Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MangoWong (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 10 October 2011 (→Kunbi discussion). 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 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

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

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

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

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

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

Star of Bethlehem

Provisionally closing due to inactive nature of dispute and both parties being infrequent editors. Will reopen on request, leave note on my talk page. Intentionally leaving DoNotArchiveUntil in place to keep closed listing on top page for 30 days. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony characters (Round 2)

• List of My Little Pony characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Well I am going to open this again since I've been haunted by the fact that every time tha Tama-Fan did an edit to that page, I felt like it didn't suit the whole page. She is doing the original research, well both of us, but I am using some references that I gather from some sources including the debut of the pony and everything else. At least I'm being precise.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Tama Fan (talk · contribs)
• Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs)

She is doing some edits that doesn't make sense in my own language. Well actually I can accept edits from my other teammates since they gather information officially from reliable sources like I do. But she doesn't, and resolved on using photobucket at that time.

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of My Little Pony characters}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Once. It always failed and we always argue more on the same subject about ponies all the time.

• How do you think we can help?

Please do something about this, its driving me nuts thinking about the same article and all with the content disputes. It all needs to stop, everything.

Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony characters discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Blackgaia02! Thanks for posting at the DRN, and sorry that it has taken a while to get back to you. I have reviewed the page history, the talk page and your user talk pages, but I can't find the specific thing that you and Tama Fan are disputing. To solve this dispute we are going to have to have a good idea of what actual content in the list is not being agreed upon, and on the sources that are being used to back it up. If there is more than one thing in the list under dispute, then that is ok, but we will need to look at them one at a time. We can start the dispute resolution process once we have all become clear on what the dispute is. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 02:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that would seriously help the whole issue. And seriously end this mess.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So, can you give me a specific thing on the page that you are disputing? We can't get started until this is clear. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbi

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

Dispute overview

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

The article contains a total of six sources at present. Among these, four are about a hundred years old or more. All of these are written by non experts. Are these sources reliable sources? Here are the sources:

Various census of India. 1867. pp. 36–. Retrieved 13 May 2011.

Bhattacharya, Jogendra Nath (1896). Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems. Thacker, Spink. pp. 270–. Retrieved 13 May 2011.

Balfour, Edward (1885). The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial Industrial, and Scientific: Products of the Mineral, Vegetable, and Animal Kingdoms, Useful Arts and Manufactures. Bernard Quaritch.

Russell, R. V.; Lai, R. B. H. (1995). The tribes and castes of the central provinces of India. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 9788120608337. (The last source is supposed to be from 1995 according to the citation. But it was actually published in 1916.)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• MangoWong (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page. But was referred to here.

• How do you think we can help?

By answering whether these four sources are reliable sources.

MW 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbi discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

MangoWong, you were referred to WP:RSN, not here. You had previously tagged the article to be checked for reliable sources, and I did that. I also tried to explain why they are ok even though I would prefer more modern sources. This issue has been discussed across numerous articles due to your misunderstanding of WP:RS. RSN is indeed the correct forum & I encourage you to use it. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did refer this to RSN. I did misread your comment. But since this is already here, I think it may be better to get advice from here. We were told on a previous occasion at the RSN that they are unfamiliar with sourcing issues about Indian caste articles, and it was suggested that we take it somewhere else. So, this is probably the right place.MW 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, WT:IN would be a better place, in the event that WP:RSN cannot come to any consensus. What makes you think that people here are more India-focussed than people at WP:RSN? - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a dispute situation. The WT:IN is not meant for handling disputes. So, I feel it would not be an appropriate venue. I am not suggesting that the folks here are more India focussed than RSN. I do not think it necessary to have an India focus to discuss these issues. We have already had a dispute being brought here and being given a closure. The folks here did not express an inability to resolve the issue. Secondly, the closure statement of the earlier dispute Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4#Yadav may be relevant to the present dispute, and may make it easier to resolve the issue.MW 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is about reliability. That is what RSN is designed for: assessing reliability. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the RSN is designed to assess the reliability of sources. But despite its design, it has expressed an inability to do so for the present subject. So, this is the logical place.MW 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems possibly to be another one of your memory lapses. This was the RSN thread and it explains that the issue which could not be adjudicated on was synth/weight. They were happy to comment on reliability. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No memory lapse there (and stop suggesting that I have had any memory lapse previously. Don't WP:BAIT) They weren't happy to comment on reliability. -MW 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, we'll do it here, just to keep you happy, Please note that I added none of these sources to the article and that I would be as pleased as anyone else to see more, and more modern, sources used.

• Census: clearly, a census report is a compilation of data and the manner in which it is presented is de facto reliable, as it is an official report of the state. Unless proven otherwise, it is a reliable source and even if it was proven otherwise, it would still be worth commenting on. The compilers are "experts" in what they do, and much advice is taken. In this instance a part of that expertise was to classify various groups in various ways. The Kunbi article reflects that, although I would be pleased to see an alternative word to "scholars" in the relevant sentence
• Jogendra Nath Bhattacharrya has an article here on WP, is cited by modern anthropologists such as Susan Bayly, and presents the alternate view to that propounded by the census. This is fine: we are showing two differing opinions using sources from around the same time.
• Edward Balfour has a WP article. Like many members of the Indian Civil Service, he spent a lot of his time in scholarly pursuits while in the country. If there were more modern sources then I might not particularly rate him but the article notes specifically that the statements are his opinion. His major work was republished many times. In the context of how the article is written, it is ok although not of any special merit.R
• R. V. Russell has an article, , although not a particularly inspiring one. This work is cited all over the place, per GBooks, In the Kunbi article, it is used to support a couple of etymology statements and in the absence of anything to contradict those statements I see nothing wrong with using the work of someone who was there, on the ground, and who was involved in compiling census information etc. Most of the censuses of that period involved producing much background material of a social/religious/anthropological etc nature rather than mere number crunching.

So, as I said on the article talk page, "I had already checked. In the absence of anything more modern, they are fine. The names are all well-known in the field of oriental studies. Sure, I would prefer something newer but that does not make them wrong, especially given that the article is carefully worded to put the attributed statements in context with regard to the time period". - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like Sitush has made some good arguments for the sources to be included, though I agree with all parties involved that adding some more recent reliable sources would be the best course of action here. I think the most productive thing to do would be to just work on the article, rather than arguing about what's already there. It seems that all the editors involved agree with what should be in the article - the only thing that is holding us back here is someone who is willing to do the actual research and editing in order to put it in. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources being used are amateur (non scholarly), obsolete books, of a period from which even the government data and scholarly works are well known to be unreliable and or biased. They are being passed as reliable sources. These sources also base their conclusions on theories of anthropometry and the theory of "Aryan Invasion of India". Both these theories have little or zero academic standing now. These books are full of this type of material. I don't see how unqualfied eds could be expected to glean reliable data from these sources. I think it is best to stick to contemporary secondary sources.MW 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any editors here are trying to claim that these old sources represent the cutting edge of historical research. I see that Sitush has been busy adding modern references to the article, which will hopefully alleviate your concerns about the previous sourcing. There is no reason that old sources can't be included, but in most circumstances they should be used carefully, with language such as "in , said "; care should also be taken that they do not give too much weight to viewpoints which have been refuted by subsequent research. I am curious as to what you think of Sitush's updates to the page today - is there still anything there that you feel is inappropriate? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot take the credit for much of today's additions but I generally support them. Some are mine but most are by User:Zuggernaut, who is hopefully not exceeding their topic ban because it is useful stuff. My access to sources on Kunbi is pretty limited, which is why I had added none at all until today. However, as a general rule I would much prefer to be adding content than fighting about removal of it - there have been far too many fights of late, mostly with people who very rarely add anything. We all have our different roles in working on this project, I guess, but I am wasting too much energy in debating removals that almost invariably turn out to be misguided in their understanding of WP:RS, WP:NOR. WP:SYNTH etc. It is a time sink and clearly bringing it here has not made it less of one. I've now run out of options of how to deal with these situations and get back to the high levels of actual content addition which once I did.

