This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Binksternet (talk | contribs) at 01:09, 24 October 2013 (sp). 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 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

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

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

Current disputes

Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dawud (talk · contribs)
• jonjon2013 (talk · contribs)
• Evenhandededit (talk · contribs)
• Maproom (talk · contribs)
• Ukexpat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I (Dawud) wrote most of the "Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan" article. This history can be divided into a Japanese era (1895-1945), a White Russian-dominated era (1949-1970's), and a contemporary (post-2000) era in which several rival Orthodox jurisdictions have established missionary churches. Some editor, or combination of editors (I suspect several of being the same person, in view of the obscurity of the subject and the similarity of their edits), have then been erasing the half of the article that covers the post-2000 period--i.e., the period characterized by the most controversy--leaving only the beginning. The most plausible explanation is that the other editor(s) belong(s) to one of these churches (perhaps he is even a priest), and desires to keep embarassing or controversial material related to himself or his church off of Misplaced Pages. I am at a loss for how to prevent this person or persons from doing this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and waited several weeks. Maproom responded, but in a perfunctory manner.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I would appreciate advice on this point.

Summary of dispute by jonjon2013

I agree with user Maproom. The article is very disproportionate on the post 2000 era. In addition, the discussion of the alleged Greek drug dealer has nothing to do with the topic of Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan that the page is supposed to be about. On the contrary, it feels more like a personal attack to the priest (Fr Jonah). It is also worth mentioning that the reported drug dealer was acquitted of all of his charges by the Greek courts. Lastly, the link provided on the dealer's name, Christodoulos, links to the late archbishop of Athens, Greece, a completely different person than the alleged drug dealer.

Another issue is the discussion along the topic of the excommunication of Fr. Kirill and his parishioner. The facts are not presented objectively there, since they do not give the whole account of the Metropolitan of Hong Kong. Unless the article were to present all of the arguments of the Metropolitan, it cannot be objective. More importantly, the whole discussion there seems like pursuing a real-world dispute. As user Maproom also mentioned, Misplaced Pages's articles purpose is to inform the readers, and not to pursue such real-world disputes.

By the way, in response to Dawud's suspicion, I would like to say that I am *not* the same person as user Maproom. The fact that we might share some opinions does not make us the same person.

Summary of dispute by Evenhandededit

Summary of dispute by Maproom

The history of the Orthodox Church in Taiwan goes back over 100 years. At present most of the article is about a dispute, starting 10 years ago, between the leaders of the Greek and the Russian Orthodox churches there. I believe that this is disproportionate, and I said so on the talk page. I removed much of this material, but it has been restored. In particular, an account of the arrest of a Greek drug dealer, without any claim that he represents the Greek Orthodox church, appears to have very little relevance to the subject of the article.

I am reminded of the article Tecoma, Victoria, most of which is about an ongoing dispute over whether a McDonalds should be built in the town. In both cases, an article is being used to pursue a real-world dispute, rather than to inform readers. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ukexpat

Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan discussion

Hello, I am Iselilja and will try to mediate here if there is no objections. Having reviewed the section in dispute, I notice that it to a large degree involves living persons which means that WP:BLP applies. Good sourcing is extremely important for all coverage of living persons, especially if the material about the persons can be perceived as negative. We will only include conflicts etc. in articles if it has been covered in independent reliable sources, meaning that we will not cover conflicts if the sources are mainly homesites, blogs, press releases etc. Do all parties agree with this? So question for User:Dawud: The paragraphs about the conflict involving Fr. Kirill seems to rely on only self-published sources and not sources from news organizations etc. Do you agree that this is the case? And: What is the relationship between Apostolos Vavylis and the Orthodox community in Taiwan that makes the story about him relevant for the article on the latter? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

On the question of proportionality, I would love to see additional material added on the earlier eras. Unfortunately, we are limited to what we have. Naturally there is more information about the post-2000 era. Given that, I would rather have more complete information about the post-2000 churches, even if it makes the section larger. After all, if the article cannot describe the situation of Orthodoxy in Taiwan today, then it is not good for very much. Also, given the presence of multiple Orthodox jurisidctions (i.e. OMHKSEA and Moscow), it may be that the details will inevitably be more complicated than in earlier, more unified eras.

One poster complained about the lack of detail given to the OCA church in Taizhong (Taichung), a church about which I know nothing. I would love to have this information myself (even an address).

