Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SubSeven (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 25 September 2012 (→Talk:Diablo III: oops). 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 06:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

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

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

Self-determination

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview by Wee Curry Monster

Although currently being conducted at Self-determination, its a reprise of a disucssion that has been raised by the same two editors User:Gaba p and User:Langus-Txt at Falkland Islands,Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and other articles such as Luis Vernet. It refers to a historical event in the Falkland Islands in 1833.

In 1833, the British government sent a warship to expel the Argentine garrison that had been there for 3 months. Whilst the garrison was expelled as planned, the existing settlement remained under the British flag. There are two contemporary eye witness reports on this incident, the reports of captains of the British and Argentine warships present. Both confirm the summary above and are verified by other records.

In its modern sovereignty claim, Argentina claims the entire population was expelled and replaced by British settlers. Noting the above, several prominent historians point out this is untrue.

Langus-Txt and Gaba p would like to replace a neutral text that summarises the above with text that re-inforces the Argentine claim. They argue it doesn't matter whether a source is contradicted by the historical record, what matters is that it is recorded in a source they can quote – even when the source references a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source that makes a different claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised at WP:NPOVN repeatedly and at WP:RSN

How do you think we can help?

I would hope for a neutral 3rd party comment on the correct approach to dealing with a sensitive matter reflecting the differing national agendas from a neutral perspective, rather than as demanded to reflect particular national agendas.

Opening comments by Gaba p

As I see it Wee is engaging in WP:OR to attempt to present some sources as documented facts and others as untrue or invalid or just lies. The disputed source is the book Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands by Lopez. The source states verbatim: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". From Wee's perspective, the historical documents present a version that contradicts the above statement (WP:OR). My point is that we present the sources that make contradicting claims (as we already do: Cawkell and Harpers) but also present this one since there is no valid reason not to, other than it conflicting with sources Wee seems to like best.

The two edits of mine I assume Wee has a problem with in that article, are:

1. A tag for an official Argentinian claim. Wee attempts to source this claim with the Lopez's book claiming Lopez "is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position". I argue that that book represents the official Argentinian version as much as the books by Cawkell & Harper represent the British position. This for example is a valid source for an official Argentinian position. Lopez's is an investigative historical book just as those by Cawkell & Harper are.
2. I introduced the sentence: On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British., where the ref points to Lopez's book. Wee removed this whole statement arguing that the author does not analyze British sources (accusing me of citation fraud). I responded that such fact is in the name of the book: Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Opening comments by Langus-TxT

"The existing settlement remained under the British flag" is an erroneous statement, as some of the settlers did leave as a consequence of British seizure.

Having said that, the problem here is being misrepresented by Wee Curry Monster. The real issue is that he insists on doing his own interpretation of historical records to "select" which secondary sources are wrong and which are right. This is called Original Research. The proper guidelines for selection of sources is WP:IRS, where you won't find anything remotely similar to "whether a source is contradicted by the historical record or not".

The question was recently raised at Misplaced Pages:NPOVN#What_is_a_NPOV.3F, but only achieved tangential comments that didn't address the question. Fours months ago, the same question was raised by the same editor at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. The comments that time were quite explicit, but WCM insists that they favored his call for original research.

So the real question here is: is it ok for us to pay attention at the "contemporary eye witness reports" and get ourselves in the analysis proposed by WCM in his opening statement? My answer (backed by the comments in the second thread and insight gained from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ) is NO.

Self-determination discussion

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We await all opening statements before we begin, however, while we wait, Langus-TxT please do either of two things: Either remove comments from uninvolved parties or add the members to the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A question to parties: what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict? What is the most prominent viewpoint among modern historians? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dmitrij, before we begin, I would like to clear up the issue with involved parties. We should not be using the comments of Misplaced Pages members unless they are notified and included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In reply to the above query. The prominent viewpoint among neutral modern historians reflects the contemporary sources. There were 2 populations present at the time.

1. A garrison sent some 3 months before to set up a penal colony for the Republic of Buenos Aires. This had mutinied killing the commander after only 4 days.

2. An established settlement, formed by Luis Vernet.

The prominent viewpoint is that the garrison was requested to leave by the British warship and complied, the established settlement was encouraged to remain.

Like I say thats the neutral academic sources, the Argentine Government publications repeat the claim of an expulsion. Lopez referred to above is an Argentine official and if you refer to the source he references, Goebel, Goebel makes no such claim but confirms the above see . Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist I left a comment in the talk page of both editors asking them if they could stop by. Is that what you meant?

Regarding the neutral modern historians viewpoint the problem is defining neutral. I have no reason to believe Lopez is not neutral more than I have to believe Cawkell & Harper are not neutral. Lopez is not acting as an Argentinian official but as an author, thus his book is by no means a statement on the official position of Argentina on the matter.

I'd like Wee to expose his reasons to believe Lopez is not neutral if he is in fact making such a claim. In the case that Wee should make the claim that Lopez is not neutral, I'd like to remind him that Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet, a highly biased source, is used extensively in all Falklands related articles; the use of which he has defended time after time.

Let me also quote Wee on a previous discussion regarding the inclusion of contradicting sources (Laver vs P&P's pamphlet):

"...On the one hand you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece...." Wee Curry Monster 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time, Wee defended the inclusion of a rebuttal or contradicting source when the other one (Laver) was used to back an Argentinian claim. I don't see what could be different this time between these contradicting sources. Gaba p (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the comments, and I apologize to the editors if they felt it was inappropriate. I'm leaving the links to those to threads as the matter discussed is exactly the same.

Before continuing I urge everyone to review Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. I question the idea of "neutral" sources mentioned by Czarkoff, as every writer I've read takes a side on the dispute, even if subtly. In fact, that's part of the problem here: that some of the civilians stayed on the islands is a fact that is remarked by British-biased authors, who prefer to ignore or downplay those who did leave and the whole Argentine garrison who was indisputably and wholly expelled. --Langus (t) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where Czarkoff said that. I believe he asked about modern sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Langus refers to Czarkoff's mention of "what do the neutral modern sources say about the conflict?". He's asking for neutral & modern sources and Langus questions (as I did before him) the disputable neutral quality of any source (be it modern or not) As I said, I have no more reasons to believe Lopez's investigation is not neutral as I have to believe Cawkell's investigation is not. Gaba p (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, however if you look at the italics he is simply asking what modern scholars have to say about the subject. Neutral as in, don't look for someone who is taking a stand or forming an opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reset break

This thread has been stale for some time – does it still need assistance from a volunteer? Steven Zhang 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to start over under your guidance, if every party truly submits to cooperate. Note, however, that this issue has already made its way to WP:ANI... --Langus (t) 01:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that one of the involved editors please point to or suggest a compromise that could reset this discussion in a direction of resolution. Points have been well made but no one is willing to budge and that is not at all collaboration. We need to begin resolving this dispute and refrain from further walls of text. Please use brevity and concise wording to best move forward in a timely manner. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm John Carter, another of the volunteers here. Having looked over the above, I see that, potentially, there might be at least a partial dispute about the word "forced." Some of the quotes I read above said, basically, the British told people to leave, and they left. At least to some eyes, mine included, that may not rise to the level of "forced" departure. "Forced" departure, to my eyes, entails the departing people being taken out involuntarily. It seems that many of these people left, perhaps grudingly, but voluntarily, generally knowing that the departure might be done less pleasantly and involuntarily, like in shackles, later. If I'm right in this, then, maybe, one option might be to say they left "under duress" or something similar. But, if there are differing opinions as to what constitutes "forced" departure, and I think there might be here, then changing the language to drop that word might be a step in the right direction. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have collapsed the majority of the discussion as having gone off the rails. This is an oppurtunity for some resolution on this case. If the disputing editors do not wish to continue then the filing will be closed as "failed" and suggested that the next logical course be formal mediation. It truly disapoints me that editors have refused to collaborate and have taken to such lengthy walls of text on several venues across Misplaced Pages that this case may well have just scared everyone away.