Anyway, back into the fray. Thanks for your time, and thanks to Zuggernaut for the ongoing improvements. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescending tone, through and through. Considering things like these Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Don't bite the newcomers, I would say that the present behavior is saintly, and is a welcome improvement. I consider things like misrepresentations and OR etc. to be encyclopedic poison. If misrepresentations and OR (material from unreliable sources is OR) etc. are allowed to proliferate, it would make WP unusable. Who would want to use an encyclopedia which is loaded with misrepresentations and poor quality sources. That is why, it is necessary to spend time on taking down misrepresentations, OR etc. and to put a check on the use of unreliable sources etc. to prevent OR.

I have produced clear quotes to show that these sources are unreliable. We also have a policy on sourcing. WP:V. It says To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source… Since these source are not reliable, it would be against WP:V to use these sources. Again, since these sources are not reliable sources, material sourced from these sources would also be “original research” and thus be against the policy of WP:NOR. The WP:NOR says The term "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists... WP:NPOV says Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. These sources are being used to do original research and they are being used to produce a picture which does not exist in reliable sources. This is against all the core policies of WP. If any sources, whether reliable or unreliable, can be used by attributing the name of the author, and if obsolete unreliable sources can also be used by attributing the year of publication, I too would start using any source in this manner. There is a user who has been asking me for help using some unreliable sources. I have refused, and encouraged the user to find better sources. I could start telling them that any sources can be used by attributing the name of the author, and the year of publication. I suppose same standards would apply. Thanks and regards.MW 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TLDR warning! Sorry, I thought that this was done and dusted, especially after recent developments at the article which have suitably reduced the weight by introducing more recent sources (great, and what I desired). If you consider my tone to have been condescending then my apologies for that, also. It was not my intention.

It is possible sometimes to read policies etc a little too literally and in its extreme some people can claim that to be wikilawyering. Whether that term fits you or not is beyond my purview because it is a consensus thing. The reverse also applies, ie: whether there is room for discretion in application of policy is a consensus thing. To my mind, context is important and I have tried to explain this to you on numerous occasions at numerous venues. I am not the only person to have done so, by a long way.

I do accept that there has been only one uninvolved person commenting on this particular issue. However, we do not have to cut an article back to "The Kunbi are an Indian community" (which is pretty much what would have resulted from your argument) simply because of issues regarding the various policies which you have referred to. What we can do is phrase that which we have access to in a manner that reflects the issues.If we adopted your stance - and it does have its place, I am sure - then Misplaced Pages content would be reduced dramatically and its usefulness reduced almost as much. Sometimes we have to make allowances, ensure that we present things in some sort of context, and hope that others can come along who are able to expand/modify/whatever based on their own resources of time and/or access.

I know that you were unhappy with the outcome of your last visit to this noticeboard - which was also arguably based on an over-literal interpretation of similar policies - and that you did wander around saying as much, but we do not always get what we think is right. It happens to me also, honest. I live with it. A quick example of what you have to live with is your frequent assertion that anything written by someone who is under the "rank" of professor and is written in a work that does not focus (hereafter, I paraphrase) for 300 pages entirely on, say, the etymology of a community's name is not compliant with policy. Sorry, but that is ludicrous in practice, however well supported in theory. Aside from anything else, there are plenty of oddball professors knocking around. We need some room to manoeuvre otherwise nothing happens. And if I am wrong about this then I will go out, buy a hat and eat it. You can have the photos :) Sitush (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, is there a specific thing in the current version of the article that you object to? Maybe the inclusion of a particular claim backed up by one of these old references, or wording that you think is not neutral? We really need to focus on specific things in order to work towards resolving the disputes on this page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to all the material which is adduced from these sources. Its all OR. I see no need to do OR on WP. We have explicit sources to say that all these sources are unreliable. We have core policies which prohibit material from unreliable sources, and we have clear policy extracts to show that anything sourced from unreliable sources is OR. I could go on to show policy after policy to show this point. There are good reasons for avoiding OR. These caste articles are teeming with unreliable sources, and during these past few months, caste articles have become a war zone due to OR from unreliable sources. (The present four sources are being used in a number of other caste articles too, and are invariably cause for friction.) Hundreds of people keep turning up, blow their tops, and keep getting blocked or banned. These articles had the war zone look from before I ever got to know them, and the war zone atmosphere continues, due to OR from unreliable sources etc. IMO. I look into other encyclopedias, and find that they too have a few articles on Indian castes. But they are usually very short. There is a reason why the caste articles in other encyclopedias are usually short. (I know this is not an argument for not having bigger articles, but I am trying to illustrate some other point.) There is simply too little encyclopedic info which is available out there. They generally do not contain the type of material which is causing friction here. I see no necessity to swamp WP articlespace with unreliable sources just to concoct big articles. If we don’t have proper sources, we can even delete the articles. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability# Notability. I am not suggesting that we delete these articles, but only that we limit ourselves to not doing OR.MW 11:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It is easy to go into the article and see what is being sourced from these sources. It has inline citations, so, locating the material should be easy. I have not presented the material here to avoid swamping the place.

My concern is basically with those parts of the material which are sourced from unreliable sources, and cause friction. This material constantly gets reverted, and gets reinstated by claiming that it is properly sourced. Only that it is not properly sourced.MW 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Off the top of my head, none of the material at Kunbi relating to the sources in question has been reverted for a long time. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked. Since around the start of 2011 only one specific statement of the various cited to the sources mentioned in this thread has been the subject of any delete/reinstate cycle. That happened a couple of times (February and May) and was, perhaps inevitably, in relation to the shudra statement. It is one of several sourced to Balfour, but there were no complaints about the others so sourced. Anyone with more than a passing interest in Indian caste/community articles will be aware that the issue of shudra status is frequently subject to complaint, usually by members of the relevant community. The shudra issue has nothing to do with the reliability of the source and everything to do with what some people call "caste glorification": few people want to be classified as shudra, which was a menial and low ritual rank, and everyone seemingly wants to be related to the noble warrior rank of kshatriya. In practice, for many groups their ranking did change over time and place, and if this is the case with Kunbi then the solution is to provide the source to verify that.

As far as I can determine, and including all those who have edited the article since the start of the year, the only person who has so far actually challenged these sources on any policy grounds (originally reliability, but now seemingly everything that can possibly be thrown at a source) is MangoWong. So, the consensus appears to be that they are at least acceptable, even if perhaps not of the highest quality. The article has been massively improved while all this has gone on: someone has access to modern sources and is doing great work. I shall seek a better source for the shudra statement - there are quite a few out there. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, if your concern is with using older sources in general, then I think there is only so much we can do at this noticeboard. My understanding is that we may use these kind of sources in a similar way that we would use primary sources - that is, we can use them as reliable sources on their own opinions and on simple statements of fact that are obviously backed up by the source, but probably not anything else. If we use them for others' opinions or for more complicated statements of fact, then we would be getting into dubious territory. I don't think the problem here is original research as such, as it is not original, just very old; to me it seems more a problem of giving undue weight to viewpoints which may not be backed up by more recent scholarly research. I think all the uses of old sources in the present article are attributed to their authors - correct me if I'm wrong - although possibly their age could be more clearly shown in the article text.

