Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aprock (talk | contribs) at 07:13, 3 June 2013 (→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 04:46, 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 may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Talk:Race and genetics

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Race and genetics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BlackHades (talk · contribs)
• Aprock (talk · contribs)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
• 84.61.181.253 (talk · contribs) (and other related dynamic IP addresses)

Dispute overview

The article Race and Genetics has a subsection entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." in which Lewontin's argument is that race has ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. Followed by support and criticism from others. It included criticism by Edwards, followed by Dawkins in which he agreed with Edwards' views against Lewontin. The text in question being:

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Aprock has removed Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin six times claiming cherry picking. This is despite the fact that in the cited source Dawkins repeatedly stated Lewontin is wrong. Aprock reasoned by quoting Dawkins that race is difficult to define, in between genetic variance between races is small, and that racial classification is informative about physical characteristics. None of which counters Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin.

The argument that in between genetic variance between races is small has been acknowledged by both Edwards and Dawkins, and was already clearly stated as such in the article. In regards to Aprock reasons related to physical characteristics, I tried to address this by adding Dawkins' example of why he disagreed with Lewontin using physical characteristics which Aprock still removed again.

Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin meets WP:V and is certainly highly relevant to a section entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism.” I tried to work with Aprock in editing Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin but it seems Aprock is only interested in removal of the text regardless of what form it is in. When Aprock was given the opportunity to edit Dawkins' views on Lewontin the way he would personally want it he refuses.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed in talk for months.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully help Aprock understand why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is noteworthy in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." and work toward putting the reference back in the article.

Opening comments by Aprock

There's not much to say. We have a clear case of cherry picking. Any sane reading of the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale clearly shows that Dawkins' views on race are that it is not a generically significant attribute. That Dawkins takes issue with a literal interpretation Lewontin's work is only significant when presented in the broader context of the chapter, a suggestion which has yet to be considered by BlackHades and various like minded editors. aprock (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Devil's Advocate

I have not participated much in this dispute, but I took the time to read through the chapter as Aprock suggested and I still have to disagree with his claims of "cherry-picking" and "misrepresentation" as I expected I would. Dawkins takes a rather nuanced position, questioning the significance of the criteria we use to distinguish organisms (in fact, the name of the chapter is a reference to how different species of grasshopper are distinguished based on what would seem to be an incredibly trivial difference), but he doesn't reject these classifications like Lewontin. His position is very much that race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context. Naturally, he does not assign it the same significance as early eugenicists and does not approve of it being used in a social or cultural context, but the subject of the article is "race and genetics" not "race and culture" where such a position would be relevant. His position is straightforward that Lewontin is mistaken in characterizing race as an attribute of "virtually" no genetic significance. Dawkins is a qualified academic on the subject human genetics and noting his evaluation of the dispute seems pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ArtifexMayhem

The entire Lewontin's argument and criticism is just a coat-rack for cherry-picked material. The proposed Dawkins addition is pov pushing by omission — the pov being, as stated above, that "...race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context".

As I previously stated on the talk page Dawkins makes a few other points:

1. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
2. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
3. Racial classification is informative about "no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness — nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
4. The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
5. Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

Neither Edwards or Dawkins make the claim that race is a genetically significant attribute. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 84.61.181.253

Talk:Race and genetics discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am now opening this up for discussion. Sorry for the delay; I wanted to make sure I had time to give this my full attention.

Possibly related pages:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Human genetic clustering

Race and genetics

Race and health

Ethnicity and health

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated by The Devil's Advocate, I strongly disagree on the argument of cherry picking. If you look through "The Grasshopper's Tale", Dawkins goes completely out of the way to criticize Lewontin. It's not like it's a single line that's being taking out of context. Dawkins goes into great detail to explain why Lewontin is wrong and Edwards is right repeatedly through several pages and cites specific examples. From pg 406-410 in "The Ancestor's Tale". Just like Edwards, Dawkins does agree with Lewontin in that there is more variation within racial groups than in between racial groups but Dawkins makes it very clear that Lewontin is wrong to suggest that this means race has "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance".

I'm more than willing and welcome the discussion on how best to summarize Dawkins criticism of Lewontin in accordance with WP:NPOV but unfortunately we're unable to even have such a discussion because of the constant attempt and assertion that Dawkins doesn't belong in the article at all. Despite the fact that Dawkins goes into such painstaking detail and highlights specific examples through several pages to explain arguments by Lewontin and Edwards. Dawkins' argument and criticism of Lewontin should belong in a subsection entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism”.