The paragraph about the conflict between OMHKSEA and Fr. Kirill comes from OMHKSEA's official website. There were two such statements, one of them being the text of a formal notice of excommunication of Fr. Kirill and a parishioner, Seraphim William Davidson. To my knowledge, neither Fr. Kirill nor any other Russian authority has formally responded (and I do not expect them to do so in the future). The fact that Orthodoxy in Taiwan is presently divided between (at least) two distinct groups, one of which has excommunicated the other, is surely noteworthy (I guarantee you that the participants find it noteworthy), and the facts are sufficiently established by the links provided.

Apostolos Vavylis (or Vavilis) has a connection with Taiwan, in the sense that certain Taiwan "friends" (later revealed to be Fr. Jonah--he is named in that Greek-language academic article) helped him evade INTERPOL, e.g. by helping him acquire false identity documents. (He was finally caught traveling from Thailand to Italy.) Fr. Jonah was never charged, but Vavylis certainly was (AFAIK he is still in prison on various charges, including drug dealing and racketeering). Archbishop Christodoulos died shortly afterwards. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that Taiwan's then-only Orthodox priest was proven to have participated (albeit tangentially) in the biggest scandal in Orthodox Church in recent years. Surely this is noteworthy. If it is negative, well, then perhaps Fr. Jonah should have thought about that before getting involved with organized crime.Dawud (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On the conflict between OMHKSEA and Fr. Kirill: The only sources here are from OMHKSEA and it involves claims about Fr. Kirill. This is not acceptable per BLP: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties". So, I don't see how we can include this conflict based on one party's presentation of it. I have no doubt that this conflict is noteworthy for the Orthodox community itself, but that is not the standard for what is notable for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. For Misplaced Pages, notability depends on coverage in independent reliable sources, typically newspapers etc. If you think otherwise, I will suggest you bring this part of the dispute to the BLP noticeboard. About Fr. Jonah: I also here see BLP concerns. You say he is proven to have participated in the Vavylis scandal. But is this really proven when Fr Jonah has not been charged or convicted of anything? We have to be very careful about making edits that imply a Living Person has been involved in a crime or scandal and should only include it if it has been well covered in reliable sources.I cannot read the academic article that is in Greek. Can you translate what the document says about Fr. Jonah (the most relevant part). And who has written the paper? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Butting in here, there are no current guidelines regarding nations and religions, unfortunately. but in general the way I have seen other sources cover such topics is basically with the following construction: (1) history, (2) current organization and numbers, in this case probably structural organization, like (if applicable) the archbishops(s) and archeparchies or archdioceses, number of dioceses and parishes, and the approximate current number of members (3) local practices (national observations of specific holidays, for instance), (4) some discussion (which varies a lot) on the role the group plays in ecumenical matters in the country, (5) local practices (do Muslim women wear the chador and that sort of "local" color), (6) notable individuals (if any) from the church and religion, like theologians, saints, etc., (6) other things, including perhaps really prominent tourism/pilgrimage affairs, buildings, works of art (maybe), controversy and other things. I'm guessing in this case the Fr. Kirill matter would fall in the 6th field, but getting together some material like that I discuss above, maybe roughly following the model of the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices and any other reference books which have articles relating to similar national organization of churches articles, might be at least a starting point. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The orthodox community in Taiwan is very small. Last estimate was 200 persons in 1965. If I am correct in my understanding, there is a split betweeen the Greek church(Fr Jonah) and the Russian church (Fr Kirill). So, an oversight over which churches/congregations that are operating today will of course be fine. This was partly done in the disputed section (now edited out), and some of the organisational stuff be edited in again; but in my opinion it should be cleaned for unsourced (or primary sourced) stuff related to conflicts and for trivia.

Pinging User:Maproom and User:jonjon2013. Do you have any comments to what has been said so far? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with the way this is being handled. Thank you, Iselilja, for your efforts. Maproom (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also happy with the way this is being handled. Just to clarify: you are suggesting on removing the conflicted parts of the article, e.g. the Apostolos Vavylis issue and the discussion around the split? Thanks for your help Iselilja! Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting removing most of the conflicted material. Below is my suggestion for the most that can reasonably be retained of it (it still gives what I consider undue weight to the events of the last 13#4 years). Maproom (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Global era (2000-present)

In 2000, a Greek hieromonk, Fr. Jonah (Mourtos) of Osiou Gregoriou monastery (Mount Athos), arrived, under the auspices of the recently-created Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia (OMHKSEA, f. 1996, and affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarch), and with financial backing from the Kosmas Aitolos Missionary Society of Greece. A small regular congregation of perhaps 30 people formed as the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church (Taipei), a.k.a. the Orthodox Church in Taiwan. It originally met in hotels and borrowed Catholic church buildings, then in a rented storefront in Taipei's Tianmu district, before moving to a private apartment. The congregation has included Russians, East Europeans, and Chinese and Western converts. Liturgy is conducted in English, with parts translated into Chinese, Russian, and/or Greek. A satellite group, led by a lay reader, has been meeting in Taizhong.