So here is what we can do. Above you will see a suggestion from User:John Carter. It is the opinion of this editor that this makes excellent sense and at the VERY least is our starting point to continue from reset. I suggest taking this opportunity to resolve this dispute quickly and show the community your ability to put aside differences and work together or this may go into the record books as pretty lame.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm sure the two editors will delight in that comment, especially the part about duress. However, like most things related to the Falklands dispute, the facts are not nearly so straight forward as the black and white statements of the protagonists.

As I've pointed out before there were two populations.

(1) The garrison, that had been there less than 3 months, that had mutinied after only 4 days. They were asked to leave by Captain Onslow of HMS Clio. Pinedo the commander of the ARA Sarandi considered armed resistance but ultimately complied as 80% of his crew were English mercenaries who wouldn't fight the Royal Navy. Is this duress? Perhaps backed by force of armed action but Onslow chose to proceed with diplomacy, even though the Argentine authorities had ignored the British protests at the establishment of the garrison. Diplomacy was tried first and in a way succeeded.

(2) Vernet's settlement, which was established in 1828. This was the rump of the population as the majority chose to leave in the USS Lexington asserting Vernet had misled as to conditions on the islands, which they asserted were miserable. Of those remaining, Onslow had great difficulty in persuading them to stay, as most wished to leave as they hadn't been paid in months by Vernet. Vernet also paid them in promissory notes, they could only by essentials at his store in his currency, at his inflated prices and they were thus indebted to him. Of those remaining most were happy for a British flag as they felt they could look forward to greater prosperity. Also desribing it as an Argentine settlement is somewhat of a misnomer; Vernet had sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities and had sought for the British to provide protection for his settlement.

Its not as if the history is complex enough but as Beck observes, history has been perverted to favour modern sovereignty claims.

For the record, I would have no objection to "under duress".

I'm ignoring the personal remarks above. --Langus (t) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring a great deal it seems. Humor is a way to defuse situations. Try it sometimes. You have agreed to a compromise. Thank you. We await the other editors to see if this is something they can live with as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean... I was referring to WCM's comments on editors that is now collapsed. I do appreciate the image and caption above, you gave me a good laugh :) --Langus (t) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

John Carter are you referring to something like this?: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants left under duress following the British arrival". If so, I would have no issue with such a compromise. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Self determination reset discussion

I have pinged the involved parties. If no reply is made in a reasonable amount of time, the case status may change.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadsword (disambiguation)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)
• Trofobi (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) and application of MOS:DAB. The disputed content is the disambiguation between the types of swords that might have been referred to as "broadswords".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well aside from trying to discuss it, I put this on Wikiquette assistance, but nothing much had happened except for , until the process of Wikiquette assistance was eliminated, recently.

How do you think we can help?

I dunno. That's why I'm asking for help.

Opening comments by ZarlanTheGreen

You did so without bothering to get me to do so myself. You asked, but did not allow me to do so, as I clearly stated I would. I shall restore a part of the opening statement, which DID discuss content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

a significant edit to Broadsword_(disambiguation). I found it to remove a lot of information and removing certain good distinctions that was present in the old version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Trofobi

The changes I made were according to the MOS:DAB (like I understand it), especially the clear and simple formatting and wording shown in the examples there. I have seen by the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ, that I there were better ways to interpret the MOS:DAB and fully agree with their changes. The previous version(s) (123) had some MOS:DAB-unsupported or outdated links (long/great/short-sword redirs and other), missing links (the ships & Jethro Tull), and in my eyes especially a confusing formatting and wording. Can give more details & difflinks if required, but have not much time for that within the next days.--Trofobi (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by JHunterJ

Disambiguation page cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. Entries not ambiguous with "broadsword" removed, remaining entries formatted. – JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadsword (disambiguation) discussion

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 opening comments by JHunterJ and Trofobi before opening this up for discussion, so please be patient. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the "guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a reminder on Trofobi's talk page that we are waiting for him. If I don't get a reply in a day or so we will proceed without him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that everyone has weighed in, I am opening this for discussion. First I would like to ask, did everybody read "Guide for participants" at the top of this page as I requested? Did you read the part that says...

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

ZarlanTheGreen, your initial statement doesn't contain a single word explaining what you want the page to look like and why you want it that way. It is 100% about the behavior of other editors. You need to go back, delete it, and re-write it so that it does not contain the words "He" "Him" "They", or the names of any other editors. What I would like to see is a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be. (if you don't know how to make a diff, just give the exact time and date of your edit.) Then add a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

Trofobi, much of your initial statement is rebutting ZarlanTheGreen talking about other editors. While this is a natural thing to do, I am going to ask you to instead ignore any such comments. They will be removed, (if not by the person who writes them I will remove them myself), and responding just encourages the unacceptable behavior.

I would also like to see from you a diff showing a point at which the page was the way you think it should be and a brief explanation as to why you think your version should be retained.

JHunterJ, the first half of your initial statement is just the sort of thing I am looking for. Could you delete the later comment about user behavior and expand a bit on what part of WP:MOSDAB we are talking about? I think I know, but I want it from the participants. When someone says a policy is being followed and another editor says it is not, I always like to focus on the exact wording showing which part of the policy and the exact wording of the edit in question.

What I am asking you all for is specific versions of content and specific wording of policy, with no references to user behavior. After we get the content dispute straightened out, if there are still user conduct issues I will advise you as to where to go with those.

Thanks for your patience. We will get this resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not fully understand the function of this noticeboard, thus the... "inappropriate" opening comment. Sorry about that. I still would like to report the behaviour, but it seems that has been deemed unproductive, and I can't say I don't understand. Either way, I'm quite willing to go the route of talking about the content. As to replacing the opening comment... Is that really appropriate? Amending what I say, sure, but replacing it sounds a bit like rewriting history. If you insist, I nevertheless will. It should be noted, however, that I did, if briefly (though to be fair, that is at it should be, for the opening comment) comment on the issue of the content.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you deleted those parts, with the motivation that asking for the voluntary removal got no result. That is ridiculous! I questioned if it should be done, but nevertheless stated that I still would do so, if you indicated that you insisted it be done, despite my misgivings.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted part of my statement above by request. No problems with the current entries have been identified, and the removed entries were removed because they are not ambiguous with "broadsword" according to the linked articles (see MOS:DABMENTION; I also added a line to WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created based on the discussion at Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)). I am not aware of any policy-based problems with those removals, nor any other problems with the page, so I'm not clear what dispute needs to be resolved. – JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, MOS:DABMENTION deals with how to include topics that do not have an article of their own (which is not true of any of the topics that are, or where, linked to, on the page discussed) and not what should or shouldn't be included. Thus it is completely irrelevant. The line in Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created, however, is highly relevant, but it can hardly be said to reflect proper wikipedia practice, policy or guideline, given that it was just put there. It might become an accepted guideline, but I wouldn't really count it as such, just yet. Besides, doing so would open the door to winning these kind of arguments, simply by making up, or changing, rules oneself. While one should assume good faith, the rules should nevertheless be set in such a way as to avoid the consequences of the inevitable occasions of bad faith ...not to mention that actions that has the same result as those made in bad faith, can be made in good faith. Now could you please mention any bit of policy or guideline that supports you, which is relevant or accepted?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, ZarlanTheGreen? Can you cite a specific edit and a specific policy it violates? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Well, lets see...