I would also like to note that Dawkins position on Lewontin has existed in Race and Genetics for years without dispute and currently exists in Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy without dispute. I would certainly welcome the discussion on what the most appropriate way to summarize Dawkins position on Lewontin is. But to assert that Dawkins argument on Lewontin doesn't belong in the article at all? This seems so absurd. BlackHades (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Passing by DRN volunteer here; after this came up the other day I skimread my way through The Grasshoppers Tail (Though I have read the chapter and book in its entirety previously). I mostly agree with Black Hades / The Devil's Advocate summary of the topic. Essentially Dawkin's point is that races are very similar, but also that race is an important indicator for specific traits (other than superficial exterior changes). Dawkins uses examples such as if you were to pick a running team from the fastest runners in the world, its going to almost definately be an all-african team. (Though other examples definately exist such as lactose intolerance, etc.). Just my 2c worth. I might offer some further comments on the topic at some point, but Guy Macon will be taking the lead here. -- Nbound (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break

It's worth observing here that the article is Race and genetics, not Lewontin's Fallacy. To the extent that Dawkin's views merit inclusion here, it's his views on race and genetics which are relevant not his views on a literal interpretation of Lewontin's claims. That the later is being pushed into the article without consideration of the former is a classic example of the sort of misuse of sources that was rife in WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The subsection is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism". So anything in this subsection should be specifically related to that point. If you feel Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics should be included elsewhere in the article, that would be a completely separate topic of discussion. But as far as the subsection "Lewontin's argument and criticism", only statements specifically regarding Lewontin should be in this section which includes Dawkins. There's no reason to omit Dawkins here. BlackHades (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Characterizing Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics as "a completely separate topic of discussion" is a sufficient illustration of the cherry picking that's going on. There's not really much more to discuss. aprock (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break

It's even more interesting than that; the majority of the trop long-distance runners come from three mountainous districts beside the Rift Valley: Nandi in Kenya, and Arsi and Shewa in Ethiopia. On the other hand, we do need to recognize that there have historically been attempts to use pseudoscience to "prove" the superiority of whichever race the "prover" belongs to. The movie "Django Unchained" has a classic example of a racist slave owner using phrenology as a pseudoscientific and self-serving justification for slavery. Obviously nobody here holds such a position, but we need to watch to make sure that such discredited ideas -- or the equally discredited idea that there are zero differences between groups of human beings -- haven't subtly influenced otherwise reliable sources.

Getting back to the issue at hand, let's examine the "cherry picking" claim. I always like to try to get each side to understand the other, For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? Try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Nbound for taking the time to reread the chapter and offer his input. In regards to Guy Macon's suggestion, I would say the best reason for the position opposing mine seem to be that Dawkins' position can be misinterpreted by readers. Dawkins, along with Edwards, does agree with Lewontin that the variation within race is far greater than between races. Which is true and this is essentially universally accepted among scientists today. Humans as a species are certainly much more homogeneous than other species. The best reason for opposing the addition of Dawkins' statement appear to be the fear that this fact may get lost with readers if we highlight the small in between differences that exists. BlackHades (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this. I'm an uninvolved editor that is familiar with the text in question, and I have to agree with Aprock and Artifex. The quoted material, when taken out of context as it is here presented, does overstate Dawkins' position. The disagreement between Dawkins and Lewontin is over a very fine point. They largely agree with each other. Furthermore, I, like Aprock, was a bit surprised to see this in the present article at all. The article is not about Lewontin. Last of all, a point not yet mentioned though glaringly obvious, is that there is a big problem with parity of sources. Dawkins' non-peer-reviewed popular science book is being used to challange Lewontin's peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have grave reservations about that. For me, that's a sufficient reason not to mention Dawkins' rebuttal at all, regardless of his reputation. That clearly violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Criticism of peer-reviewed sources must absolutely come from peer-reviewed sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments appear to disagree with wikipedia policies. WP:PRIMARY states "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors...Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources"

Dawkins is a reliable secondary source for the primary source of Lewontin. Misplaced Pages is suppose to focus on secondary sources over primary sources.

In regards to WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL, this seems to be an assertion that Dawkins and Edwards is the minority position which is not accurate. Support of Edwards' position is quite mainstream. From both peer reviewed sources and secondary sources. BlackHades (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the chapter from which you are quoting. Dawkins clearly states: "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." (pg. 406) aprock (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Which view on race? In regards to Lewontin's argument that within race variation is higher than between race variation? Yes. That humans as a species are far more homogeneous than other species? Also yes. That race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance? Absolutely NOT. This specific point by Lewontin is heavily refuted in the scientific fields. Not just by Edwards and Dawkins. In fact there's an entire scientific field today based around how wrong Lewontin was on this point. Which is the scientific field of Race and medicine.

"Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported."--Foster, Morris W., and Richard R. Sharp. "Race, ethnicity, and genomics: social classifications as proxies of biological heterogeneity." Genome Research 12.6 (2002): 844-850. BlackHades (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Which view on race?" Again, you are free to read the book referenced. At this juncture, you appear to be saying that Dawkins is a fine source for content you agree with, but when it comes to content that you don't agree with you bring a handful of older sources. I assume you can see the inconsistency here. aprock (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Still with the straw man arguments? First, I didn't even mention Lewontin in regards to scientific mainstream in the post you responded to. Who knows why you brought him up other than you. You appear to have extreme difficulty responding to my actual points as you continuously time and time again ignore my points and respond back to imaginary things I never ever stated instead. (e.g. I explain Edwards is mainstream and instead of responding back about Edwards, you talk about Lewontin instead).

Secondly, talk about cherry picking Dawkins. I don't think you can accuse anyone of cherry picking after this. Dawkins is not stating that Lewontin's ENTIRE view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. Unless you want to make the ridiculous claim that Dawkins is admitting to being outside the scientific circles and accusing Edwards of being outside of it as well. Are you really making this claim? Most and nearly all of Lewontin's views on race is mainstream but Dawkins picks out the one point by Lewontin that isn't and explains why. By the way, claiming that I don't agree with Dawkins is another straw man argument. You are free to read the book referenced. BlackHades (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is quite clear in his book about what he refers to as Lewontin's view. Do the sources you list even mention Lewontin? You appear to be confusing yourself here. aprock (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

break

Well, this is interesting. So far we have the following opinions:

Keep Dawkins in:
BlackHades
The Devil's Advocate
Nbound (not previously involved)

Kick Dawkins out:
Aprock
ArtifexMayhem
Dominus Vobisdu (not previously involved)

Neutral: Guy Macon

I am going to ask again that everyone try an experiment. For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong?

Please try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener, plus, we all get to mock anyome who refuses to get with the program. (Note to the humor impared: that was a joke). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break

As it concerns the claims of cherry-picking I think the best example of cherry-picking is the opening statement by ArtifexMayhem. He is cherry-picking Dawkins to make Dawkins say what he wishes Dawkins had said. It is true that Dawkins says "no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are", but here is the full context:

Above the species level, a genus is just a group of species that are pretty similar to each other. No objective criterion exists to decide how similar they have to be, and the same is true of all the higher levels: family, order, class, phylum and the various ‘sub-’ or ‘super-’ names that intervene between them. Below the species level, ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are used more or less interchangeably and, again, no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are.

In other words, he says no objective criteria exist for any of the classifications other than species classifications, but he also says this about species:

Biologists normally classify animals that mate under artificial conditions but refuse to mate in the wild as separate species, as has happened with the grasshoppers. But unlike, say, lions and tigers, which can hybridise in zoos to make (sterile) ‘ligers’ and ‘tigrons’, those grasshoppers look identical. Apparently the only difference is in their songs. And it is this, and only this, that stops them crossbreeding and therefore leads us to recognise them as separate species.

He subsequently relates this to humans:

If Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus are separated as two distinct species of grasshoppers because they prefer not to interbreed although they physically could, might humans, at least in ancient times of tribal exclusivity, once have been separable in the same kind of way? Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus, remember, in all detectable respects except their song, are identical, and when they are (easily) persuaded to hybridise their offspring are fully fertile.

So he also casts serious doubt on the objective criteria used to distinguish species, suggesting that human populations could have been categorized as separate species at one point. To note his statement about there not being objective criteria to distinguish races as though it shows him saying race is not a genetically significant attribute is blatant cherry-picking. It does not end there as the quote about "superficial differences" is also cherry-picked from this quote:

We are indeed a very uniform species if you count the totality of genes, or if you take a truly random sample of genes; but perhaps there are special reasons for a disproportionate amount of variation in those very genes that make it easy for us to notice variation, and to distinguish our own kind from others. This would include the genes responsible for externally visible ‘labels’ like skin colour. Yet again, I want to suggest that this heightened discriminability has evolved by sexual selection, specifically in humans because we are such a culture-bound species. Because our mating decisions are so heavily influenced by cultural tradition, and because our cultures, and sometimes our religions, encourage us to discriminate against outsiders, especially in choosing mates, those superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us.

He follows it up with this:

I want to consider two versions of this theory: a strong and a weak one. The truth could be any combination of the two. The strong theory suggests that skin colour, and other conspicuous genetic badges, evolved actively as discriminators in choosing mates. The weak theory, which can be thought of as leading into the strong version, places cultural differences, such as language and religion, in the same role as geographical separation in the incipient stages of speciation. Once cultural differences have achieved this initial separation, with the consequence that there is no gene flow to hold them together, the groups would subsequently evolve apart genetically, as if geographically separated.

