go ahead with the change we have heretofore discussed. – Lionel 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as edit warring doesn't break out as is currently the case, for which I primarily blame Anupam for reverting and not raising the issue on the talk page, after doing so. Reasoned compromise is what is really needed here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read my edit summary, it stated: "please take part in the dispute resolution and wait until consensus is reached & administrative closure before making contentious changes." However, User:Glider87 did not make any comment here regarding the modification of the lede. Instead, he chose to edit war and was correctly reverted by User:Lionelt. User:Glider87 did not offer even one comment here despite the fact that he was notified of the DR discussion on 28 January 2011. Who should be chastised for reverting? I've been discussing the introduction here for days, and User:Glider87 has not made even one comment to try to compromise or reach consensus at DR and so he's now allowed to freely modify the lede to suit his own wishes? If that's the case what's the point of even having a Dispute Resolution? I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work. I hope this clears things up. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to talk on the article talk page not here because it keeps involved editors aware of the situation. Anupam you did blanket revert some better changes instead of talking about it. You quickly reverted twice then Lionelt quickly appeared and also reverted twice. Your reverts and Lionelt's were then correctly reverted by someone else with the comment "rv religious POV pushing per talk page -- this is getting ridiculous people, I thought you guys would have given up this nonsense by now". I'm not the only one who sees religious POV pushing, per the talk page many people do. Anupam you started a RfC pushing a religious point of view and were correctly told that it was against policy. Even now after many weeks you are still pushing the same religious point of view here and that is not in line with policy about neutrality. Consensus does not have to wait for people who always push the same point of view in an article. This is not a forum for anyone to push a religious point of view and get their own way. If you want to talk about productive changes that are within the scope of Misplaced Pages policies then I think talking on the article talk page is best. You can find me there. I agree with Alanscottwalker about inserting "secular" before holiday and also agree with Alanscottwalker that using the word "civil" instead would be confusing to the reader. The modern holiday is secular so the lede should definitely contain that word. Glider87 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think to get some productivity out of this discussion, and to allow the editors affected to go back to editing Misplaced Pages positively—I will hold a straw poll below where you can vote your opinion on key topics. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

Sorry, I'm going to be a bit extreme here, but I don't think a straw poll is the way to go here (hence why I have removed it). All significant points of view should be proportionately represented in an article, as covered by reliable sources. The article does detail the history of Thanksgiving, which according to the reliable sources presented both in the article and here indeed had religious aspects. It's therefore my opinion that this information shouldn't be cut out of the article, just because some don't like it. Detail that it originally had religious aspects, but has become more of a secular holiday, but I think it would be unwise, and indeed inaccurate, to state that it's always been just a secular holiday. Steven Zhang 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Anupam won't agree to the lede detailing Thanksgiving "has become more of a secular holiday". He objects to anything that correctly points out this fact. He only wants to add religious history to the lede in a way that implies the holiday is still religious when it isn't, clearly against neutrality. For examples of this look at the option 1 he proposed in the RfC which was correctly called out as being far too pointy. Glider87 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect. I proposed a sentence here that points out both aspects of the holiday, fulfilling WP:NPOV: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." Thus far, User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia have agreed with this statement. I look forward to the comments of others on this matter. With regards, Anupam 03:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The version you proposed did not use the wording "has become more of a secular holiday" and it failed to give due weight to the modern majority secular nature of the modern holiday and by doing so gave undue bias to the religious aspect. Your version reads like this "Societies over time developed a mixture of beliefs that the Earth is flat or round" without giving the reader the correct due weight about the current situation. As said before to push the religious point over and above the modern majority secular position is not neutral. To make your proposal begin to follow the policy about neutrality would have to read more like this "Modern Thanksgiving is more of a secular holiday, however in the past societies that celebrate Thanksgiving developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday". That version begins to give due weight where it is due. Glider87 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you remind you all to keep things focused on the dispute, rather than the editors involved. I stand by my recommendation, to use a variant such as "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." or something similar. Steven Zhang 04:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A point, not all countries that celebrate Thanksgiving had religious origins, some give thanks for labor and production, some give thanks for liberation of their country etc. To reflect that it would have to be something like "While Thanksgiving in some countries originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today it is primarily identified as a secular holiday". Glider87 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that could work, yes. But you could incorporate the rest in as well. Say, something like "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." I'd also advise against removal of aspects relating to the religious elements in the history section of the article. How does that work? (Might need a bit of a c/e though) Steven Zhang 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Glider87 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang, I can accept most of your sentence. "Religious deities" seems like a nonsensical term to me; why not just say "God"? Therefore the sentence would read "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to God, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." If you accept this, you can add it in the lede of the Thanksgiving article and then make a note on the talk page saying that this dispute was resolved at DR. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that quite gets to it, Steve. So, to "ce" (ie. total rewrite), I would rather suggest keeping the current lead and adding to it:  :::::::

"Thanksgiving has roots in religious traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances."