As it seems to be the use of old sources in general that you are questioning here, then maybe what you should do is start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources, and link to it at WT:NPOV, and see if there is any appetite for clarifying the use of older sources in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If there's anything specific in the present article that you would like to discuss, then we can do that here, but otherwise I don't think discussion here will be likely to change anything, and I think I will close this thread and keep an eye on the discussions you create. If you want you can create a draft proposal in your userspace and I can have a look before you post it, to help everything go smoothly. Let me know what you think. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has already identified the point of friction. It is in this Kunbi#Etymology section of the article.(ref #7) (there are three instances of ref #7 in the section. I am referring to the second instance.) Going through the citation, I am unable to find where it says what it is supposed to say. Here’s a permanent link to the current version of the article. . The complete book is also available here. There too, I could not find anything of the sort. If this citation does support our material, I would explain my views regarding what has been said above.MW 12:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I will explain anyway. My objection is about doing OR from unreliable sources. Not about sources being old. If these sources are to be regarded as primary sources, they should be used in the way primary sources are supposed to be used. To my way of thinking, the proper way of using primary sources is to establish a point through some secondary sources first, then show a quotation from some primary source to illustrate the same point. Illustrating some point directly, or adducing something from the primary sources in a stand-alone way, is OR IMO. This is what is being done in the sentence in question.MW 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased that you have now decided that the age of a source is not an issue. What is unreliable about the view of the administrators of the day, correctly placed in context within a Misplaced Pages article? Census commissioners and superintendents of the official printing/publishing house represented the official stance of the British administration. If those opinions are now outdated then we would present the modern view, by way of contrast and probably with a little more weight. So, just find sources for the more modern view, and add them.

Let's get to the real issue, shall we? You and I both know that your real concern here is your ongoing campaign to whitewash the varna) system from history, and if there is collateral damage in achieving success on that score then so what? Your argument across multiple forums has been that the classification is no longer officially recognised, and therefore should not appear. Of course, it is in fact still referred to by modern sources and is not a banned term even in India, although until recently you appeared to claim that it was, and then you found yourself unable to support it and, thankfully, backtracked a little.

The varna (and more specifically, shudra) issue has been discussed to death, most recently at WT:IN. After your involvement in umpteen article talk page epics, discussions at WT:IN, at ANI, at NPOVN and even here on a previous occasion, the situation has not changed substantially. There is no "friction", just poor contributors. The ranking in the Hindu varna system appears in practically every major Indian caste article & those who have objected to it in this particular article did so by introducing unsourced claims to a higher rank, not for the reasons which you advocate (ie: complete removal). You are entitled to your view that the entire varna issue should be ignored in articles but have consistently failed to achieve consensus regarding it. Wikilawyering to achieve your end is not a great idea. It failed the last time you came here regarding exactly the same "real" point, ie: get the shudra word out of an article. You cannot deny that the varna system existed and is arguably still significant in the mindset of many Indian people, one reflection of this being the many contributors who are so keen to emphasise/claim/boost their caste's rank. That you do not like articles to mention the system is irrelevant and revisionist. That you are unwilling even to type, going only so far as typing "S*****", suggests to me that you have an overly emotional involvement that is not dis-similar to a COI issue in its effect. All of this is unfortunate, but it is not a sourcing problem. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who has an obsession with inserting this word. I have lost count of the number of times I have found you supporting or inserting this word by doing misrepresentations or OR or from off topic sources etc. For example, in the Lodhi article, you were supporting the insertion of this word by using a source in which the word "Lodhi" appears only once. It got deleted eventually, through consensus mind you. You were also supportive of inserting this word in infoboxes by doing OR. They too have been deleted. You were also supportive of inserting this word in the Kurmi article through misrepresentation. That too has been deleted now. How much should I recount to you. The reason for my not writing this word can be found on my talk page, in the last comment of this section.User talk:MangoWong#Comments from an outside editor. You can go on inserting this word, but not in violation of policy. The major upshot of this discussion, as I see it, is that you are going to have to use dated sources as primary sources. Please see WP:PRIMARY to understand the proper use of primary sources. You do not get to use them in a stand-alone way. First establish some point through some proper secondary sources, then you can use primary sources to illustrate the same point. That is not how the primary sources are being used in the article at present. See Kunbi#Etymology, ref #7. There are three instance of ref#7. I am talking about the second instance of ref#7 in that section. And the source does not say anything like what it is supposed to say. So, also explain where the source says what it is supposed to say. I mean, show which sentences in the source support our sentence in the article. Here's a permalink to the version of the article to which this ref#7 relates.. Don't make me say this again, and try to concentrate on the issue at hand. If you want to propose new sources, you should do it on the article talkpage IMO.MW 17:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the old "It's illegal. Well, it isn't in general use, but you can't claim that I was misrepresenting the information." argument. MangoWong, it was you yourself who said "A lie is a lie". Mr. Stradivarius, I strongly request that you read through this thread: . It is long, but please read it all. It provides an example of how MangoWong jumps from reason to reason in pursuit of a goal, and has great difficulty admitting mistakes while behaving harshly toward what he perceives as others' mistakes. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You wanna pay the lawyers if I get into legal problems for using that word?MW 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here follows a brief list of some modern works that refer to Kunbi as Shudra, some will be more reliable etc than others. Please could you indicate which of these would be acceptable to you as a bolster for or even replacement of the Balfour statement.

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H

Obviously, if you can find sufficient reliable sources that say they were either not shudra (or were one of the other three ranks, or dalit) then the article would have to reflect the various strands of opinion. If none of the above are suitable then I'll just keep bringing more forward - there are loads of them & I am not going to spend too long analysing the things because my past experience is that it is a waste of my time. You tell me, MangoWong, which ones seem ok to you, or alternatively why they are not ok. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We're out of sync now due to MW's post of 17:19 8 October. Let me clarify: if Balfour is unreliable for the shudra statement then how come plenty of modern sources, and the self-confession of one Kunbi from long before Balfour, say the same thing? If Balfour described X as being handsome and hard-working then that is his opinion - it is subjective and somewhat irrelevant IMO but much that is added to these articles by caste members tends to be quotes of this nature (well, it is when the quotes favour their caste, at any rate). On this score Balfour is neither more nor less reliable than anyone else. I still do not understand the original research argument. How can a quote of a recognised commentator be original research? It might be fringe-y, for example, but it is not OR.

I do not have to propose sources at the article talk page or indeed anywhere else, unless there is some specific ruling in place for the subject matter. I have done so here as a courtesy to you and stress again that it is only yourself who has raised any policy-based objections to those sources in the last nine months or so. You are welcome to choose, although I know that the last time I tried to do this you then claimed that you would not do so because the whole concept "is a lie" - see this (that article moved on, but the shudra word is still in there).