• The old version grouped different types of things. The newer edits (any other than my reverts) just puts all links as a mere list, in a seemingly arbitrary order, without any apparent from of organization (which goes against MOS:DABMENTION#Organization).
• The entry Arming Sword was removed I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.

There may be more, that I can't think of right now, but that should cover most of it, I think.

I would also like to add that the removal of the Jethro Tull song was a somewhat clumsy oversight, which I would have appreciated if someone had pointed out to me before. I agree that, that entry should stay there. Thank you Trofobi, for pointing that out (if a bit late).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To the points:

• MOS:DABORDER uses groups (sections) for long disambiguation pages (#2), and the broadsword disambiguation page is not long, so it's faster for the reader to keep the few entries in one group (just a mere list), and arrange the entries there (not arbitrarily but) per MOS:DABORDER (#3) – topics with articles first, with the synonyms like Dao next, and the mentions last (and the newly-added surname holder in a separate section).
• Add the information about arming swords being known as broadswords to the article Arming sword, and I'll be happy to restore the entry to the dab page myself.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• You say it's not long? Why? I say it's certainly long enough. Just look at other disambiguation pages of similar length. As to the order... "Dao next"? Are you kidding me? There are several ships and even BroadSword Comics (neither of which can be called "synonyms", by any stretch) before Dao (Sword) appears! What you say, clearly isn't true.
• Please explain why Arming sword has to mention them being called broadswords. Please point to some wikipedia policy or guideline (that hasn't been just recently been added, but which is clearly an accepted part of wikipedia), which verifies this. If you do so, I will thank you for informing me, and gladly back down on this point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created has been clarified based on your misunderstanding of the disambiguation guidelines. Please point to some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity. "Dao" is a synonym – it does not have the word "Broadsword" there. "BroadSword Comics" is not a synonym. "Who published that comic? BroadSword." And I am not kidding you; see if you can ratchet down the rhetoric. – JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created was not clarified. Before your edit, there was absolutely no mention of any requirement that it be mentioned in the article being linked (if you disagree, then please show me where such a mention existed). Thus you did not clarify something that it already said, but rather added something that wasn't previously present. I have no need to point to some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says we can add anything to disambiguation pages even when there is no indication of ambiguity ...as I have not made no such claim. I have no need to defend a position that I do not hold, or have ever held. Also, as you can see here (especially in my replies to Czarkoff), I have no problems with having to verify that the topics belong in the DAB, and I have never said or claimed anything to the contrary. As to Dao being a synonym and BroadSword comics not being a synonym... That's exactly what I said. Neither the ships, nor BroadSword comics, are synonyms (nor is Dao, but it's at least somewhat closer to being one). Also note that it says the "recommended order", not the "required order" ...and MOS:DABORDER#When_to_break_Wikipedia_rules: "However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." You need to consider the reasons behind the recommendations, instead of just sternly demand that they be followed to the letter. Why should it be in the current order? Why is the old order bad? The issue to consider, is the usefulness to the reader. How clear and easily readable it is, that is. As to my rhetoric... What rhetoric? Me saying "are you kidding me"? If so, then your standards are extremely strict and you break them yourself, and not just in that comment ...but that's beside the point, is it not?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, so we're in agreement that there's no reason to include "arming sword". Yes, recommended order, and lacking any reason to do so, you need to stop sternly and extremely strictly demanding that all other editors leave your edits alone. – JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that Arming Sword shouldn't be included? Quit putting words in my mouth! As to other editors "leaving my edits alone"... What on earth are you talking about? What edits of mine? I did not make an edit that I am defending. Trofobi made an edit that you are defending, and I am criticising. I am defending the old consensus against what I see as bad modifications (right now there is no consensus. There is discussion, i.e. this, to get to one). You still haven't shown that the DAB isn't long, or explained why it this ordering is better. Surely Dao should come before such things as ships? When one thinks of "broadsword", the first thing that comes to mind is a sword.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for interjection, but in my opinion this particular dispute boils down to two questions:

1. Do the reliable sources support the claim that removed entries (Arming sword and Dao (sword)) are indeed referred to as "broadsword"?
2. If so, does this statement belong to DAB page or broadsword article?

I would kindly ask parties (primarily ZarlanTheGreen, per WP:BURDEN) to provide the succinct answers to these questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can answer the second question: the statement(s) belong on Arming sword and/or Dao (sword), and once there, the (brief) entry or entries would be added to the disambiguation page as Misplaced Pages topics ambiguous with the title. – JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are great amounts of sources that say that arming swords (and longswords and the such) are called broadswords. In fact wiktionary rather annoyingly only gives that meaning, for the term "broadsword" (much like merriam-webster, dictionary.com, oxforddictionaries.com ...not to mention several books about the middle ages, and most fiction within the fantasy genre (just noting a few examples): fantasy games, such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, pretty much any fantasy role playing game (including all editions of Dungeons and Dragons)... tons of books about the middle ages (or swords or history), but that's a bit harder to verify, with just google. Also, I would like to point out that it is used this way in this clip from a notable (if not accurate) "documentary". If nothing else, I should say that those sources (which are merely the tip of the iceberg. A few of the examples I could find, on short notice) prove that it is a common enough use of the word "broadsword", to be notable enough to merit mention on the disambiguation page, I think (I'd understand being asked to verify that this use of the word broadsword is inaccurate, but that it isn't common? I am surprised that anyone would doubt it, quite frankly). As to Dao (sword)... well if you disagree, then I suggest you take it up its own article, where it is noted that Dao are "/.../often called a broadsword in English translation/.../"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both "Arming sword" and "Dao (sword)" had been marked "" since 6 July 2011 – no change or discussion had been on that issue since then, therefore I felt safe to remove the "Arming sw." link, where in the whole article is no mention of "broadsword". And as I have added both links to Classification of swords & Types of swords, any visitor looking for any kind of "broad" sword will now easily find the relevant existing articles.