This proposal embodies the major thrust of the current article,and applies in major parts to all countries mentioned. The focus and almost ALL of the article, as it currently stands is Canada and the US and their history of "thanksgiving" celebrations. There are a small group of other countries, with tiny entries. Liberia, a majority Christian nation, (and by its article account, it is still very religious legally and culturally) was a U.S. colony and was run by emigrants from the United States; Japan, (which has practically no entry currently) has its roots in Shinto/Buddhist/Emperor worship religious harvest festival and was in present form, "Labor Thanksgiving," adopted during the occupation by the United States, after WWII. Even, the almost uniformly Christian majority nation of Grenada (whose entry is very short sentence or two) adopted its holiday in response to a US invasion. There is also a church worship service in the Netherlands, commemorating the history of the U.S. thanksgiving. That's basically it. Thoughts Steve? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism

• Libertarianism (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?

The dispute is regarding the inclusion in the lead of a definition of libertarianism that states: "It is the political philosophy that holds individuals own themselves and thus have property rights in external things, or any political philosophy which approximates this view."

The definition comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which states: "Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view."

This information, in my opinion, respects all Misplaced Pages guidelines for inclusion: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. As the publication it is in is a well renowned academic, peer-reviewed publication usually considered (not only in Misplaced Pages articles) as one of the most reliable sources.

I do not argue that the definition that is currently in the lead of the article should be removed (although it is unreferenced), only that the second definition not be forcefully discarded.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Fifelfoo (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Fsol (talk · contribs)

User Fifelfoo has removed the definition entirely twice, in and , but left the reference and the source of the of the definition intact, thus misquoting it. The third time User Fifelfoo solved the problem of misquoting the source by completely removing the definition along with its reference, in .

User Fifelfoo has removed the definition by claiming it is a copyright violation and also reported the use of the words "own themselves and have" and "property rights in external things", as being a copyright infringement (). This claim was dismissed.

• 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.

North8000 (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page)

Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Libertarianism}} --~~~~ 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?

This issue has been discussed on the Libertarianism talk page at .

• How do you think we can help?

A Misplaced Pages admin more knowledgeable about inclusion rules should decide one of three possible solutions:

1. Only keep the current unreferenced definition in the lead.

2. Only keep the referenced definition in the lead.

3. Keep both definitions and state it is variously defined as I proposed here . This solution has the advantage of pleaing all points of view, however I wonder whether it is appropriate (according to Misplaced Pages guidelines) to force an unreferenced definition into a lead.

I cannot suggest any solution as I am a party to this dispute. However, in my opinion, discarding the referenced definition entirely to the expense of the unreferenced one is an even more inappropriate solution than keeping in both.

Fsol (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism discussion

My angle/emphasis in this dispute is 80% about process and 20% about content. The "process" side is that fsol is basically warring their particular content into the lead against consensus. I've been active at the article for I think almost two years, starting when it was in open warfare. My main goal has been to bring civility and civilization to the process there. And so I am against warring this in against consensus. The "20% about content" is that FSOL is basicaly trying to state property rights as a central tenet of libertarianism in the lead. Libertarians don't even agree on this, much less make it a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring this into the lead is that it is sourced....basically to a particular source that states that particular viewpoint. Fifelfoo has copy vio concerns about the material. My gut feel on the way to resolve this is to first resolve the copy vio concerns one way or the other and then to put the material that fsol wants to insert into the body of the article rather than the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue First, I would like to mention that this noticeboard is not actually a place where admins make/enforce decisions. Anyone can comment on these disputes; this is just a place to get opinions from uninvolved editors who may know a little more about the wiki processes. If you need action from an admin, you should probably go to the admin noticeboard, though I think this can probably be resolved without going that far. First, North8000, let me point out something that could be problematic in your approach; you took the right step by taking the problem to the discussion board and here instead of edit warring, but you should not revert edits just because they "go against consensus". Since we have a content dispute, we obviously don't have a consensus; ergo, consensus-related reverts are malapropos. Because the copyvio concerns are being addressed on the admin noticeboard, we can't really tackle them here.