And, for the record, I have never inserted the shudra word in any article: I have defended it, sure, but never originated it. I have worked on many caste articles where the rank was genuinely brahmin, kshatriya or vaishya - it is not as if I am on some sort of campaign to change all references to be shudra. My only campaign, if that is the correct word, is to ensure that the varna concept is not taken out completely. I'm not even bothering to address the rest of your comment: your ability to twist words/manipulate debate makes it a waste of my time & everyone else's, ie: a time sink. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so this is about the shudra issue. This is always going to be a tricky term to deal with, as it is divisive and political. I'm afraid I haven't read all of the discussion about shudra on WT:IN, so could you tell me if any kind of consensus was reached in that discussion as to how todeal with the "shudra" term in articles? Wider community consensus on how to portray these issues is probably a good place to start, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The upshot of the discussions (as I see it) at WT:IN was that the term was being used excessively, in a spiteful way. As a tit for tat to vain people who have an interest in pushing rubbish kshatriya claims. And it was found that this should not happen, and articles should contain material only in keeping with WP:DUE, and not simply to counter rubbish kshatriya claim. The way to deal with rubbish kshatriya claim is to delete them, and not to counter them in an undue manner. It was not discussed whether unreliable sources should/ should not be used or whether misrepresentations should / should not be done. Your contention that the present four sources be treated like primary sources is helpful enough for me.MW 04:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion at WT:IN. Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics# Varna status in the lead of articles. It was started when it was found that a passing comment, from an off topic book was being used (by reading the latter half of a sentence only) in the Lodhi article. The full paragraph did become available later, but the ref was still deleted, through consensus.MW 04:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually sourcing did get a discussion, and at least one editor said "When a dispute arises, we should remove varna claims wherever they cannot be sourced to rock-solid, academic literature from authors of excellent repute in this specific area."MW 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is misrepresentation and cherry-picking yet again. It is futile trying to deal with you - just go ahead and do whatever you want, since you are never, ever wrong or misguided. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Did as you said.MW 14:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have now reverted because I have obtained the proof I wanted. You merely took out the shudra bit and left all the other stuff that you had been claiming to be unreliable. This is a serious case of POV from you, as I have known all along. Please indicate which of the other sources I listed above are acceptable to you. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is sick of you to agree to something and then backtrack on it. Zuggernaut has been doing major work on that article and you think I would now go about tearing it apart? If you did not mean it, why would you lie to me?MW 15:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, what is "sick" is your constant wikilawyering in order to push an invalid POV. I have never adopted such a drastic tactic before and I do not intend to do so again, but numerous people have been put at a disadvantage by your incessant twisting of words, mangling of policies, speciousness and misrepresentations. As expected, you have rejected all of my sources listed above. I also know that you will reject every one that I propose in future, just as you did at another article. If needs be, I will take this entire issue to RfC because it is absolutely ludicrous and the more people see this, the better. Numerous people have been involved (mostly on individual talk pages) over the last few months since you registered your username here and support for your revisionism has been extremely slim, mostly emanating from sockpuppets (not socks related to you, but socks of others who wanted to glorify their caste). Generally, those people get so fed up of your attitude that they just cannot cope with the gymnastics: you are very clever at that, but you are wrong. Varna was a highly significant and very complex part of Indian history, most but not all Hindu communities were within the system (or specifically excluded from it), and we should not simply whitewash the situation because of some Hindu nationalism or whatever ideology it is that drives you to do this. Why should we AGF regarding you when it is plain that you are in fact lawyering in bad faith etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

An example of a thread where MangoWong rejected all sources, although others were less sweeping is at Talk:Kurmi/Archive_3#Source_for_Shudra.I cannot recall that MW has ever removed "brahmin", "kshatriya" or "vaishya" (the other varna ranks) from an article, so sometimes it may indeed be true that inaction speaks louder than words. In July they even suggested replacing the Shudra term with "Dalit", despite the two being completely different things and there being no source for dalit - it was a purely emotive choice based on their perception that shudra = "subhuman" (another statement that was never verified). Is an RfC the way forward here? We do need some sort of resolution of this situation, which has spread like a poison across numerous forums. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You just keep googling randomly and bringing up non academic &/ non expert &/ off topic &/ passing comments &/ misrepresentations to be used as sources. Why would I NOT reject them all? Yo ur sources are rubbish. And I had suggested Dalit because you and your sidekicks were at that time using this word to spread OR lies in a completely unsourced way (by falsely claiming that you had the source, but it was elsewhere in the article.) And you were stubbornly refusing to remove the OR lies. You are just trying to perform a lynching on me by taking advantage of systemic bias because you are stumped and perturbed by my ability to fish out and delete misrepresentations etc.MW 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) You have been taking me to ANIs every time I have been stomping down on misrepresentations or OR lies etc. You can continue to institute scores of RFCs on me.MW 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Papal infallibility

• Papal infallibility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Insistent deletion of reliably sourced information; insistent citation of a scholar as supporting a view that he actually disagrees with

In the article Papal infallibility, User:Montalban insistently presents as certain the view that Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope. To do so he has repeatedly

1. deleted reliably sourced information about the contrary opinion of several scholars on this historical question;
2. asserted that one of those scholars who hold a contrary view supports Montalban's own view.

Montalban has done so here, here, here and here

1. Scholars whom Montalban deletes, thus presenting as certain and undisputed the view about 13th-century Olivi that was first proposed in 1972 by Brian Tierney:
   1. Klaus Schatz says that Aquinas and Bonaventure came closer to the defined doctrine than Tierney admits and that the crucial step occurred only in the 15th century; he declares that "it is impossible to fix a single author or era as the starting point" (source).
   2. Ulrich Horst also rejected the Tierney hypothesis (source), and Schatz describes Horst's criticism of Tierney as "the most thorough reworking of the question, and most persuasive in its overall historical perspective".
   3. James Heft "disagrees with Tierney's thesis that the roots of papal infallibility extend only to Olivi" (source, p. 2).
2. Scholar whom Montalban falsely presents as saying that 13th-century Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope:
   1. Mark E. Powell, who on the contrary says "the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims", referring in particular to 14th-century Bishop Guido Terreni.(source, p. 34).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Montalban (talk · contribs)
• Esoglou (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to engage with Montalban on the article's talk page, especially but not solely in this section, and finally warned him that, if he persisted, I would bring the matter before the Misplaced Pages community.

• How do you think we can help?

Montalban should be told not to present, in any part of any article of Misplaced Pages, one view of a subject as the only existent, when reliable sources support one or more other views. He should also be given a general warning (not on this point alone) to desist from deleting on flimsy pretexts sourced information that he dislikes.

— Preceding comment added by Esoglou (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Papal infallibility discussion

Not about deletion

For my part the papal infallibility article is already divided up appropriately. The majority of the argument presents what might be regarded as the 'positive' case, that is the history and development of papal infallibility largely from a Catholic perspective... including alleged examples of its demonstration through history.

Into that article is a very small section called "Opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility". One of these examples I wrote was constantly re-edited. The example was a remonstrance by Catholics in England where they declared that they never had believed in papal infallibility. This was before such was defined as dogma. Another editor objected to my use of the word 'remonstrance' saying he did a search and found no document called that. I pointed out I never called the document the "Remonstrance of Catholics..." He then edited in a catechism written 70 years later to (what I can only regard) as an attempt to excuse the remonstrance by saying that 70 years later the English were of a different opinion. They may have changed their opinion. The catechism didn't say that. It just noted a different group at a different time came to a different opinion. In the end it appears to me that the other editor had no reason for inserting this in and it was dropped. This followed an enormous amount of Q&A over adding in information already presented, such as he wished me to say what this remonstrance was about - even though I answered and had it in the article several times (I believe three times).

Another example was a claim that a Franciscan priest Peter Olivi is regarded as being the first to cite an example of Papal Infallibility. It's the beginning of a short segment where a pope, John XXII rejected outright that claim.

Again, I feel, another editor sought to explain away this. I'd cited several historians who noted what I'd stated. This was re-edited and reduced to simply one historian's opinion - Hasler. It's been subsequently re-edited to be just another person's opinion - Tierney. Into this the other editor gave some argument that directly disagrees with Tierney. They may well believe that. However introducing such information in this section would only serve to confuse the article, and also opens the door up for others to re-edit the entire article in similar fashion (where proofs are available).

My reasoning works as this: This segment is about opposition. The whole article is mostly about positive arguments. It seems to me that the other editor is unsatisfied that even a small section of 'opposition' can go without comment that re-affirms his POV.

I have suggested that he could write this information elsewhere into the article OR have it in notes. He has chosen not to discuss this but simply re-edit his argument back in. I offered this as an option in the Talk pages and got no response

I pointed out that if he wishes to introduce this perspective into a section of 'negative' argument then I could re-edit to show 'negative' throughout the entire article.

It would ALL look clumsy following along a line of 'a statement', followed by

but 'x' says this then him adding

but 'y' says this then me adding

but 'z' says this

And would turn the article over to one of debate.