As to Guy's request for a difflink to the version I prefer: the current version (compared to that how I found the article on 28 August 2012)‎. For a brief explanation why it should be retained pls see my opening comment. --Trofobi (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@ZarlanTheGreen: could you please explicitly name secondary sources unambiguously connecting term "broadsword" with "arming sword" and "dao sword"? We can't make judgment on "plenty" of sources, and those you've linked are very ambiguous. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your request. The sources I linked to, pointed out that countless sources say that straight, cutting, swords (a category into which arming sword, quite clearly, falls), are classified by many, as being "broadswords". Why should they be precise in specifying arming swords? They cover a variety of swords, which clearly includes arming swords. As to Dao... Seriously, just put the words "Dao" and "broadsword" into google, and you'll see that its a word commonly used for it. I'll find you some specific sources, but I've got an appointment I've got to get to right now, so I'll do it later today (or tomorrow).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The way you connect these is known on Misplaced Pages as improper synthesis. I request sources that explicitly include into definition the terms you want to add to the DAB page in question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Improper synthesis deals with improperly combining information from several different sources. That is clearly not relevant. The sources I cited all, individually, state much the same thing. One of them (the documentary) even goes so far as to say "broadsword", when talking about what is clearly an arming sword. An Oakeshott type XIV I'd say. That or a type XVI (can't be anything else, other than maybe a blade outside the typology, which happens, but I doubt it). This is also true of the Diablo and WoW references. Many of the sources state that straight cutting swords are broadswords. Arming swords are straight and cutting, thus they are clearly included. If you wish to claim that this conclusion is original research (to my mind, it's like saying that cucumbers have a feature, because a source says all vegetables do), then that's fine. You'll have to use something other than WP:SYNTH to argue that, however. Either way, this could be solved in a way I suggested earlier: "I still object to the removal, and argue that several other sword types should be added (for the same reason), though probably not with individual links to all, but rather an explanation of the qualities that they share, or something.". I.e. put in a mention of "straight cutting swords" instead (maybe not with that exact wording though. I suspect it can be expressed better). Note that this would not be removing arming sword. Sure there would no longer be an arming sword link, but it would simply be included in a different way. I assume you would have no objection to that?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd rather not expand this DR to the content of arming sword. The sources belong there, not on broadsword (disambiguation). If that article arming sword says that they are known as broadswords, then the dab page includes it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I am not an involved party if there's a dispute over whether arming sword is to say so. :-) – JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily IMO. I would better disambiguate the possible meaning in broadsword article and generalize the DAB if such sources are found. Anyway, the issue is a bit wider then this DAB, and I want to get it settled here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate different topics in articles (except in hatnotes). But if we want to discuss the contents of broadsword instead, then I should be removed from the involved parties list, since I am not involved in any content dispute for broadsword. – JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than fighting over the content of Broadsword (disambiguation) why not work together to improve Classification of swords and Types of swords, and then make Broadsword (disambiguation) say whatever those two pages say? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about making the dab page say what those articles say. Not all types of swords would be ambiguous with "broadsword", and little or nothing of the classification of sword would be usefully "sayable" on the disambiguation page. Classification of swords and Types of swords can certainly be improved by interested parties, but unless new "broadsword" ambiguity is introduced, those improvements wouldn't affect a navigational page that already links to them. – JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Because that is a separate, if connected, issue. I also agree with JHunterJ and Trofobi on this. Thanks for the suggestion though.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that both articles (Classification & Types) really need improvement, both having multiple issues – the now removed merge proposal seems no bad idea, but just like the May 2007 ref request noone cared. Perhaps someone could ask some of the earlier main authors like Dbachmann to take it up again? (That cleanup should also include List of bladed weapons#Swords.) But I, too, don't expect effects on this DAB page discussion. Like R'n'B stated earlier: The question is if there are reliable sources that "Zoobie" is also called "broadsword" – if so, this info belongs into the Zoobie article, which then will rightfully be mentioned in the broadsword DAB.

So is that now the final remaining question – if "Arming sword" be added or not? And then this will be settled? --Trofobi (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. There is also the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things. It is the more important issue though, IMO, and one on which I suspect I have dealt with all objections in my response to Czarkoff above, so that it will not only be included, but in a better manner than it previously was ...or so I hope.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have an answer regarding " the issue of the order and grouping (or lack thereof) of similar things." MOS:DABORDER is quite clear: "Long dab pages should be organized into subject sections, as described below." and "Longer pages should be broken up by subject area." This isn't even close to being a long dab page, and thus there should be no grouping of similar things. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not even close? Oh, I dunno about that Moss_(disambiguation), ] (dunno why this link won't work. It says link exists when I try to include it, and everything), Oakes, Jackson_Square and Gaja_(disambiguation) (to take a few examples at random), are quite close. Indeed some of them are quite a bit shorter. I say that the broadsword DAB is long enough to merit breaking up in groups of topics of a similar nature, and many a DAB of similar length, or shorter, are organized in such a manner. Why? Because that is more reader friendly, gives you a better overview. MOS:DABORDER isn't as clear as you claim. It says "longer". It doesn't say what longer means. Not only does it not give a specific length (probably because such a thing would be regarded as a bad idea), but it doesn't even give any form of indication of how long "longer" is. Thus you cannot say that MOS:DABORDER clearly says that it isn't longer. What matters is, if it is long enough, so that groupings would assist readers and/or if a lack of groupings would negatively impact readability, rather then the exact length (and if the exact length is the issue... well check the examples I noted).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Thank you for clarification, Guy – so could you perhaps sum up, which questions on Broadsword (disambiguation) you still regard as unsolved? And as already asked on the talk page: Shouldn't this section here be renamed WP:DRN#Broadsword (disambiguation) instead Broadsword? Also for later archiving/search options. --Trofobi (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ShelfSkewed has, obligingly, clearly demonstrated that articles linked to, need to mention the disambiguation(as per WP:DABRELATED). Thus I now accept that, that requirement is, indeed, an accepted guideline of wikipedia. I still argue for the compromise above, about mentioning "straight cutting swords". However, there is an issue of where that should be verified. That it can, easily, be verified, is quite clear. I have done so above, with great ease. The only issue is where. By the same token, Dao should clearly be there, as the article prominently mentions that it is often translated as "broadsword". Any need for verification should obviously be dealt with, in the article for Dao, rather than the DAB page. As long as that is fixed, then the issue of which topics should be in the DAB should be dealt with. The only remaining issue is the organization.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the issue of where to verify that "straight cutting swords" are, inaccurately, called broadswords has already been answered, in that it already is verified. An arming sword certainly is "A cutting sword with a broad blade", so it is verified, though as I suggested (as I have done twice before), one could add something along the lines of "Any cutting sword that is broader than a rapier" (while mentioning that it is a modern usage, that was not used historically), as individual mentions of all swords that qualify, might not be the best idea.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...also, I noted that arming swords are, indeed, explicitly mentioned: "It must be noted, that the term broadsword was never used historically to describe the one-handed arming sword or short-sword. The short-sword was wrongly labeled a broadsword by antiquarians as the medieval swords were similar in blade width to the military swords of the day (that were also sometimes labeled as broadswords) and broader than the dueling swords and ceremonial dress swords." (I would argue that the term broadsword was never used historically to refer to swords for two hand either ...and that short-sword is also an erroneous term, but that is to be taken up at Classification of swords, not here)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is there any chance that we have arrived at a compromise that everyone can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The discussion of what should be included has thankfully been, more or less, solved. Now it's just an issue of how to include the topics, and then to apply that to the page. That should not be troublesome. The issue of the organization of topics, however, has still not been solved.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these current organization is one we can live with. We have only one user who dislikes it, but it is consistent with the current guidelines. – JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is consistent with guidelines? Really? How so? MOS:DABORDER says that topics should be grouped. You say this DAB isn't long? On what grounds? Can you point to a part of the MOS:DAB that states the specific length which determines if a DAB is long or not? What about Moss_(disambiguation), ], Oakes, Jackson_Square and Gaja_(disambiguation)] that are all DABs of similar, if not shorter length? The Broadsword DAB is long enough, that at least some grouping would aid in user readability, and no grouping makes user readability suffer. Thus is is long enough to need to comply with MOS:DABORDER.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to any other user who thinks this dab is too long to be ungrouped? – JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, current version is good. --Trofobi (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

OK, here is how I think we should proceed. Remember, it says at the top of this page that This noticeboard is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy, so please take the following as a suggestion, not an order.

It appears that there is a weak WP:CONSENSUS against the changes that ZarlanTheGreen wants to make. I say "weak" because it looks like one against two. If it was one against ten or two against twenty I would be telling someone to accept the consensus. With 2:1 the following seems reasonable:

First, we should leave the page the way the 2:1 majority wants it while we discuss what to do next.

Second, ZarlanTheGreen should seriously consider whether to accept the majority version. This is not required but would end the dispute if he can live with that.