As far as the process is concerned, the main problems seem to be centered around the fact that we have essentially two or three editors, each with non-neutral points of view. (Let's face it; for a topic like "libertarianism" it's not possible for any one editor to be completely objective because every editor will have at least some opinion of the subject. The key here is to keep the article as neutral as possible.) The reason this is causing problems is because all of the involved editors are insistent on getting their own points of view in the article - this is a problem because of WP's neutrality policy. The objective here is not to provide balance by giving equal weight to two non-neutral points of view - the objective is to keep everything neutral. More to the point, the reason the process seems to have stalled is because (as far as I can tell from a quick look at the discussion on the talk page) the editors have resorted to making accusations instead of moving the discussion forward. All of you need to be more focused on discussing the content instead of discussing the editors. Instead of pointing out problems, suggest solutions. North8000, since (I'm assuming) you're the one who framed this dispute here, I'm going to suggest that you start by proposing how you think the content in question should be presented. All the other editors involved, if you don't agree with North8000's proposal, don't point out what's wrong with it but rather present a counter-proposal, explain it, and explain how it is different (not how it is "better") than the previous proposal. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, as a proprietarian libertarian, my "POV" in general is the same one that fsol is pushing. But I don't think that such is agreed upon by libertarians much less being a central tenet of it, so I think it would be incorrect to state it as such in the lead. And my duty there is article accuracy/quality, even if against my preferences as is the case here. My proposal is to (once copy vio concerns at wp:AN are resolved which I am not involved in) have fsol put the material in exactly as they prefer except in the body of the article, possibly in the "overview" section. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog116: Libertarianism has 3 years of argued consensus over the issue of whether bourgeois property is essential to the WEIGHTed scholarly opinions regarding Libertarianism. The correct place to reargue that consensus is the talk page. "One editor does not make a rebuttal" particularly when their argument consists of edit-warring. The article enforced Talk: page sanctions over disruptions to the article by editors continuously revisiting the scope and weight. So Fsol's edits are deeply problematic in this way. Prior to Fsol's edits, we had a use of Vallentyne that summarised his entire article, that was relevant to our article, and that represented the WEIGHT and body of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• As normal with a dispute, the lodger presents an incomplete picture (though this should not be held against them, by the time a dispute has occurred, it is impossible to do so for less than a bodhisattva). As such I will present a fuller version:
  • One editor insists on using wikipedia's voice to express the first line of Vallentyne's article.
    • There is a clear copyright issue with this presentation (see WP:AN), so far one editor commented on the copyright issue externally, and used poor reasoning; the matter is outstanding. As this matter is being discussed elsewhere, we do not need to discuss that here.
  • Vallentyne is a partisan, who fails to conduct an adequate field review. He conducts a philosophical review, of limited merit, dismissing political philosophy and political history. His definition poorly, if at all, represents the WEIGHT of multiple scholarly tertiaries. In particular Fsol is using it to edit war an unWEIGHTable assertion regarding property into the lede, and if Vallentyne is read in full, an assertion which misuses Vallentyne's term-of-art in philosophy "property" as the common understanding of bourgeois private property.
  • Mis-WEIGHTing the property issue over political field reviews, such as Woodcock's field review to 1963, or Long's systematic theoretical review to 1998 is highly problematic. Both Long and Woodcock identify that property is a contested element within Libertarianism; both Long and Woodcock identify libertarianism as a political social engagement, not as a from first principles moral philosophy.
  • Vallentyne is being:
    • Mis-used to misrepresent his major conclusions, in particular by using a term-of-art as a common word
    • Mis-used to summarise the article's contents per LEDE
    • Mis-used as an out of discipline field review, when it is a partisan contribution to scholarly debate
    • Quoted (without proper encyclopaedic attribution) for a single sentence, rather than summarised for the contribution's findings
  • In particular Fsol needs to stop edit warring property as an essential part of the definition into the lede per
    • LEDE
    • Years, years of densely argued consensus over what scope Libertarianism has. I suggest editors peruse the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We could go into a lot of details about the source, what he actually means (as if he doesn't mean what he says) about the quality of the peer-review mechanism, etc. About what one's POV is, whether it is the same or different than that of others, etc. All these are interesting discussions but irrelevant ones for determining inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. The only question that should be answered is: does this definition respect the guideline for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? The guide line does not request consensus (although it is preferable). The guidelines request: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. As this definition appears in a well known peer reviewed academic publication it respects all three. And should thus be in the article and shouldn't be removed in favour of unreferenced content. -- Fsol (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

The dispute appears to be conduct-related issues. Further, the editors don't appear to be active since the last comment by TransporterMan instructing them that this is not the appropriate place for this dispute. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Transmetals

Issues appear to have been resolved. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

List of thrash metal bands

• List of thrash metal bands (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?