More specifically I mentioned that I could edit the statement Believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable... to Although believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable... there is no direct evidence that these verses apply to infallibility

and Pope St. Clement of Rome, c. 99, stated in a letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union" (Denziger §41, emphasis added). rendered as

Pope St. Clement of Rome, c. 99, stated in a letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union" (Denziger §41, emphasis added). However 'x' commentator notes that the Epistle is directed to the Corinthians only, who were a colony of Rome (not connected to historical Corinth) and therefore the church in Corinth would look to the Church in Rome

This would provide the same balance as he suggests is needed for one small section, but I'm sure he would not want that. I offered this as an option in the Talk pages and got no response

in Summary I am not about the deletion of his points but in favour of the over-all flow and cohesion of the article. I feel that there is already enough points for without every negative point being further apologized for. Montalban (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you making the article say at the point where you are doing the deletions and the misrepresentation of Powell? Esoglou (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that Esoglou has the same objections elsewhere in the article. In the Middle Ages section he leads this with

In 1972 Brian Tierney published a book in which he argued that the Franciscan priestPeter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope

he then gives objections to it there.

later where I have put comments about Peter Olivi in the Opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility he wishes to again put in counter-argument to it again there. He thus seeks several bites of the cherry

Montalban (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Esoglou and Montalban, and thank you for posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard! Now, I am new to this subject, so maybe I am missing something here, but the section in question is "opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility", but Peter Olivi seems to have been arguing for papal infallibility, so to my untrained eyes it seems like it is in the wrong section. Would you both agree with this?

Regarding what views to include in the article, the relevant policy seems to be that of avoiding undue weight. From the policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." So we must judge the relative prominence of all the viewpoints involved to find out how much weight to assign to each. My first impression is that Montalban's version is giving too much weight to Tierney's interpretation without including the viewpoints of the other scholars; however, as I said, I am new to the field, so there may be a good reason to assign less weight to the other scholars that I am not aware of. Let me know what you think. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strad breaks it down nicely; the process of building the article back up while in dispute. I have a question myself: do we have the top scholars' opinions in the article already? Who are the top scholars, past and present? I can go to Google books and find people who have written on the topic, but that does not tell me who their peers think are the top thinkers. Once we identify them, we can introduce other ideas as not mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Britannica says that the first 'infallible' pope was Honorius I in the 7th century, but a subsequent council disputed this. Perhaps we can start from there... Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can put an oar in... I've been involved in this dispute even though Esoglou did not list me as one of those involved. IMO, the problem is simply this. Montalban really wants to say "Franciscan priest Peter Olivi proposed the doctrine of papal infallibility but 40 years later Pope John XXII rejected this doctrine as placing improper restrictions on the authority of a pope (i.e. current popes should not be bound by the pronouncements of his predecessors)." However, Montalban insists on asserting that Olivi was the first to propose papal infallibility whereas Esoglou insists that the question of whether Olivi was first is, in fact, the subject of dispute among scholars. IMO, it is not required that Misplaced Pages determine whether Olivi was first because Misplaced Pages is about verifiable reliable sources, not about truth. It is NOT our job to determine what the truth is. We should simply say that Tierney et al believe Olivi was first while Schatz et al believe that it's not possible to determine when and by whom papal infallibility was first proposed. In any event, the question of whether Olivi was first is not critical to the point Montalban is trying to make. Esoglou and I have made recent edits to try and separate the question of "who was first to propose papal infallibility" from the incident that Montalban is trying to relate about a pope rejecting the doctrine of papal infallibility. IMO, all that is required to resolve this dispute is for Montalban to recognize that the issue of Olivi being first is not critical to making the point he wants to make. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Pseudo-Richard was not involved in a dispute about this particular point, but rather about others of Montalban's edits in the article. To get across his claim that Pope John XXII denied papal infallibility in condemning an idea that has been attributed to the by then dead Olivi, it would be quite enough for Montalban to say Olivi attributed infallibility to the popes, without saying that Olivi was the first or the second or the thousandth. Binksternet has added yet another source that suggests that Olivi was by no means first. If Montalban would only accept the recommendations and suggestions made to him by Stradivarius, Binksternet and Pseudo-Richard, the problem brought for consideration here would be solved. But so far he is insisting at that point of the article on presenting as undisputed fact his claim that Olivi was the first, and - more than that - he is holding to his illegitimate action of deleting at that point any mention of sources that show that the "fact" is not undisputed, and his still more illegitimate action of presenting as proof of the "fact" a source that actually denies it. Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear (U.S. TV series)

• Top Gear (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

User 293.xx.xxx.xx believes that copyright violations have been happening in the article and have tried to remedy the problem in two ways (deletion and sourcing two of the excised quotes with actual links to articles found in excised citation), while user roguegeek believes the edits are not copyright violations and that user 293.xx.xxx.xx is engaging in edit warring, pretending to be an administrator, not having good faith in other editors, and not adhering to established Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk · contribs)
• Roguegeek (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Top Gear (U.S. TV series)}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

User 293.xx.xxx.xx had placed a copyright removal notice on the talk page and tagged likewise, which was replied to by user roguegeek. It started off with an allegation that user 293.xx.xxx.xx was pretending to be an administrator, attempts to ban other users from Misplaced Pages, blocking people, other actions reserved for administrators, and then tried to explain what user 293.xx.xxx.xx did wrong. User roguegeek also tagged talk page as well. User 293.xx.xxx.xx attempted to asked for at least an apology from user roguegeek for assuming bad faith as a sign that user roguegeek at least realized what he had done before any further discussions went further. User 293.xx.xxx.xx feels that due to user roguegeek's not even apologizing for baseless accusations after a small delay in waiting means that user roguegeek might not be willing to compromise.

User 293.xx.xxx.xx had thought of going to the Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems incident board, but does not feel both that the editing history isn't sufficient enough for such a board in the beginning, and the situation has exploded beyond that board.

• How do you think we can help?

User 293.xx.xxx.xx requests at least a clear consensus on whether a copyright violation has been committed and whether or not the article is balanced and neutral. A formal apology from user roguegeek for the baseless accusation and the removal of the baseless warning notice by user roguegeek himself is also requested.

293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear (U.S. TV series) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Apologies for my hasty close earlier - I regretted that as soon as I saw the diffs. To me it looks like all the material that is claimed to be copyright violations are actually quotations, not material that is written in Misplaced Pages's voice, am I right? Normally I would say that any suspected copyright violation should go straight to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, but I'm finding it hard to see the violation in this case. It is fine to use quotes especially in "reception" sections like the one under discussion here, and if a quote is used correctly it is not a copyright violation. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Quotations for more details. Is there anything here I'm missing? From what I have read it doesn't seem like the quotes are extremely long, so there aren't any problems in that regard. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 15:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you go to the source cited where the quotes came from, you see a list of quotations. I dunno, I see a vague copyright infringement of the page itself. Take the quotes from the page, add in some extra words to mask the copy-paste, and let it go. Also, I did miss something else when I was re-reviewing the history for my response to you; this edit by another user noted that the source link isn't allowed on Misplaced Pages due to it's questionable status. And I did request for more sources when deleting the copy-vio edit which I found for two of them and edited likewise. So, I have a copyright violation problem, a cited source problem, and a NPOV problem as major points at this point. Did I miss anything else? (I think getting an apology from the other party is moot at this point for the false accusations, unless thats a Misplaced Pages:Civility issue as well.)--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, now I see what's going on. Thanks for the clarification. This looks like a subtle copyright issue, and one that I'm probably not qualified to answer. I think we should get an opinion on this from someone who knows more about copyright than I do. How about creating a new post on Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems and seeing what the editors there say? After we have sorted out the copyright issue, then we can have a look at the sourcing and neutrality. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 06:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez

• Kamala Lopez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I contributed to the article but felt a particular paragraph read like an opinion and personal attack rather than an attempt to offer a balancing view:

"In November 2008, A Single Woman author and star Jeanmarie Simpson was interviewed on the radio show Insight, hosted by Jeffrey Callison on Capitol Public Radio, Sacramento, California's NPR affiliate. During the interview, Simpson disclosed that she had retained an attorney because of issues between herself and the filmmaker of A Single Woman. In February 2010, she was quoted in the Reno News and Review, saying, "Terrible movie. It’s just badly, badly conceived, badly done. The director made a mess of it. It’s really too bad because it’s a fantastic story, and it’s a wonderful, worthy subject, as you know. But it just–the film is a disaster.""