Third, if ZarlanTheGreen thinks that having more editors comment has a reasonable chance of ending up with the consensus swinging his way, he should post a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment on the article talk page and we should close this DRN case while the 30-day period for the RfC plays out and we have a clear consensus. (There is no restriction against closing a DRN case and re-opening it as a new case later.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

George Ho here) also expressly endorsed it. Probably plus three other editors on Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) who are at the very least not unhappy with the current version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are 4 other deliberate supporters of the current version: George Ho(1)+(2), R'n'B, Ian.thomson, BD2412(1)+(2) and 2 4 more editors who at least do not support Zarlan's version: ShelfSkewed, EatsShootsAndLeaves(1) update: +(2), GimliDotNet, Rich Farmbrough. --Trofobi (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at all of the above diffs, and they are as Trofobi describes them. ZarlanTheGreen, do you happen to have diffs showing twenty or so editors supporting your version? Perhaps diffs showing that the above-mentioned individuals later changed their minds? If not, it is time for you to graciously follow the clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

+2 updated above (sorry, had forgotten them first) --Trofobi (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You are all quite incorrect on some points:

• The matter of the fact that Arming Sword and Dao should be in the DAB, has been settled in my favour. To say that the consensus is against me, thus isn't quite accurate.
• As to the matter of the order (which, no doubt, is what you are all referring to)... Can anyone show where anyone has addressed the point that the Broadsword DAB of a similar length, if not longer, as many other DABs that group topics, and that it isn't shorter than some set length in the MOS:DAB. Please remember that while WP:CONSENSUS does state that one doesn't need everyone to agree, it does state that all legitimate concerns be addressed. Those concerns have not even been mentioned at all, by any of you. Not even to dismiss it out of hand.
• The diffs of George Ho, Ian.thomson and EatsShootsAndLeaves (in the first diff mentioned) show them as editors who supported the early edits, without specifying that they support the organization in particular, and without having considered all the issues that have been discussed here. So I don't really think that those should count. Also Ian.thomson claimed that I made the first edit, which is clearly false, as I pointed out.
• As to R'n'B, that was an issue of whether it is proper to say what use of broadsword is inaccurate, which is completely irrelevant to the issue of the DAB. It's relevant to the classification of swords page, but not the DAB. Thus irrelevant.
• BD2412 actually supports my position. He states it would be quite appropriate to link to Classification of swords#Broadsword and backsword, concerning straight cutting blades ...and again, it wasn't about the organization, but rather what to include, which is an issue where we are all agreed already. Thus irrelevant.
• The mention of GimliDotNet is irrelevant. It wasn't a support of either version, but rather stating that there was an ongoing edit war. This was quickly followed by him admitting that he had misread the times. Either way, it was only about behaviour, not content and thus irrelevant.
• ShelfSkewed didn't support the current page in that diff, but rather supported a completely separate idea. This was not a support of the current version or the old one, and it certainly did nothing to support any form of order in the DAB and thus irrelevant.
• The second EatsShootsAndLeaves' diff was far from being clear about what it meant ...which is just one of the problems with it. Either way, it doesn't give support to, or address, the organization of topics in the DAB.
• Rich Farmbrough made no comment on the DAB, in any way. He only commented on behaviour stating that my behaviour was not a problem, if not impeccable. Thus irrelevant.

...so even though I am in the minority, almost all the diffs mentioned, don't show any form of support of the current order, or the idea that the DAB isn't long. Aside from three editors, all diffs are either about a different subject entirely, or about behaviour. Only three of the editors mentioned, stated any form of support for the present DAB, but it wasn't clear if they supported the order or that they were aware of, or considered, the issues that have been brought up here. So really, the only editors that, undoubtedly, support the current order, while having read all the issues raised, are: Trofobi, Guy Macon and JHunterJ. (also, it's annoying that these edits were under "Moving Forward", making me not notice them, at first)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! this dispute has now arrived at a point where there is a disagreement about what the consensus is, and Misplaced Pages has a way to resolve disagreements about what the consensus is. We simply place a WP:RfC in the article talk page. Anyone can do this, but whoever does needs to take care that the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment are followed to the letter. Especially Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• ZTG, there is no consensus with you to include arming sword prior to text on that article indicating its ambiguity with "broadsword". Since dao has such text, it has been on the disambiguation page.
• Can you provide the guideline that shows that the broadsword article is longer than some set length and thus requires groups? You have not addressed that legitimate concern, except for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and I fixed some of the problems in the other stuff).
• You have some questions about the support diffs for the ungrouped organization. Are there any editors who agree with your grouped organization on the broadsword dab?

-- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Family therapy

There is strong consensus against inclusion of the table either as image or as table. Please, remove image everywhere and just let it go. Once the table is prosified and merged into the rest of article's content, it might find its place in the article; or it may not find. Thus, discussion over appropriateness of this reference at all is a bit premature now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pendulum

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Maschen (talk · contribs)
• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum. The article is very long and there is a second article, Pendulum (mathematics), for the mathematics, so the policy of the editors on my side of the dispute has been to keep the math in the article to a minimum.

User:193.233.212.18 has repeatedly inserted a second equation for the true period of the pendulum. His equation is already included in Pendulum (mathematics) but he feels it should be in Pendulum also. There has been consensus on the Talk page from the beginning, with 5 editors opposed to inclusion of the equation and only User:193.233.212.18 in favor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss it with User:193.233.212.18 in a nonconfrontational manner on his Talk page, but he hasn't replied. He may not have a static IP; I think I've seen him with other IPs, but he doesn't sign his posts

How do you think we can help?

Opening comments by Maschen

I also tried explaining to the IP at User talk:193.233.212.18 and talk:pendulum, and have reverted the IP number of times, and intend to stay out of it since the explanations have no effect.

Opening comments by Martinvl

Misplaced Pages's first duty is towards the reader.

There are two articles related to the equations for the period of a pendulum, one is the article Pendulum and the other in the article Pendulum (mathematics). The second of these articles leads on from the first and is a more detailed account of the mathematics behind the pendulum. As a part-time physics tutor, I believe that 90% of Misplaced Pages readers researching pendulums will only read the first of these two articles and few will understand the second article.

At various times, four different formulae have been given in this article:

${\displaystyle T\approx 2\pi {\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}}\qquad \qquad \theta _{0}\ll 1}$

${\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}T&=2\pi {\sqrt {L \over g}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{16}}\theta _{0}^{2}+{\frac {11}{3072}}\theta _{0}^{4}+\cdots \right)\end{alignedat}}}$

${\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}T&=2\pi {\sqrt {L \over g}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{16}}\theta _{0}^{2}+{\frac {11}{3072}}\theta _{0}^{4}+{\frac {173}{737280}}\theta _{0}^{6}+{\frac {22931}{1321205760}}\theta _{0}^{8}+\cdots \right)\end{alignedat}}}$

${\displaystyle T={\frac {2\pi }{M(\cos(\theta _{0}/2))}}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}},}$

where ${\displaystyle M(x)}$ is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and ${\displaystyle x}$.

My analysis of these formulae is as follows:

• The first of these formulae is the formula that is taught to 17 and 18 year-old physics students. (I am a part-time physics tutor for this age-group).

• The second of these formulae shows an approximation to the correction needed when the angle θ is not small and is a real-life example of the Taylor series, an essential part of university level maths for engineers and scientists. In practice this formula will ensure that a longcase clock is accurate to better than 0.1 second per day.

• The third of these formulae adds nothing to the second other than additional accuracy – of the order of microseconds per day.

• The fourth of these formulae give an exact solution, but its relationship to the first equation is rather cryptic. In addition the function M is not one that is taught in a standard engineering or physics degree course.