In the spirit of standards and improving the encyclopaedia, all articles should follow policy and guidelines, with exceptions if needed.

The issue of the article is the inclusion of entries where the citation mentions "thrash", but not "thrash metal". Our article "thrash" explains that it can mean any number of 5 genres of music. This is a clear cut case of inclusion into the article:

1. An entry must at least one citation
2. The citation must mention "thrash metal" to avoid inclusion of artists (including bands) who do not play the "thrash metal" genre, as evidenced by the article thrash which explains that "thrash" can mean any number of 5 genres-of-music.

The dispute is that I am trying to maintain a standard, while other editors refuse to provide proper citations for inclusion into this particular article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Curb Chain (talk · contribs)
• 3family6 (talk · contribs)
• Mr Pyles (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=List of thrash metal bands}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussed here:

• Talk:List of thrash metal bands#All Thrash metal Is Thrash But Not Vice Versa
• Talk:List of thrash metal bands#Dishonest Revert

• How do you think we can help?

I need more opinions which can create a consensus on this matter, as the edit summary is contradictory to our Policies & Guidelines

Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

List of thrash metal bands discussion

Template:Cue I'm following this discussion with some interest, not for the mentioned list, but for usage in general on metal bands and albums (and not focused on thrash only).
Just recently I decided to change my behaviour from immediate reverting of unsourced changes to adding of citation templates instead, because a lot of information is factual, just not properly referenced. I started out feeling the same as User:Curb Chain (and I agree that IS the policy), but I've come to notice a lot of people either don't know about these policies, are new contributors or hope that by adding the information, someone that does know the facts and policies will make it a better entry. In this light I think removal of content should be the last step taken. Of course this doesn't go for blatant vandalism or anything falling under WP:POINT etc..

As for metal genres in general, I think it would be a good thing if Misplaced Pages doesn't follow the trend of creating a new (sub)genre for every band that differs just slightly from others. I think it's a good thing a lot of metal bands are listed as heavy metal music only, because everything else is a subgenre of this. Maybe a specification that something is thrash metal should still be ok, but when it changes into subsubsubgenres like bandana thrash I'd say no. Maybe create a page called 'List of thrash metal genres' where everybody can dump his subgenre (or even better, 'List of heavy metal genres', so you don't have to create a page for every subgenre of it), but for usage in articles stick to Thrash metal. Solves the whole "the ref says 'thrash' but not 'thrash metal'" issue at the same time. Personally I have great difficulty accepting genre names like nu-metal, djent and progressive blackened death metal (where somebody should now point out in a sarcastic way that progressive blackened death metal isn't an actual genre.... ;) ), they just mean nothing to me, it's all metal!