In 2012, Archbishop Mark of Yegorievsk, head of the Russian church's Office for Institutions Abroad, "reactivated" the (1901) Christ the Savior parish, apparently in response to numerous requests from Russians living in Taiwan. The following year, the Church of the Elevation of the Cross, aka the Taiwan Orthodox Church, was formed as a metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate, with Russo-Canadian hieromonk Fr. Kirill (Shkarbul) as its first resident priest. It also meets in a private apartment. Liturgy is conducted in Russian, Chinese, and English.

Bishop Nektarios (Tsilis) of Hong Kong (OMHKSEA) responded by excommunicating Fr. Kirill and one of his parishioners, both of whom had formerly attended the OMHKSEA mission church, on the charge of uncanonical behavior and "ethno-phyletism." At issue is whether the Moscow Patriarchate has the right to establish parishes outside of Russia, in what OMHKSEA considers to be territory under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

In Taiping District, Taichung, there is said to be a house church belonging to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). If so, it would constitute a third Orthodox jurisdiction on the island.

I'm generally happy with the above version. However, I'm not sure if the discussion around the excommunication of Fr. Kirill should be included; I'm saying this because of an earlier comment by Iselilja, where it was mentioned that including the OMHKSEA-Fr. Kirill conflict is not acceptable per BLP. Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So let's lose the third paragraph of the above. Maproom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the suggestion. I think it would be best to leave out the third paragraph, although I understand why you might want to mention the territory dispute. But we should be careful about writing about conflicts that have not been covered in independent sources (newspapers etc), especially if it involves Living persons . In my personal opinion some of the information about where the meetings have taken place can also be shortened, but that's just my personal taste. I believe an underlying issue here is that the community is so small that not much are written about them in papers and so. And then there isn't so much for Misplaced Pages to include either. I wouldn't worry to much about undue weight, as long as the information is neutral; besides some of this deals with the contemporary situation, and it's normal that we focus more on the contempary than the history. Might be time to ping User:Dawud again to here his opinion of the above suggestion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we have no argument about including basic information on the several Orthodox churches on the island. So that is welcome progress.

On the Fr. Jonah / Apostolos Vavilis connection, I am still waiting for my friend to translate the relevant passages of that article (written, I believe, by a law professor). Also, Fr. Jonah entered a written statement to the court which someone may yet succeed in getting ahold of. It seems, however, that the stance now being proposed is this information would be irrelevant to the article, even if documented by reliable sources. I am on the fence about this. I admit that the connection seems not to have affected the churches in question, or Taiwan, in any appreciable way. On the other hand, the Taiwan-Vavilis connection has been mentioned, in passing, in the international press (some in English), without naming Fr. Jonah directly.

On the inter-jurisdictional dispute, the fact that the dispute exists is to my mind demonstrated by the two announcements of it on the OMHKSEA website. (Misplaced Pages would not be affirming a website-based claim about a third party, i.e. that the Russians have behaved uncanonically, but reporting the testimony of OMKHSEA about their own actions.) The fact that the two churches are out of communion with one another is a crucial fact about Orthodoxy in Taiwan.Dawud (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I see the point that it is of interest that the two churches are Out of communion with each other, and as long as we focuses on churches rather than persons, the information is less sensitive. Whether we should include it may depend on how clear-cut vs. messy the situation is. I usually prefer to use primary sources only for basic information that is clear-cut and not needs much interpretation etc. But I am open to others perspective here. I don't think Fr Jonah's statement to the court can be used as a source for Misplaced Pages, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Regards, 18:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The nature of the disagreement seems clear-cut to me: OMHKSEA has announced that it objects to the establishment of the Moscow-affiliated church, on the grounds that this constitutes ethno-phyletism and is uncanonical (due to jurisdictional issues). I suppose it is not crucial to specify that Fr. Kirill was excommunicated by OMHKSEA.