From the reader’s point of view, it is essential to include the first of these equations in the article as this is the formula that is always taught at school or university. Thereafter, either the second or the third is highly instructive (I prefer the second), but the fourth equation is only really of interest to applied mathematicians and in practice is only encountered in university maths classes, never in university (or school) laboratories. I feel therefore that the fourth of these equations is out of place in a general article about pendulums, but is ideal material for the article Pendulum (mathematics). Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 193.233.212.18

The dispute is being based on an ill posed question of whether or not the best formula ought to be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pendulum discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. Edit warring is usually not something that DRN handles. Consider taking this to WP:ANI or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page, so there's not much else that DRN can do.--SGCM (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Chetvorno 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: You wrote "It looks like consensus has already been established on the article talk page". I looked at the article talk page, and there were discussions 13 Sept to 18 Sept, and the final comment (18 Sept) was "I've initiated a DRN case". After that, there are no more comments on the article talk page. So it looks like the parties have simply shifted the discussion here to DRN and would like some uninvolved editors to help reach consensus. Or is there another talk page I'm overlooking? --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment – The "Period of Oscillation" section of pendulum should be a summary of the entire Pendulum (mathematics) article (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE). I would expect to see the 2 or 3 most important formulae represented in that section. My opinion is that the two most important formulae are:

${\displaystyle T\approx 2\pi {\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}}}$

${\displaystyle {d^{2}\theta \over dt^{2}}+{g \over \ell }\sin \theta =0}$

The other formulae, including the infinite series, seem a bit too arcane for a top-level summary ... because they do not occupy a position of prominence in the Pendulum (mathematics) article. I guess my point is that the underlying differential equation should be included in the top-level article before resorting to the infinite series or the "M" arithmetic-geometric mean formulae. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, in the discussion, of the four involved users, only User:193.233.212.18 supports inserting the following formula into the article, and has been edit warring to keep it in:

${\displaystyle T={\frac {2\pi }{M(\cos(\theta _{0}/2))}}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{g}}},}$

Which, as the discussion indicates, has no support from any of the other five editors. The consensus seem to be that the formula should remain in the Pendulum (mathematics) article and should not be placed in the Pendulum article. The Dispute Overview of the case states that the DRN case was filed mostly to stop User:193.233.212.18 from edit warring, which is something that DRN is not equipped to handle. If desired, I have no objections to the continuation of the DRN case--SGCM (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, @Noleander, I agree. As you pointed out, SGCM, this is not the venue for dealing with the editwarring problem, since we have consensus, so I would be agreeable to terminating the dispute resolution process. Sorry, I guess I should have read the requirements on this page closer. --Chetvorno 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to get picky, but ... :-) The first sentence of this case is "The issue is whether to include a particular equation in the first section of the article Pendulum." And the case was filed by one of the "majority" participants, not the IP. It is often the case that a majority will "gang up" on a single editor, yet sometimes the single editor is correct (I am not saying that is the case here). DRN is supposed to be a haven for such persecuted souls. For that reason, the case should stay open a few days and let the IP present some source-based arguments on why the AGM formula is important. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Don't have any objections.--SGCM (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, good idea. --Chetvorno 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 114.147.131.50 Sorry to involve myself in this dispute, but I was astonished to see an exact formula for the pendulum period. It is true that it is not in the standard school or university programs, but for the very simple reason that – no exact formula existed so far. The power of Misplaced Pages is in its evolution. As science has advanced to give us the exact formula, it should be with no doubt be mentioned here at the top, with the traditional school formulas below as a simplified formulas as it is done is any other article. 1:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.147.131.50 (talk)

Just to clarify, the exact formula that you mentioned used the arithmetic-geometric mean, which is just a handy way of writing the converging series approximation for the period (an elliptic integral) which has been known for a long time (1850ish I think). Pretty handy though. a13ean (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@IP: To justify inclusion of that AGM formula in the pendulum article, we need to see some source books that mention the AGM formula pretty prominently. For example, I'm looking at the Halliday/Resnick college physics text, and it includes the approximation for small angles; and it includes the infinite series, but it does not include the AGM formula. So that book suggest the AGM is not as important. If you could find a few introductory physics books that present the AGM formula with equal or greater emphasis than the infinite series, that could be persuasive. --Noleander (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear a pure soul able to appreciate the exact formula. Everyone else better stop wasting time searching for it in textbooks as is well explained in the AMS(59,8) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible compromise here is modify the pendulum article to state, in prose, that an "exact" formula exists based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, and link to the formula in the pendulum (mathematics) article. But I'm not sure about the word "exact" ... it may imply closed-form expression to some readers; but the AGM is generally not closed form: it usually requires infinite iteration. So the word "exact" may be misleading. How about "The period of a pendulum may also be calculated using an iterative algorithm, based on the arithmetic-geometric mean, which converges much more rapidly than the infinite series above." How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander's "compromise" suggestion seems acceptable to me mainly because it doesn't merely entail removing the best formula (that's simplest and "much more rapidly convergent" as is now being rightfully noted and properly emphasized). Furthermore, it's well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Chet, Maschen (the other parties): Do you have any comment on the proposal to insert a prose sentence explaining the AGM formula and why it is significant? --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@114.147.131.50: "Exact" is misleading. There is no closed form formula for evaluating the arithmetic–geometric mean. It may converge faster numerically though. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The formula is exact and the convergence is quadratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.212.18 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer here; I just deleted a number of comments that violate DRN rules. As it says at the top of this page:

• What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

• Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.

• Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

Some of the removed comments were simply describing user behavior (allowable, but not here) while others were personal attacks, which are not allowed anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I am placing a warning on one user's talk page about violating WP:NPA. Please don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Belorn (talk · contribs)
• czarkoff (talk · contribs)
• Lentower (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)
• Reisio (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The template tag primary source is discussed. No specific issue or disputed text was raised, just a request of less primary sources and more secondary sources. After requesting more specificness, no answer were given. When secondary sources was adding (including a world published book and university publications), those was disregarded as not following WP:RS. The total count is as standing 20 non-primary sources of an total of 30 source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for specificness. If I know what claim/text/source was specifically the issue, I could work with it. Now there is not much there beyond trying, and then get the attempt thrown back by a blank "NOT RS" answer.

How do you think we can help?

Multiple things. A Third-party opinion. A alteration to the discussion. More sources *might* help, but I suspect it wont until the issue is identified.

Opening comments by Lentower

Opening comments by czarkoff

As I'm said to be an involved editor, I would like to leave a couple of notes:

1. Maintenance templates are good, they draw attention to the issues and help solving them. There is no relevance timeout on Misplaced Pages, and there is a good reason to keep the tags as long as the corresponding issues are present: new sources appear, and editors who come to use these sources my simply go away because they don't want to avoid cluttering the text with citations. If the tags remain, chances are someone indeed takes time to add citations of secondary sources.
2. The problem with overwhelming primary sources in this particular article reflects the real world problem: the FSF's view on GNU (see GNU/Linux naming controversy), and apart from several small groups of developers (Nexenta, GNU/Hurd, GNU-Darwin, etc.) and several "GNU/Linux" distributions (as opposed to "Linux" distributions and other operating systems using Linux kernel) nobody actually cares GNU.