For some comic relief and to clarify my point I recommend reading this article, specially the 'Metal Genres' section. Don't forget to read the comments, because they instantly prove the writer's point! I hope this is of some use for this discussion, Quibus (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion; it is valued. Unfortunately, the article is not a reliable source, and is offtopic to the dispute. This is a black and white question, and you mentioned that articles should follow polices&guidelines except for extraneous circumstances. I am asking if the article should be following WP:RS or not.Curb Chain (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I have a question. Would I be right in saying that four of the five genres listed at our disambiguation page thrash - namely, Crossover thrash, Post-thrash, Thrashcore, and Bandana thrash - are subgenres of the fifth genre, thrash metal? If so, it would seem reasonable to me to assume that a reference simply to "thrash" as a genre was referring to the top category of "thrash metal". — Mr. Stradivarius 11:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. Crossover thrash is a mixture of thrash metal and hardcore, so that one is still thrash metal, and post-thrash appears to be another term for groove metal, but this one still might count as thrash metal. However, thrashcore is just a form of hardcore punk, and bandana thrash is a subgenre of thrashcore. So basically, "thrash" is a term used to refer to thrash metal (probably its more common usage nowadays) and to a form of hardcore punk. My rationale is that if "thrash" is used solely with other "metal" adjectives, we can be certain as editors that the writer is referring to thrash metal. In any case where punk or hardcore is brought up, we need a more solid definition to say that it is thrash metal or thrashcore. In my view, this does not completely disregard guidelines, as the term "thrash" is being understood in the context of the larger passage.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up these claims?Curb Chain (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My sources are the exact same ones that you used to start this discussion: Misplaced Pages. So unless you are saying that you are rejecting your own initial objection, your comment here does not make sense. As you have stated so many times, the burden is on the editor making the initial statement, so I should ask you: Where are the sources?--¿3family6 _contribs 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are quite confused. Since you added the entry, the citation must be verifiable. The question is that the citation does not mention the word "thrash metal"; this is the source of the ambiguity and I am stating that you have not come up with the proof that the author when 'writing' "thrash" means "thrash metal.Curb Chain (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that you are accusing me of not complying with verifiability standards, but you have not provided any sources other than Misplaced Pages that "thrash" does not always refer to thrash metal. Really, until you do, you have no argument. Now, there probably are sources referring to forms of hardcore punk as thrash, but you have not provided any, and so you have no sourced argument that bands labeled simply as "thrash" should not be listed as thrash metal. As you have asked for sources that thrash and thrash metal are synonymous, I give you this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Both discussions are still active on the talk page.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so what I'm seeing from the discussions so far is that "thrash" is usually used to refer to thrash metal, but not always (as in this link that 3family6 provided on the talk page). Of course, we don't want there to be any ambiguity in the inclusion criteria, otherwise bands who are not actually thrash metal may creep onto the list. I'm wondering, though, if there isn't a way for us to reliably tell if references are referring to thrash metal even if they only say "thrash". Can anyone think of a fail-safe way of telling the difference between when "thrash" refers to thrash metal, and when it refers to, say, hardcore? — Mr. Stradivarius 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think that if the reference makes it clear that the artist in question is heavy metal, we can assume that it is thrash metal. There is pretty much no ambiguity, unless there are mentions of punk in the source in question.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Curb Chain, can you give us your opinion on this? — Mr. Stradivarius 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

T-ara

• T-ara (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?

Naruto82 (talk · contribs) and I are disputing about whether or not T-ara's Leader timeline section should be ordered chronically or reversed. They have stated it should be ordered from latest-to-earliest because that was how it was ordered when the section was made. I have directed them to WP:STANDALONE's chronological ordering section, but they keep stating it is a "special case" when it is clearly not.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Chikazuku (talk · contribs)
• Naruto82 (talk · contribs)

We have had one dispute in the past about T-ara's Current members section, but have since resolved it.

• 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=T-ara}} --~~~~ 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?

I have discussed about the issue on Naruto82 (talk · contribs)'s talk page but they have since started ignoring my messages.

• How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on guidelines.

Chikazuku (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

T-ara discussion

Template:Cue Hi Chikazuku, Naruto82. Would I be right in saying that this diff outlines the dispute you are having? It strikes me that listing the earliest date first is the usual way of doing things - I don't think I have seen latest-first on Misplaced Pages before. The manual of style section that Chikazuku linked to also says that earliest-first should be preferred. Having said that, there is a way you can compromise here: by making the table sortable. How about changing the table using the instructions here so that it can be sorted either way? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsvine

• Newsvine (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?

An anonymous editor keeps inserting the sentence: "it should also be noted that due to the extreme liberal bias of the website, conservative commentators frequently have their posts removed and deleted." I ran into this when I was patrolling the recent changes feed for vandalism. I felt that this sentence required a citation and thus reverted the edit. The anonymous editor then reinserted the sentence. Upon investigating the issue, I found that this back and forth had been going on between the anonymous editor and another editor several days prior. I do not feel comfortable reverting the edit again without getting outside advice.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 173.73.149.9 (talk · contribs)
• Pwtenny (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Newsvine}} --~~~~ 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?

I invited the anonymous editor to discuss his/her changes on the articles talk page but the anonymous editor has yet to do anything but edit the article directly.

• How do you think we can help?

I'm not really involved in this dispute, I'm just trying to do the right thing as far as the WP:NOCITE policy goes. Is this claim not doubtful, doubtful but not harmful, or doubtful and harmful?