Recently, this suspicion was verified by the paragraph's author placing the following statement on the talk page after a neutral third party culled the article to meet Misplaced Pages standards including the removal of the above paragraph.

"I think it's significant that the director and author/star of the film are at odds. It turns out, they're cousins, though (interestingly) Lopez denies it. Simpson has said that she gave Lopez the project out of familial love and trust and that it was appropriated and exploited by Lopez."

Please comment and help me to understand how Misplaced Pages views this situation and the appropriate next steps.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Webberkenny (talk · contribs)
• JHScribe (talk · contribs)

Webberkenny has constantly accused others of having a non-neutral POV as well as seeking to besmirch the reputation of the subject.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes - I have asked webberkenny to discontinue editing the article and accept the judgment of a neutral third party.

• How do you think we can help?

Give a quick ruling on this dispute and take swift action.

JHScribe (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I have had a look at the article, and have removed the paragraph myself. We need to be very careful when reporting on legal matters, especially when those matters are not cited properly (the link was broken) and when cases are being speculated upon or are ongoing. The relevant Misplaced Pages policy here is Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, which says the following: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Also please note the advice on criticism and praise, and on gossip. I think criticism of the film could be appropriate in an article about the film, but probably not in its director's biography, and definitely not in a section which speculates about legal action and includes a quote taken (in my opinion) out of context. Sorry to be blunt about this, but Misplaced Pages policy is very clear that this sort of material shouldn't be included in articles about living people. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the paragraph should not be posted anywhere on Misplaced Pages including on the Jeanmarie Simpson article (which is coincidentally edited almost entirely by webberkenny) where the paragraph is embellished even further.

"In November 2008, Simpson was interviewed on the radio show, Insight, hosted by Jeffrey Callison on Capitol Public Radio, Sacramento, California's NPR affiliate. During the interview, Simpson disclosed that she had retained an attorney because of issues between herself and Lopez. In February 2010, she was quoted in the Reno News and Review saying, "Terrible movie. It’s just badly, badly conceived, badly done. The director made a mess of it. It’s really too bad because it’s a fantastic story, and it’s a wonderful, worthy subject, as you know. But it just—the film is a disaster." In October of 2011, Simpson is quoted in the Huffington Post saying of the film,"That's probably the biggest disappointment of my life.""

Actually, it reads well now, with just a slight edit. Anyone who watches the film will see how poor it is and when the star and author is "disappointed," that speaks for itself. Thanks for clearing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberkenny (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Should I submit this as a separate issue or is this an appropriate place to reveal it? JHScribe (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can talk about it here. I don't think it's quite as bad as the mention in the Kamala Lopez article, but we definitely need to remove the legal speculation there. I also think the criticism of the film is given undue weight in comparison to other aspects of her career, which is less of a pressing problem but still could make the article on her not appear neutral. I'll remove the legal stuff and tone down the criticism a bit, and we can take any further debate about what should be included to the talk page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patience and guidance! JHScribe (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken Jeanmarie Simpson's page under my wing, ever since seeing the play she wrote followed by the film that has been panned by all who have seen it. It is verifiable fact that Simpson was interviewed on Capital Public Radio in Sacramento, and the quote was accurate. I will repair the link, but it is a fact. Kamala Lopez's page still reads like a fan site.Webberkenny (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon making a minor edit and reading the article again, I think it reads very clearly and the author/star's disappointment in the film speaks for itself. Thank you for clearing this up. Webberkenny (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

• Minorities in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Disagreement in this article concerning some issues of Turkish and muslim minorities in Greece. More precisely, if the Turkish minority is a religious or an ethnic one, if information about discrimination and attacks against them should be present, if information about the problem of a mosque of muslims in Athens should be present in the article.

The dispute stated with this edit and continued first in my talk page then moved to talk page of the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Filanca (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

The style of the other user (Athanean) was at times concentrated to me rather than the subject at hand. See this and this and the following in those pages.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Issue talked in my user and article's talk pages. We were unable to find a solution, mostly because (in my opinion) of the behavior of Athanean. Many of his points are centered on me rather than the encyclopedic content. He has added a reference by indicating a wrong page number (Alexandris, p. 120), as he acknowledges, but does not care to correct it. Some of his arguments are self-referenced or not referenced (see for example ) He deleted well referenced parts of the article repeatedly (, ), without giving sufficient explanation in the talk page. My impression is, there is no progress towards a solution.

I tried to find a compromise by summarizing the attacks to the minority upon his criticism of this list of attacks being too long. I also changed my use of word "atrocity" to "attack" (in the talk page, not in the article) upon his criticism. Neither helped.

There are minor issues, too, like his deleting of Turkish village names given in brackets next to Greek ones (). I see it only natural that Turkish village names be provided as well as the Greek one when speaking about the Turkish minority. I have not dwelled on these, because the main issue seemed to be more important.

• How do you think we can help?

I hope neutral outsiders' comments about not deleting properly referenced information from the article and not denying the obvious fact that "Turk" is not a religion but an ethnic group may work.

Filanca (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Filanca, and thanks for posting here. I'm glad to see that you've chosen to get an outside opinion rather than keep reverting. Hopefully this board will help you to look on the situation refreshed and in a new light. Now I think the Misplaced Pages policy that most impacts your dispute here is that of maintaining a neutral point of view. In that policy, as you probably know, there is a section on avoiding undue weight on certain viewpoints. I'll quote some text from the policy here: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Now, if you would humour me for a little while, I would like to hear your opinion. If it's not too much trouble, could you tell me how you would rate the significance of the material you have introduced, relative to the subject of the article as a whole? Please bear in mind that the subject in question here is the broad and general one of all minorities in Greece. This isn't a trick question or anything - I am genuinely interested in your opinion, and I would really appreciate you taking the time to answer. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Here is my opinion on each issue in the dispute with respect to undue weight:

1) Organization of titles (ie, moving the Turkish minority section one level up to make it on the same level with other ethnic minorities): This may not be relevant in respect of undue weight.

2) Official denial of the Turkish minority: Both minority organizations ( p.1; p. 1 and 7) and independent sources indicate this is an important issue. Hence it would not be undue weight to mention. This information was present in the article before my edits.

3) Discrimination against the Turkish minority: This paragraph was present before my edits, Athanean deleted it after the dispute started. It mentiones important issues for the minority, in terms of property and Turkish identity.

4) Muslims in Athens needing an official mosque: Sources deleted by Athanean (including BBC news) indicate this is important, I do not think it has undue weight.

5) Attacks to Turkish minority: This one may arguably have undue weight in this article. After Athanean's criticism on the this line, I reduced the size of paragraph by summarizing it in one sentence. The attacks took form of arsoning (generally by molotof cocktails) and stoning of mosques, Turkish associations, consulates, private property and desecration of cemeteries. The remaining one sentence may not have undue weight, esp. considering the frequency of attacks.

Filanca (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1) The reason the Turkish minority is included (together with the Pomaks) under the heading "Muslim minority" rather than among the other ethnic minorities is that because of the Treaty of Lausanne, these minorities enjoy special privileges and status not afforded to other minorities. Also, because as a result the same treaty and its stipulations, most of the literature treats them in similar fashion, i.e. as part of a "Muslim minority" rather than an ethnic Turkish minority. The exception is some Turkish sources, but that is not a reason to re-arrange the headings.