IMO both of these suggest that the tag about references should remain in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Reisio

The original template was added by a single editor acting alone, whose corresponding explanation on the talk page was opposed. Its presence in the article was therefore not the product of consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by SudoGhost

A specific issue was given, I was never aware that this was unclear. The article is based on primary sources, hence the tag. Adding three sources to an entire article does not resolve this, so I'm unsure as to why this DRN was even brought up. = SudoGhost 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU discussion

Hi, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. Before we begin it should be noted that the use of tags represents content on or in a Misplaced Pages article and therefore does indeed require a consensus of editors. This is the appropriate venue for this dispute. I do have a question for the filing editor. Why have all parties in the dispute not been listed? We await the answer to the volunteers question and the opening comments of participants before we begin. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Reisio, thank you for participating. Please make your opening comments in the above section provided. We will wait for all involved parties before we beging discussion in full.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have particularly anything else to say at the moment, and cannot find any description of what opening comments are for on this page. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is OK. We can assume your fist comment is your opening statement. I believe the section to be self explanatory as in "Comments made at the opening of the filing", however, if you have any concerns or questions you may feel free to ask here or on the DR/N talkpage for assistance. I am going to move your comment to your opening section reserved for you. Please feel free to add to it if you feel fit! Any other comments can be made in this section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake of not including Reisio. Did not view him as a participant at that time, but that was my fault of becoming a bit narrowed in my focus during the discussion. As for any person contributing in the editing (but not on the talk), I do/did not know if those should be included. Belorn (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideally you should have pointed everybody involved to the talk page before filing this request. As the case is already opened, and some discussion already happened, you may just use {{DRN}} on the talk page to notify everybody watching the article about this case, and only list here editors who participated in talk page discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Included the template, and informed Reisio. Thanks for the suggestions. Belorn (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer overview

On September 19TH, 2012 the {{Primary sources|date=July 2010}} tag was boldly deleted by User:Reisio with the edit summary: (if two years doesn't do it, then the template isn't serving any more purpose than ordinary wikipedia guidelines on the matter, and therefore is a waste of space here): . This drew the attention of another editor, User:SudoGhost and was reverted: . This revert was then reverted again by User:Reisio:. This was then again reverted by User:SudoGhost, the first reverting editor:. This was again reverted by the bold editor, User:Reisio: . At this point, another editor, User:Lentower retuned the tag: and then made a seperate edit to the "see also" section of the article. This drew the attention of yet another editor, User:Belorn who adapted one primary source to a secondary source (I have not looked at the source at this time) and then made an additional edit removing the tag once again: as well as deleting some content and sources from the lede. The tag was again added back by User:Lentower : , then reverted again by User:Belorn : , which was reverted once again by User:Lentower: only to be reverted by User:Belorn : which was just reverted by User:SudoGhost: that was then reverted by User:Reisio : just to be reverted again by User:SudoGhost: that was reverted by User:Reisio : . At this point another editor became involved and edited the page User:Czarkoff : who appears to have attempted something of a compromise with a different tag {{multiple issues| {{citation style|date=September 2012}} {{linkrot|date=September 2012}} {{ref improve|date=September 2012}} }} with more specific concerns. This was followed up by an edit by User:Derek R Bullamore who addressed citation concerns and replaced the previous tag with {{Refimprove|date=September 2012}}. Then User:Reisio removed that tag accusing the editor of "driveby tagging" in the edit summary: . At this point User:Czarkoff then added tags directly to text .--Amadscientist at 18:15, 23 September 2012

This is easier: History begins at 23:49, 19 September 2012‎ and ends on 17:13, 22 September 2012.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A few minor misses. Edit 33, did not delete some content/source from the lead, it added new sources. Misplaced Pages diffs are sometimes less than perfect so it is easy to missread. Edit 33 added 11 new unique sources (some of the 11 are used to support more than 1 claim), and removed the tag. Also, edit 37 do not exist. Edit 35 and 37 in above list is the exact same edit. In total, my edits above where: 1 edit that replaced an primary with secondary source. 1 edit that added 11 new sources and removed the tag. 1 edit that reverted the immediate inclusion of the tag after edit 33. Please do an edit the above history summery and correct it. Belorn (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU dispute discussion continued

I have pinged the involved parties. If no reply is made in a reasonable amount of time, the case status may change.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diego Maradona

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Diego Maradona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lsw10 (talk · contribs)
• Kevin McE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user has repeatedly deleted many of my sources and descriptions on the article. My version of the article uses more references than his and still allows his to be included with making contradictions. His version makes impossible to add other popular views on the player. On top of that, the user has edited a section of the FIFA Poll made in 2000, only leaving the part that supports his views(the online poll) and leaving the FIFA magazine readers votes, and the experts votes out. There is no Website in the world that only refers to the online poll leaving out the rest. Pure vandalism. Another dispute of ours in the same article is that he has reverted my editing on an irrelevant reference from an article using the Castrol Rankings Website comparing Pele and Maradona. The article and Website did not support the description on the Misplaced Pages page saying "Maradona is the best ever" and it actually rated several other players above him. http://www.castrolfootball.com/legends/

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing with the other user in our talk pages and in the articles talk page.

How do you think we can help?

-Not permit deletion of legitimate references. -possibly make the article semi-protected if that will help, as it has also received vandalism by users who are not logged in.

Opening comments by KevinMcE

Diego Maradona discussion

• Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be mediating this discussion, after we get opening statements from all parties involved. Also, please see WP: BRD. Electric Catfish 17:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Innovation Journalism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Innovation Journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dnordfors (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We need help to end the RfD. It was previously subject for Dispute Resolution which was constructive. The Dispute Resolution has been closed. However, the dispute seems to continue on the RfD page. The editor who initiated the RfD says I have no right to suggest that the RfD should be considered resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous Dispute Resolution was successful in bringing the issue forward.

How do you think we can help?

Stay in the loop until the RfD is resolved. Please check the RfD page.

Opening comments by OpenFuture

Dnordfors has already brought Innovation Journalism up once here, and it was dealt with. What exactly the dispute is this time is not explained. He has been asked to wait for the end of the AfD already, but he did not. As far as I can tell this is all an attempt either of Wikilawyering around normal Misplaced Pages policies, or simply an attempt to waste the time of everybody involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Innovation Journalism discussion

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. As Noleander said in the last DRN case, please wait for the AfD discussion to run its course before bringing this to DRN. An AfD discussion cannot be closed (although there are rare exceptions) until a site administrator closes it. A deletion discussion runs for around a week before an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus, and decides whether to keep or delete the article. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed.--SGCM (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, if you can't seem to get the *fD to close, consider filing at Requests for closure. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is useful information. It is the first time I get involved in something like this, I am learning as we go. I did not know who had the right to close the discussion, but I have now learned it through your comment. If I get this right - here is the list of English Misplaced Pages site administrators: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=5000 . If this is the correct list, then neither OpenFuture nor I have the privileges to close the AfD - correct?

The initial application for deletion claim was filed on Sep 10 - two weeks ago. I believe enough has been said to judge if the claim for deletion stands or not. The discussion climate between OpenFuture and myself is not good, there is a lack of trust. Might it be time to apply for a site administrator to look at the discussion and close it? --dnordfors (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The AfD will likely be closed soon by an administrator, or relisted once more to invite further comments from other third party editors. If the administrator decides that no consensus has been established, then the discussion will be closed as no consensus and kept by default, as per Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus. --SGCM (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Vacy, New South Wales

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Vacy, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• Benyoch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having an issue with another editor at Vacy, New South Wales which has been exacerbated by some incivility from the other editor. The latest issue regards the wording of the introduction, which is supported by reliable sources. The other editor wants to "reinterpret" the wording of the sources and is concentrating on one source, rather than look at all the supporting sources. Vacy is legally recognised as a locality, which in Australia has a specific meaning, that being "a bounded area having a "rural" character. The introduction originally said "rural locality"; I removed "rural" which was redundant (a bit like "ATM machine" or "3 a.m in the morning") but was reverted by the other editor, who has now decided "rural place", which has an entirely different meaning, is more appropriate. His edits are interspersed with inappropriate comments in edit summaries, baseless allegations, and the odd personal attack. Together these make it hard to carry on a civilised discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have raised matters on the article's talk page. The most recent issue is here, but the only response by Benyoch was baseless allegation, after which he simply added undiscussed OR to the article. I've also addressed problems on Benyoch's talk page (here) but that seems to be going nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

Honestly, I'm hoping that another voice will help raise the civility level a few points and allow us to discuss in a more productive manner.