-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsvine discussion

I'm unsure of what steps to take next. I gave reasons for reverting the edits by the anonymous user (not cited, not neutral, no reason for deleting things that aren't in dispute) while the changes that person made (and their reverts of my reverts) have no explanation. I added a NPOV box to the article and created a NPOV_disptue section on the article talk page, explained why I'm undoing these edits (same reason Sailing to Byzantium did), asked for the edits to stop until the dispute is resolved, and left a note on the anonymous user's Talk page requesting they work with me to resolve this on the article talk page. Yet the unexplained and problematic edits continue with no discussion. Some advice would be very welcome at this point. — Pwtenny (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue If the IP is unwilling to discuss this on the talk page, and reverts again, you can take them to WP:AN3 where they will likely be blocked temporarily. If they continue editing the article from a different IP address then you can request page protection (temporary semi-protection should do) at WP:RFPP. In any case, the statement needs to be both sourced and toned down, so until this happens we can't include it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Three other editors have independently removed the edits by the IP/user just in the past 24 hours, and another IP has appeared User_talk:108.45.75.145 from the same ISP making the same controversial edit. So this really isn't a dispute between me and the IP/user anymore, if it ever was. IP/user hasn't been very responsive on the talk page where myself and two others are trying to work this out, other than saying "If you don't like it then have this Wiki dropped because I will continue to have this edited back to what I believe is the real truth" in response to requests for a source for their edit. Might have to go straight to WP:RFPP for this but that's a big step for me, since I'm new to Misplaced Pages. Will wait a day or two and see. Thanks for the info and help. -- Pwtenny (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just requested semi-protection - hopefully that will sort things out. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for now, since the IP editor doesn't appear to be willing to engage in discussion, and is targeting this one article only. Deryck C. 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute

• Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle of Jaffa (1917) (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 regarding what engagements should be included in this template.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)
• Jim Sweeney (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=Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)}} --~~~~ 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?

After numerous attempts to edit the template according to both editors views of the campaign discussion has continued on the talk page where no resolution is within sight. During this process Jim Sweeney created a stub article Battle of Jaffa (1917). This stub article is substantially based on coverage of the engagement in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article and really needs to be deleted.

• Comment The battle of Jaffa article is hardly a stub, the background information is taken from the battle of Jerusalem which is reasonable as it was the preceding battle. However Jaffa is part of the aftermath of that article and covered in one sentence All three infantry brigades of the 52nd (Lowland) Division managed to cross the River Auja on the night of 20–21 December. It is a recognised battle by the British, with the award of the Battle Honour Jaffa to the units involved. The battle was not part of the battle of Jerusalem as its around 40 miles away and fought 14 days after the city was captured. It was part of the Jerusalem Operations part of this campaign, which include the Affair of Huj, the Action of El Mughar and Capture of Junction Station (8 - 14 November), the Battle of Nabi Samweil (20 - 24 November), the Capture of Jerusalem (7 - 9 December) and the Battle of Jaffa (21 - 22 December). Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• How do you think we can help?

As both editors hold their views firmly there appears to be no way forward, as things stand. It was suggested by the editor who put a seven day hold on the template to apply to the dispute resolution noticeboard but I'm not sure how it works, nor what to expect.

Rskp (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute

Template:Cue I notice that on the template talk page Nick-D said that these issues have been cropping up on several different articles. Could anyone give us an idea of the other articles that are involved? — Mr. Stradivarius 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago, when the names of the Affair of Abu Tellul and Affair of Katia were changed to battle, there were arguments on the MilHist talk page and I think on the articles' talk pages. There have also been arguments about the name of the Anzac Mounted Division which appears, at this time, to have been resolved. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed this dispute has appeared on the Mil Hist talk page at --Rskp (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I believe all the points have been covered at the template talk page and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#What should be in Campaign Box templates. In connection to the two articles Katia and Abu Tellul, editors were invited to comment at WP:MILHIST. Several editors have commented on the talk pages and a consensus was reached to change the article names to a non POV name. RoslynSKP has never been happy with those decisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the background. It looks like this dispute is being debated well on the MILHIST talk page, and I don't see any sign that discussions there have stalled just yet. Let's wait and see if that discussion finds a consensus before doing anything else. If there is still no agreement after the end of that discussion then I think an RfC might be the best step. You can use my boilerplate RfC template to help structure it if you like. What do you both think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Social Security Act