In that case, can we agree to include basic information about the two (or three) churches; to omit the paragraph about Fr. Jonah / Vavylis / the Greek scandal; and to abbreviate the section on the dispute?Dawud (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. From what I can tell of the discussion in the last few interchanges, it appears that there's a solutiopn being formed without any assistance of a DRN volunteer. I'd like to suggest that this negotiation/concensus building happen back on the article's talk page and close down the discussion here. Pending significant objection, I intend to close this discussion in 72 hours. Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, thanks for your message. I mainly agree with Dawud's suggestion; however, I'm still skeptical as to whether the whole excommunication issue/dispute should be included at all. This is because if this part were to be included, then one would have to mention other things about Fr. Kirill and his parishioner that are mentioned in the OMHSHEA press release; but in that case we'd fall back to the whole argument about sensitive information regarding biographies on living persons (Living persons). So I'd be inclined to suggest removing any discussion on this dispute. Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.116.161 (talk)

Azerbaijanis in Armenia

Hablabar has not responded to the request to resolve the dispute despite having edited other pages. Closing in favor of OptimusView's suggestion that the image not be included. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• Trahelliven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

user:Trahelliven deleted quotes (footnotes). Once he was asked for the reasons, he replied with strange / bizarre reasons. e.g.

• He deleted "Lapidot1994p52" since this RS is based on one of the sides only. Well, this is not true, and even if hypothetically it was correct, the RS is allow to use such a document.
• He deleted quotes because they partially support the article, and does not support it fully. Even if this is correct, he could ask for better quotes but it is not a reason to delete quotes.
• He delays the discussion by avoiding replying to some points, give partial explanation, try to retard the discussion by "We need to take this one step at a time.". I feel like being in a war of attrition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain myself and replied to his bizarre notes, but during each round he comes with a fresh story.

How do you think we can help?

by convincing either of us, that he is wrong.

Summary of dispute by Trahelliven

Ytantor has made several edits to Reports of pressure against the Plan in the last few days. I shall therefore comment on the article as it now stands.

1 Similar to what in the opening sentence?

2 The phrase, The Arab states threatened that creates appalling grammar, syntax and structure.

3 When there is no indication of where or when, or the circumstances in which the various statements were made, it is impossible for anyone even to look for evidence to discredit them. If Muhammad Hussein Heykal made his remark when addressing the General Assembly, in his case, a reference to the transcript or to another UN document would help. According to xx or yy should be added.

I shall now go through the other quotations.

4 and 6 The reference to Muhammad Hussein Heykal and the 1,000,000 Jews is duplicated.

5 Can Jack Brian Bloom be regarded as a Reliable Source. (Also see 3 above.)

7 The opening sentence by Malka Hillel Shulewitz? is just speculation.

At least one quotation (8 -Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). has not been reinstated. Can I take it that its deletion has been conceded? Trahelliven (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I shall explain the reason for the deletion of the four (4) quotes.

ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>

The quote does not support the part referenced.

ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>

The quotation refers to the rejection of a specific plan of partition: the article generalises to mean the rejection of any plan of partition. The quote talks about certain Arab leaders: the part referenced generalizes it to The Arabs.

ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>

This quote does not give details of where or when, or the circumstances in which the remark was made. It is impossible to investigate whether the comment was or was not made. At the very least, it should be prefaced with According to Benny Morris,

ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>

The quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. The Memorandum is hardly a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussion

Percy Flowers

No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If the other editor will not discuss, consider following the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Directed-energy weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Radicalmix66 (talk · contribs)
• Batvette (talk · contribs)
• Looie496 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user Batvette is removing a lot of the info I have inserted and repeatedly refuses to go into detail as to why.

1 or 2 other users have similarly removed information without having any proper discussion. The nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed in my opinion, and it is unsurprising that there are one or two names(maybe the same person or not) doing the same thing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continuous discussion on an ongoing basis continually inviting those participating to be specific as to why they think information should be removed or is not valid.

How do you think we can help?

Really I think the other user(s) just need to be told that they have to go into detail and they can't just remove things without being civil and discussing finer points. There approach has been dismissive, discourteous and disrespectful.

Summary of dispute by (Radicalmix66-me)

My issues are pretty much as outlined above and mentioned on the talk page.

The users will endlessly repeat inflammatory accusations and say anything bar actually focusing on the nitty gritty of what they believe to be innaccurate.