Opening comments by Benyoch

Vacy, New South Wales discussion

Talk:Diablo III

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Diablo III (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Unnamed101 (talk · contribs)
• SubSeven (talk · contribs)
• ferret (talk · contribs)
• Torchiest (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article Diablo 3, an author is cited talking about 0/10 reviews, this is a vague statement although clearly layed out on the article, (amazon and metacritic), although these are by themselves unreliable sources I have cited WP:RSOPINION to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

N/A

How do you think we can help?

Clearly defining if this falls within the realm of WP:RSOPINION, so that it may be decided whether to be included or excluded from the article.

Opening comments by SubSeven

Unnamed101 has tried to add the same material to the article NINE times, despite being patiently told at every turn why his edit is unacceptable. He is trying to cite Metacritic's and Amazon's user reviews of Diablo III. These user reviews are entirely self-published, with no editorial barrier, thus they cannot be cited per WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:SPS. I don't really know what else to say beyond that. If the arbitrator can figure out how WP:RSOPINION is in any way relevant here, as Unnamed101 claims, then I bow to your intellectual superiority. --SubSeven (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ferret

User is adding user review citations to the article despise numerous editors informing him why they cannot be added. The Diablo 3 talk page has a FAQ specifically addressing this, as the article has a long history of SPAs attempting to get user reviews to be directly added to the article. WP:VG has established guide lines that the reviews cannot be used as a reliable source, nor are the individual users reliable sources. User continues to add the content despite a clear consensus on the talk page that he should not. He has violated 3RR once, and performed the same revert he violated RR3 over a day after his block expired.

In addition, the user has only included the two editors that reverted him today. User:Dp76764 and User:Torchiest have also undone his edit. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears the bot didn't notify Subseven. I posted to his talk page. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Torchiest

• Note: This user was blocked for edit-warring, and as soon as their block expired, they immediate came back and started edit-warring on the exact same content. —Torchiest _edits 16:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that relevant bit of misleading information, as it has been 3 days since my block.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been three days since your block was placed. It lasted for 24 hours, so it's only been off for two days. The very first edit you made when you came back today was to revert again, the exact thing that got you blocked. —Torchiest _edits 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading WP:RSOPINION, which I would argue clearly lays the grounds for my edits, as you may have noted in the conflict resolution request.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to source them for their own opinions, as we already have a clear WP:RS telling us what those opinions are. —Torchiest _edits 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Diablo III discussion

Talk:Sleigh Bells discography

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sleigh Bells discography (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fezmar9 (talk · contribs)
• Erpert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Erpert recently created the article Sleigh Bells discography. I noticed a number of small issues, including that some of the songs he listed as singles were not, in fact, released as singles (i.e., a type of musical release that can be purchased or obtained independent of the parent album). For the duration the argument, Erpert has maintained that music videos and singles are one and time same. I disagree and maintain (which is consistent with what the Song and Discography Projects believe) singles and music videos are two separate entities. While singles can have a corresponding music video for promotional or artistic purposes, a single can also exist without a music video, and likewise, a music video can exist without there being a single for the same song. On multiple occasions I have asked Erpert to provide any sort of evidence to support the songs he is calling singles have actually been released as singles, but instead he insists he has already provided this evidence, and that I should provide evidence to support music videos and singles are different things.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion was requested, but the arguing seemed to get worse after someone commented. Erpert did not want to participate in the third opinion's solution of illustrating both of our positions with a list. I also reached out to two WikiProjects (Songs and Discographies) and a response from Michig supports my view, but Erpert still wants to see some sort of source supporting the idea that singles and music videos are two different things.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not really sure what to say here, I just really want this long-winded argument over something so trivial to finally be put to rest. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's much of a middle ground here. Either a song was released as a single or it wasn't. I guess just evaluate both of our arguments and go from there?

Opening comments by Erpert

The overview that Fezmar stated is so unbalanced. The talk page in question clearly shows that I have explained each of my actions every time more than once, so I'm not going to do that again here. What I will say is the same simple solution I gave Fezmar: if he (or anyone else) thinks a music video and a single are not the same thing, find a source that says so. And his stating that the music video and single (music) articles don't back up my claim is inaccurate. It's not that they don't say the two terms aren't the same; they don't mention them (in other words, there's no argument either way). There's a difference. Basically, the way I see it is, Fezmar is forum shopping because he doesn't like the way the third opinion came out, which is really disruptive (and yes, I'll admit that I said canvassing at first; I meant forum shopping). Erpert 01:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sleigh Bells discography discussion

Talk:Tanka prose

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tanka prose (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elvenscout742 (talk · contribs)
• Tristan noir (talk · contribs)
• Kujakupoet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.

The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.

He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.

When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.

He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.

I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.

At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. His arguments, on the substance, seemed to back me up more than Tristan noir, since he basically said that tanka prose is a modern English form and should not be critiqued in terms of classical Japanese literature. Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response. This happened less than two days after the page move, and he immediately went to the talk page where there was already a heated debate occurring. It seems highly unlikely that this was a coincidence, especially considering that his comment basically ignored what I actually said. He more recently made a similarly irrelevant, ad hominem remark]. This seems very likely, under the circumstances, to be a tag team, since both users have made barely 100 edits in four years, on very closely-related topics.

At this point, I suggested a compromise, which Tristan noir immediately agreed to, that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.

However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources and making the same claims, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.

But when he finally produced his rewrite, I was disappointed with the results.

His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.

I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implied that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is intrinsically related to modern English "tanka prose". It used weasel words and cleverly worded sentences so as not to actually state that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but to distinctly imply it.

He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen , and one in English would cost $500 dollars ) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).

He continually refuses to provide quotations or specific paraphrases from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" or their relevance to an article on said subject.

I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not all waka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.

As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.

I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response on the page in question will be (he hasn't replied on the talk page, nor made any edits to the article page since), but when I posted this same notice on the Administrators' Noticeboard in which he basically attacked me for having an aggressive tone, but given the circumstances I have actually been far too subdued until now. The sources he has cited are, frankly, full of nonsense. Their claims about Japanese literary history are completely and utterly bizarre. I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The users in question clearly do not understand Misplaced Pages policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with their personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Misplaced Pages community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified.

For those who check all the lengthy background of this dispute, you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems due to his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages if anyone requires further details. (However, several of my principle complaints are already on the relevant talk pages.)

I apologize for the extremely long overview. I wanted to get this history out on the table first in case anyone gets the wrong idea. My hope is that, in posting this very long an detailed summary I will save myself having to engage in an even more drawn-out dispute on a trivial topic than I already have.

Opening comments by Tristan noir

Opening comments by Kujakupoet

Talk:Tanka prose

Freud Talk page Science section

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Freud Talk page Science section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Esterson (talk · contribs)
• Almanacer (talk · contribs)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a long-running dispute on the Freud talk page regarding postings on the Science section of the Freud page. It has reached an impasse.

It is about the appropriateness (in terms of certain specific of the content, but above all on the proportionality of the amount of space devoted to a relatively minor contributor to Freud scholarship) of one editor's postings on the Freud page.

If anyone can come in on this I would be grateful. If you do venture forth, after seeing the initial postings to get the flavour of the topic, the endless point/counterpoint that follows should be skipped, down to the most recent postings at the end.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from trying to be reasonable, and making a major concession to the point of view expressed by the editor with whose views I differ, I have taken no steps for dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

By having an outsider check out what is going on and come in with comments.

Opening comments by Almanacer

Opening comments by Polisher of Cobwebs

Freud Talk page Science section discussion

3. Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Self-determination&diff=next&oldid=512661642

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