No discussion on talk page (nor a talk page for that matter). Too soon for DRN. Please feel free to come back once it's it's been discussed to an impasse there

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

SMcCandlish has been trying to gain consensus to update the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) with clearer language at WP:MOS#Animals, plants, and other organisms, with the primary intent of stopping the rampant, willy-nilly capitalization of the names of organisms all over Misplaced Pages (Pallas's Cat, Ball Python, Neon Tetra, Mountain Oak, etc.), using wording that, in his view, represents the facts and the consensus on the matter, and allegedly with the secondary goal of reducing the amount and heat of the seven years of debate about the insistence of WP:WikiProject Birds (WP:BIRDS) on capitalization of the common names of bird species, the debate about which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. His stated position, and that of some others in the debate, is that in order to satisfy both of these goals, the MOS must (not should, but must, for policy reasons) indicate that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial (or does not have Misplaced Pages-wide consensus, or whatever wording), since this is in fact that case, and it isn't MOS's job to arbitrate such a dispute. SMcCandlish feels that Kimvdlinde is intentionally engaging in a tendentious campaign of obstructionist disruption, based on incorrect negative assumptions, to derail the proposal, principally through the WP:IDHT tactic.

KimvdLinde has engaged in the debate about this, and suspects these MOS changes to be an attack upon WP:BIRDS, rather than an attempt to deal with the wider problems SMcCandlish says he is actually more concerned about, much less something that could possibly help rather than hurt WP:BIRDS. She further believes that there is no consensus for MOS to state that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial on Misplaced Pages (though she concedes that it is). She feels that MOS has no choice but to simply endorse The WP:BIRDS practice as the status quo. She also has stated a belief that SMcCandlish has "no good faith" in the matter, and that his real motives for the changes at MOS are simply to attack WP:BIRDS, despite his claims otherwise to be working for compromise (belied by his strong criticism of the project's capitalization and alleged behavior about its capitalization preference, and repeated statements that he thinks the capitalization practice is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages, and that he may continue to oppose it.) She detects, beyond this particular debate, a pattern of opposition, by various editors, to the WP:BIRDS capitalization scheme, which she characterizes as "capitalization warriors" meddling with and attacking the project; she thinks they do not understand the real-world bird naming conventions and are obsessing over typographical consistency.

SMcCandlish submitted this DRN, and is in good faith attempting to describe both sides' positions and actions accurately, including as perceived by each other, but expects that KimvdLinde will wish to make changes to reflect her views of the facts more accurately.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)
• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs)

Discussions between the users have invariably turned into circular arguments, with considerable rancor.

• 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=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points}} --~~~~ 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?

Both parties have had extensive talk page discussions between each other and among other interested parties on both sides at WT:MOS and to a lesser extent at WT:BIRDS, and again (one-on-one) at WP:AN/I. SMcCandlish has also tried talking with fellow project members of KimvdLinde's, like Sabine's Sunbird, a WT:BIRDS regular, to find more common ground. KimvdLinde tried leaving the debate for several days.

• How do you think we can help?

Perhaps broker a more civil discussion, with more structure so that positions can be presented and analyzed in a less noisy and circular fashion, with the possibility of better mutual understanding, less animosity, and a common goal of finding a resolution to the dispute.

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 10:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points discussion

• As an opening comment, kudos to the filer of this dispute for having a go at presenting both sides of the dispute in a neutral fashion. It's something I've seen rarely, if ever, on this noticeboard. Other DR assistants, take note, this ^ is how it should be done. On the dispute itself, it's far too late here to look into the dispute with any detail so I'll leave that to my colleagues to look at. Regards. Steven Zhang 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven, I think a more civil discussion would be very beneficial, and I will participate. I think the description above is relative okay. If you think it beneficial, I would like to make a few corrections about the issue at hand. In that case, where would you like me to make amendments to that description? -- Kim van der Linde 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (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 are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (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=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ 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?

Talk page discussion, already linked to above.

• How do you think we can help?

Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse.

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

• The issue is not understood - what exactly is being contested - the figures or the means of depicting them? AshLin (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is weather or not the figure of 90k POW's also include the 15k civilians. It started of like this, the article had in it some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel I checked the source and this number looks to have been arrived at by someone subtracting the number of civilians from the troop estimate. though they their figures wrong. So we need a few opinions on, A) Are the academic publishers which state 90,000 odd troops were taken as POW's correct, in that they exclude the civilians? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this seems better for an RFC (as I suggested on the talk), however it will be a good idea to have opinions of users who have dealt with such issues related to POWs and wars. RFC would invite random users, so DRN might be a help from a different angle (hoping that we have users here that have dealt with such issues or can be invited by mediators?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving casualty figures. Let me see what I can come up with in the way of sources, and I'll try to quote a few figures here. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan

• Indians in Afghanistan (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?