2) Regarding the claims of "Official denial of the Turkish minority", these are wildly distorted and exaggerated, as the Greek government does recognize the Turkish minority, just as part of a larger Muslim minority as stipulated by the Treaty of Lausanne rather than an "ethnic" Turkish minority. This is moreover a rather subtle point, and one I feel is being given undue weight. Regarding sources, www.abttf.org is a self-published advocacy source, with ties to and support from the Turkish government. The source www.usefoundation.org is also self-published and of dubious reliability. I do not think such sources meet the requirements for WP:RS.

3) The paragraph in question was a poorly sourced and implemented cut-and-paste job from another article. I looked into the sources, most are unverifiable, and the one that was verifiable was over 20 years old and contradicted by more recent sources (see , page 124). The situation of the minority has changed markedly for the better since 1990, but Filanca simply refuses to acknowledge this.

4) The Muslims of Athens are mostly recent immigrants, hence they are not a minority. Another instance of Filanca refusing to get the point.

5) This is the point on which I disagree completely. All the "attacks" mentioned are relatively minor (broken windows, amateurish arson attacks). Not a single member of the minority has been harmed, these are all minor attacks against property. Many times the claims are exaggerated and the sources misused in intellectually dishonest fashion, for example in the article talkpage Filanca uses the three different sources for the same attack then claims these are three separate attacks! The phrasing he wants to use is also highly inflammatory. Three minor attacks against property in 2011 is not "frequent attacks". Keeping in mind this is a very broad article about minorities in Greece in general, neither the relatively rare frequency of attacks or their nature warrants mention in the article.

On another note, I find it absolutely galling and hypocritical of Filanca to focus and highlight every broken window of Turkish mosques in Greece while glossing over the plight of minorities in Turkey. Compare this with this for crying out loud. While we must not focus on editors, scrutiny of a user's contributions are important for establishing credibility and assuming good faith. I regret to say that based on this user's contributions, I am having difficulty assuming good faith and intellectual honesty. Athenean (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage

• Dan Savage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Dispute over the term used to identify the person's sexual orientation.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 132.241.128.157 (talk · contribs)
• Fæ (talk · contribs)
• Gujamin (talk · contribs)
• Rostz (talk · contribs)

The user Fæ is also going against Misplaced Pages guidelines by referring to edits make in good faith as vandalism.

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

Yes. I gave them all notice on the article in question's talk page.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to build consensus on the article's talk page, but no no avail.

• How do you think we can help?

Come to a mutual understanding about consensus. 132.241.128.157 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The same edit changing "gay" to "homosexual" has been made from IP addresses starting with "132.241" seven times over the last fortnight. These edits have been reverted by several different established editors (not by me) and the anon IP raising this DR has already been advised about edit warring (by someone other than me). My advice on the article talk was that repeated additions would be treated as a BLP violation (as the sources show that Savage self-identifies as gay, not homosexual) and consequently as vandalism. I have given some standard anon IP welcomes to the other IP addresses used, but not yet given any user warnings or advice for the IP account raising this DR. The explanation of why "homosexual" is not a correct term to use in this BLP has been provided in clear and patient terminology by several experienced contributors. In my opinion the consensus locally in this article and for BLPs in general is already established. --Fæ (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping anon editor's discussion has consisted of unsourced opinion/assertions, whereas sourced explanations and citations have been presented to justify the existing long-standing phrasing.
Anon editor's willingness to participate in discussion is quite recent, having made several unexplained reverts and received an EW warning; discussion is progressing with additional editor input, so this DR may be premature.
Anon editor neglects to mention that User:Gujamin also made an accusation of vandalism/lack of good faith.
(My WP activity will be terse and limited while I am on vacation.) Rostz (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi 132.241.128.157, and thanks for posting on this board. You should be aware that we have a strict policy on biographies of living people. Part of that policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It also says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." We have sources that refer to Savage as "gay", and even better, we have evidence that he self-identifies as "gay", so it seems reasonable to call him "gay" in the article.

We don't know if he self-identifies as "homosexual", and for whatever reason it may be that he prefers "gay" over "homosexual". I don't think either of these terms are particularly confusing or particularly taboo any more, so under the circumstances it would seem to make sense to go with the one we know he self-identifies with. Also, we don't have sources that use "homosexual", so the case for using it is weaker as per the policy wording above. If you can find reliable sources that show he also self-identifies as "homosexual" then that could warrant more debate, in my opinion, but otherwise I think the existing wording of "gay" is what we should use. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've read over each person's reasoning, and I would like to add that my reasoning for preferring the term "homosexual" instead of "gay" is that gay has several widely recognized meanings, while homosexual has only one widely recognized one. Thus, the term gay can be more confusing. The original article says that Savage "is gay", not that he "identifies as gay". Perhaps that can be clarified? I started this DR because it didn't seem that consensus was being built on the article's talk page. In fact, there is a 50-50 even split among the users who posted on the talk page regarding this matter. Regarding my apparent "IP-hopping": IP addresses are not static on this range. 132.241.128.157 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect; as of 08:43, 9 October 2011, your position was supported by one editor (Gujamin), but opposed by four (Wikiwind, Fæ, Rostz, Binksternet) as well as having been reverted by an additional editor (Dp76764). Note also that "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy, not by a simple counted majority." Rostz (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

• Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Dispute on adding info and references to article, being reverted in order to keep only negative info in the article, talk page discussions on peer review status and info going nowhere.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Silver seren (talk · contribs)
• 174.252.215.182 (talk · contribs)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
• Headbomb (talk · contribs)

I am concerned about the involvement of users WMC and Headbomb, as they seem to be trying to only keep negative information on the Journal in the article. And, on the other hand, 174.252 (who appears to be having IP address changes, so the last two sections may change) is clearly trying to add positive information on the Journal. I've been trying to work in the middle of all of this and just add information in general to the article, but i've run up against WMC and Headbomb's extremely negative opinion about the Journal. I have to work against comments like "the problem is that it publishes ideas which are utter nonsense, and rubbish that would never be found in any respectable journal" and "It's fringe stuff, new age crap, patent nonsense..." and "Well J Cosmology is run by a bunch of kooks". I recently tried to add information that had been heavily covered in the news, but it was constantly removed, leaving the majority of the article just negative information about the Journal. Discussion on the talk page is clearly going no where and i'm not quite sure what to do. Silverseren 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Another recent example would be: "And I don't know of anyone who would interpret this as an example anything other than the usual kook rant about persecution", which is speaking about the editor of the Journal responding to criticism. Silverseren 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Journal of Cosmology}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Multiple discussions on the talk page that don't go anywhere.

• How do you think we can help?

Admittedly, i'm not quite sure. I didn't want to escalate this to ANI, so I thought this would be a good first step. Perhaps we can get further opinions about the argument?

Silverseren 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The recent problems were mostly caused by IP 174.xxx.xxx.xxx, a long term persistent sock of User:BookWorm44/User:Chemistryfan (and as you might expect, the old "problems" were also caused by these guys and their socks). Now that they've been blocked, and the article and talkpage semi-protected, it should be fairly easy to resume normal editing practices on that article now that it's are free of disruptions from SPAs. Silver Seren puts the whole thing out of context.

Regarding the "addition of content that's been covered in the news", every journal gets mentioned in the news from time to time, and listing every occurrence is simply WP:ISNOT/WP:CRUFT. Just imagine what it would mean for journals like Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, The Lancet, BMJ, etc... if we start making explicit mentions of everything that's been covered in the press. That Paul Davies wrote an article supporting Martian exploration is nothing special, and really out of place in this article. That's something best left for the article on the Colonization of Mars. Although since JOC is not a reliable source, it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all, except perhaps on the article about Paul Davies. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering we're dealing with a Journal that has published 16 volumes in 2 years, it would take quite a while to get to Nature levels, but I digress. Not every issue of JoC received coverage and the few that do, such as the Mars one that received extensive major media coverage, it should be included in the article.