This hardly suggests a view of race as not being a genetically significant attribute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is a spirited defense of the "yes, there is cherry picking" position, and is well worth discussing, but I cannot help wondering how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree. (I am not picking on you in particular; I am asking everyone this). Clearly you are talking past each other. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? Please consider answering the questions I asked above. I do have a fair amount of experience helping people to resolve disputes, and I am asking you and everyone else here to try something new. Repeating the same arguments that failed to resolve the dispute on the article talk page is unlikely to have a different outcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I was rebutting the claim of cherry-picking made by Artifex, Aprock, and Dominus. Artifex was, oddly enough, cherry-picking Dawkins to back up his claim that others were cherry-picking Dawkins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not confused at all. I specifically asked you to attempt to refute the the claim of no cherry-picking made by BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate, and Nbound, but instead you attempted to refute the claim of cherry-picking made by Aprock, ArtifexMayhem, and Dominus Vobisdu.

The whole point of the dispute resolution noticeboard is to try something different from what failed to work on the article talk page. What you have here is a neutral party who is trying to guide the discussion to a solution. Those editors who ignore the dispute resolution volunteers requests give the appearance of being one of the reasons why this was not settled on the article talk page. Those editors who make a good-faith effort to read, understand, and follow the requests made by the dispute resolution volunteer -- or at the very least explain why they think the request is stupid -- give the appearance of working towards a resolution of the dispute.

So, once again I ask (and will keep asking) how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree with you. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? It's a fair question; why the refusal to answer it?

And once again I am asking you (and everyone else) to write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are" and to post it here without any criticism or rebuttal of any kind. Clearly you are talking past each other. Please don't repeat that behavior with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy, are you asking us to "write for the opposition"? Sorry, but it's late here and my brain is having trouble parsing the syntax. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is what he's asking. Which I already did above. Guy says this is to understand the other side better which will help this come to a resolution. I thought it was a good idea but unfortunately no one else seemed willing to partake in it yet. BlackHades (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Beyonce Knowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Beyonce Knowles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JennKR (talk · contribs)
• Aichik (talk · contribs)
• 76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Aichik's edit (here) asserts that Knowles "copied liberally" from 3 European artists, citing a source for only 1 assertion. Not only do I think that this wording contravenes WP:NPOV, I see the information as wrongly placed in the "Public image" section. Here, relevant criticism of the BLP is made in line with her portrayal in the media; whereas the three instances refer to criticism for the artist's music videos. Two instances are already discussed on Misplaced Pages (Run The World (Girls)#Controversy and Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)#Controversy) in which a discussion of the instances is more informed and neutral. In both, the reports that she copied was made, but also the artist responded saying she viewed and was inspired by both pieces. The current "Public image" section asserts that other artists have copied Knowles, and although in part referring to public image, I think this should also be removed as it deviates from the purpose of the section; which is ultimately her public reception and not critique of her work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page and through user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Advice and mediation.

Opening comments by Aichik

Opening comments by 76.189.109.155

First, I have absolutely no interest in this DR discussion, nor do I really understand why it was started. It looks like Aichik, who I don't even know, hasn't edited the article in several days (although I have no idea, nor do I care, what their past involvement in it has been). My only purpose in commenting in the article's talk page discussion, as I made clear there, was to give my thoughts on whether Aichik's sources were reliable or not, since they were being scrutinized. I see that Aichik participated in that discussion prior to my comments, and hasn't made any changes to the article since then. So, again, I'm confused as to why this DR was started, instead of just continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. As the DRN instructions above say, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page...to work out the issues before coming to DRN". As I said in my final comment at the talk page, "If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where." In any case, I don't care one bit about this content or placement issue. So with that, I'm out of this. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles discussion

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. JennKR, please clarify 76.189.109.155's role in this situation. smileguy91 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! A volunteer added him to this DRN request after seeing his input on the talk page where he clarified how blogs may be used as reliable sources. He then concluded that as this is a content issue, he wanted no part in the DRN discussion. —JennKR | ☎ 10:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Capoeira

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Danilolabbate (talk · contribs)
• unregistered member (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unregistered member making wrong statement in the begining of the article, and backing it with an absolutely out-of-context reference.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried using the article's talk, got no answer. Can't contact other user directly, as he's an unregistered user.

How do you think we can help?

The most important thing, as the article talks about a somewhat polemic part of Brazilian culture, I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only.

Also, mediation in the "talk" section might help, although the other user failed to answer my last message.

Opening comments by unregistered member

Capoeira discussion

Have you invited this member to the discussion via their talk page? The IP address should be added instead of "unregistered member" above aswell -- Nbound (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:requests for adminship/Mattythewhite

DRN request refers to an active RfA, also conduct is the main issue, which is largely out of our jurisdiction. The votes in question were highly suspect (Two brand new users opposing an RfA). -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Note: Filing editor also now blocked. -- Nbound (talk)

corporation, share, joint stock co and many others.

Filing editor has been banned indefinitely for socking. Also wished to be unbanned. Need to ask the banning admin or take it to a higher level if you do think you have been treated unfairly. Outside of our jurisdiction. Nbound (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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