The article is currently facing multiple issues and disputes over multiple points. Most involved users acknowledge each other's positions on the dispute but the discussion is still stuck. We have all made a combined list for the issues in the article.

1. Section heading: "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents"? Heading neutrality is disputed, my claim is that "alleged" should not be mentioned in the heading (like "confirmed" can not be mentioned); ie. a simple impartial title like "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents" or "Intelligence activities" would be sufficient as attribution is present in text. Opposing user claims that attribution should be added in the heading.
2. Section heading: "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"? Another heading dispute, my claim rests on WP:NPOV heading as the attacks themselves are disputed, the opposing user claims on the attacks being called as terrorist attacks.
3. Content: Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan? This is keeping the content about terrorist attacks on Indians in Afghanistan, I have asked for a single line or two line mention, opposing users want to add a full elaborate section. Although the attacks did take place but the dispute here is about the article going WP:COATRACK as the attacks are then being blamed on Pakistan's Inter-services Intelligence (ISI) and then the alleged relations between ISI and the given terrorist organizations are being covered.
4. Lede: Content from "Attacks on Indians" is covered in lede while its being in the article in first place is disputed. Even if there is a bare mention in the article, this is disputed to be included in lede.
5. Lede: A claimed purpose of Indians' presence in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is a matter of contention among the nations is not covered in the lede which I think should get a small mention (along with India's denial) in the lede.
6. Image: The infobox depicts something which would be better off in the India-Afghanistan foreign relations article as suggested by me and another user, the opposing user claims its relevance.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• TopGun (talk · contribs)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs)
• JCAla (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• AshLin (talk · contribs)

JCAla acknowledges opposing positions on the content dispute, and so do I. AshLin and Darkness Shines are in complete disagreement with any suggestion I've made (removed even dispute/discuss tags from the article). Mar4d being the creator (recovered/rewrote it from a copy vio version) is lightly involved. Darkness Shines has previously tagged the article for Afd (through which it survived) claiming it to be a WP:COATRACK article, following an edit war, article protection etc, this is now disputed as a WP:COATRACK on opposite direction.

• 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=Indians in Afghanistan}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussion on talk - completely stuck with contention and multiple disagreements.

• How do you think we can help?

You can help cool things down by mediating to resolve the issues listed above. The current form of article is filled up with so much disputes that any further additions to most areas automatically get disputed as they further complicate issues.

lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan discussion

Statement by AshLin

• In this article the majority of my edits have been to develop two sections neglected by other editors viz "History" & "Indian Aid in Afghanistan". Each of my edits are backed by reliable references in NPOV language and paraphrased to avoid copyvio. I have few edits in the contested sections.
• I have reverted a disputed-dubious tag by User:Top Gun as regards the statement "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". Reliable references have been given (one an independent observer in Australian media, the other an Indian journalist cautioning against sending Indian military forces to Afghanistan as it would undo the goodwill brought by soft power.) The opposing user has not given any credible grounds for the dispute except a single Pakistani minister's statement in an Indian newspaper. My view is that any military presence of India would not have escaped notice in such a high visibility country as Afghanistan. User:Top Gun is unable to provide reliable references for details of induction, force level, mandate, agreements between Indian & Afghan governments, incidents, casualties, bases etc (all normal basic issues connected with military presence in any country). In my view, a few embassy military personnel do not constitute a military presence.
• My stance is that User:Top Gun need only prove me wrong with reliable sources from a neutral agency, instead of disputing the tag removal.
• I do have many issues in this article with which I disagree with User:Top Gun but since there was already a complicated dispute going on, I consciously chose not to intervene in the sections titled "Attacks on Indians", and "Allied intelligence activity and support for insurgents". I have not reverted anything there at all hence Top Gun's statements that I disagree with whatever he does is incorrect.
• My principle objection on this and other pages has been that User:Top Gun uses unreliable sources and draws inappropriate conclusions from them, at times stretching the imagination. My disagreements with Top Gun regarding sources can be seen in Talk:Right to exist and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistani_English. AshLin (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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