Furthermore, if you're going to use that argument, then I could say that the criticism for Hoover's paper doesn't belong in the Journal article, but in Hoover's article. Since it is, of course, minor and in only a single issue. Silverseren 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hoover controversy is the reason why the journal is considered notable by our standards. Without it, it wouldn't pass WP:NJOURNALS. And no, it's not because some issue received some press coverage that it should be explicitly mentioned in our articles, in exactly the same way that specific The New York Times articles should not be mentioned because the Los Angeles Times mentioned them or had a reply. No other journal or magazine article is written like that, and Journal of Cosmology does not warrant a deviation from this practice. If you want to change this practice, bring it up at WP:JOURNALS and gain consensus for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean it doesn't meet the essay, WP:NJOURNALS? There are plenty of sources that discuss the JoC that is outside of the Hoover papers. For example, this. The JoC essentially instigated a revival of discussion by NASA and other groups about an expedition to Mars. Silverseren 19:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikilawyer all you want, WP:NJOURNALS has been trialled by fire for years now and has the endorsement of every editor at WP:JOURNALS. Every deletion discussion about journals relies on WP:NJOURNALS to be its guiding light. Martian exploration is mentioned in the article, but there's zero need to have a detailed breakdown of every issue (see in particular WP:JWG#What not to include). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, according to that, the line about focus in the Scope should actually be a part of the first line of the lede. As for the info I was trying to add, it wasn't a "List of articles published in the journal", so I still don't see where you're going with for the Mars coverage. Not to mention that Nature has a list of articles. Silverseren 19:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

SilverSeren and others on the page have tried to improve the NPOV of the page besides just BookWorm/Chemistryfan and myself. I deny being BookWorm and have tried at SPI to have CU level evidence gathered to support my claim but the original blocking (of my IP addresses) administrator DeltaQuad has denied my CU request using my cooperation there as claimed evidence for duck. I can only assume this is because he doesn't wish to have his original error exposed. Regardless of my personal status there are a number of editors that agree the current article is biased and should be fixed. All attempts to remedy the situation have been blocked primarily by HB and Mr. Connolley.

Today I put in a request to have the scope of the article expanded to be consistent with the description provided on the journal's website (which was the existing source of material to support that section prior to my getting involved). For some reason that material had been censored to exclude a number of sub-disciplines from the list included on the journal's about page. Given that HB and Mr. Connolley have been collaborating quite effectively at seeking to disparage this journal one has to wonder why a topic such has climate change has been left out of the scope section. Especially when one considers that (a) 1 of the only 16 volumes published by the journal is dedicated specifically to climate change, (b) that this journal is likely to have published climate change material with which Mr. Connolley disagrees, (c) that Mr. Connolley is topic banned, broadly construed, from editing topics relating to climate change and here he is edit warring to disparage this little known journal, and (d) only days after having starting to edit at this journal he applied to have his topic ban removed. AGF demands that we assume that Mr. Connolley's awareness of this journal's relationship with climate change was unknown to him when he began editing there. But there has been much discussion of that relationship at his request for amendment to his topic ban and so his subsequent edits to this page can and should be viewed as a violation of his ban. Indeed, his comment where he argued against the inclusion of climate change into the journal's scope based on a claim of bad faith suggests that he is fully aware that he is treading on thin ice and yet he persists. Even if you ABF concerning my motives that does not change the facts. The journal has published material on climate change and the absence of this fact from the article should be corrected.

Mr. Connolley labels my request as bad faith. I claim that HB's persistent hounding of me as being some sock when I am trying to cooperate at SPI is equally bad faith. --174.252.215.182 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortly after writing this, the IP was blocked for block evasion. Cardamon (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Mr. 174 said above, I found this source by Lawrence Solomon that points out that the JoC does cover climate change. Silverseren 19:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do note that Headbomb has forum-shopped this DRN over to Wikiproject Journals with the non-neutral edit summary of "This could use some extra eyes. Amongst other this it is proposed that any journal issue with some form of press coverage should be explicitly mentioned in the article." Silverseren 20:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You really are something else you know. Can't even drop a notice at the most relevant Wikiproject without being accused of being some canvassing troll. Since you're not interesting in resolving disputes, and more concerned with depicting your opponents as POV warriors, I'm done entertaining you. Hell, WMC can't even ask for advice about whether he should participate in this conversation without being accused of canvassing. Enjoy talking to yourself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't put a neutral edit summary. You specifically worded the notice so that people would have your opinion before even getting to this discussion. If you had worded it neutrally, that would have been fine, but you didn't. Silverseren 20:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As for WMC, that's because he stated "as a couple of editors are doing their best to shift it into CC type territory (spuriously, in my view, and entirely to try to eliminate an opinion they don't want to hear)", which is, again, non-neutral. Silverseren 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this request is quite badly construed. As noted by HB, the problems seem to have come from a malicious banned sock. The immeadiate solution to this, if the sock is IP-hopping, is to semi the page; that way people who aren't the sock can have a reasonable conversation. I don't care for the way SS has been echoing the sock, above. So I'm inclined to think that nothing really needs to be done here, other perhaps than SS calming down a little. There is a discussion on the article talk page: do we really need this report? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple discussions have sprouted up on the talk page, such as here and here with separate users, where Headbomb is reverting and trying to control the article to only have negative information. The issue with the IP (a single comment above) has little to nothing to do with this DR request. Silverseren 23:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

August 2010 West Bank shooting attack

• August 2010 West Bank shooting attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I removed a sentence that seemed to be just a racist non-sensical quote from a random person. It was instantly returned, with a statement that my edit was based on me not liking it. I took it out again, and it was replaced, again Plot Spoiler stated I was doing it for seemingly personal reasons. I than realized that the quote mixed with the following sentence which proves the quote wrong actually makes it so that Plot Spolier is calling the man a liar, so I deleted due to wp:blp and wp:or. Plot Spoiler than re-adds again, again making attacks on me, saying I'm doing it for opinionated reasons, and again giving no insight into the value of the quote he keeps adding. I asked Fastily for help and he sent me here, so I came as it's clear if I edit the article Plot Spoiler will just make unlimited reverts. Public awareness (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Public awareness (talk · contribs)
• Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)

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

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=August 2010 West Bank shooting attack}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I sent him a message showing which rules my edit was based on and he refused to reply, rather he threatens me for reverting even though he of course made more reverts than I.

• How do you think we can help?

Get Plot Spolier to stop reverting and stop making personal attacks that I am removing the quote for personal reasons. Remove the worthless quote. The quote is worthless as it racist, has no truth, and comes from a unknown person. The quote is proven wrong in the very next sentence about Israelis attacking Palestinians. Thus, there is original research here; when a primary source proves a secondary source incorrect it is OR and when quoted to a person is the equivalent of calling the person a liar, thus a BLP violation.

Also try and get Plot Spolier to stop making wild claims that my edits are for opinionated reasons, it is highly offensive and difficult to tolerated such rudeness.

Public awareness (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

August 2010 West Bank shooting attack discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Public awareness really needs to review the rules of Misplaced Pages. He has no basis for removing that quote, which came from a New York Times article. I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about the quote being wrong or me calling the man a liar. The quote is clearly from the The New York Times piece and elucidates the settlers' reaction to the attack and it has no bearing whether some people find the quote distasteful or WP:DONTLIKEIT. And the individual being quoted isn't some complete unknown, he is the "chair of the South Mount Hebron settlers’ council." In sum, Public Awareness does not know better than The New York Times. The quote fulfills WP:V and WP:RS and if he really wanted it removed he should have went to the talk page after I requested that from him instead of just calling the quote racist and deleting it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article's talk page. Vesal (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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