My references are mostly the military themselves and those that are not are also reliable (That is not to say that what every military says is reliable! But they have given no reason to believe that the information provided by US/Uk military etc is not).

I am continuing constructive discussion on the talk page despite negative and highly repetitive attempts to derail valid pertinent contributions.

I have guided this to focusing on the detail, although whether they join in or not we shall see. Radicalmix66 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok so the last edit by me was yesterday. Since I filed this complaint; the attacks on this article have aggressively expanded. The insulting and subjective language is used by almost all of those who have removed information.

I have tried to present facts (which indicate what meagre details have been released) about what is essentially an untold history of DEWs.

Those who do not want that history to be told are acting extremely aggressively and in numbers. Much of the information they have removed was on the page for months through many edits.

The talk page is out of hand so for the purposes of not making this matter isurmountably long, I am awaiting intervention before making further edits. Radicalmix66 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Batvette

First off it's ridiculous to say I haven't offered reasoning why, I said so on the talk page repeatedly. The material he keeps reinserting is typical conspiracy theory stuff that has no basis in fact and cannot be verified by reliable sources. To wit, it is meant to imply that DEW is actively now being used as "Info Ops" in the US and UK against individuals, and is deployed on satellites in space. The references either don't come close to supporting that or one must take a bit of info from each and synthesize it to a further leap to imagine the claim. I provided a link to the Wiki policy page on original research describing how this tactic is forbidden. It says Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy and it takes about 5 seconds with each claim to see they are not clearly and directly supported. The only reason this content dispute even exists is because nobody has strongly enforced wiki policy yet.I will finally note that I concur with Looie's assessment, noting the paranoid attitude continues even here, with the comment about " nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed " and implying one editor might be using several names. I broke off discussion when I was accused, by way of 4 years military service 30 years ago, of being a "vested interest". Batvette (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Looie496

This is one of several WP articles that are occasionally subjected to tinfoil-hat style paranoid editing, and that's what's going on here. Let me note that I opened a section about this at WP:FTN before being notified of this post. Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EEng

I haven't been involved at all but stumbled on this by accident. I left a helpful message on Radicalmix66's talk, which he disposed of this way , then accused me of being "one of the pseudonyms of the person/persons now suddenly replicating such activity" i.e. an SPA of the Master Controlling Evil One who is resisting his attempts to Warn Us Of What Is Really Going On. (He also doesn't seem to know what a war college is.) I will not be participating further in this DRN thread, but I will continue to revert addition of nonsense to the page, as time permits. EEng (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page discussion

Ok, I've read the related discussions. I'm seeing one editor who is taking a fringe/conspiracy viewpoint regarding the subject and multiple editors (including ones who are very familiar with the appropriate policies/guidelines/best practices) opposing the inclusion. As Misplaced Pages works on the Consensus model (where consensus does not have to be uninimity) until the opposition can show sources that sway the consensus, the existing consensus remains in effect. Therefore I would like to suggest that there exists a consensus among editors that there the inclusion of the warred over content is not justified. As this is a consensus revolving around content and in relation to the inclusion of specific content, conduct aspersions and assertions have no justification. That being the case pending a significant content argument for why the content should be included, this thread will be closed in 72 hours with the above proposed solution. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 2Awwsome (talk · contribs)
• Toccata quarta (talk · contribs)
• 178.222.192.243 (talk · contribs)
• Nihil novi (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute about whether Chopin was Polish or Polish-French. The first compromise was reverted and sources not supporting the view that he was Polish removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, sources found, compromise in the article saying it is disputed (which was reverted and sources removed).

How do you think we can help?

Create a compromise, or find the generally accepted nationality

Summary of dispute by Toccata quarta

Summary of dispute by 178.222.192.243

Summary of dispute by Nihil novi

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Frédéric Chopin discussion

Please note: I have added @Volunteer Marek: to this DRN as it is clear he should have been listed by the filing party as involved. Cabe6403 08:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see this has been a bit of a back-and-forth for a while. Lets, for the sake of discussion, clear the slate and work from the ground up. There seems to be two camps:

1) That Chopin was born in Poland and is thusly Polish with Polish-French ancestory. He also aquired French citizenship through his father however he was still, in terms of national identiy, Polish.

2) That Chopin was born in Poland to Polish and French parents and is thusly Polish-French. The fact that he was also a French citizen confirms this.

Is that a fair assessment of the situation? If so, I'd ask proponents of either side to state and cite the case for their view in the areas below. Please try avoid commenting directly on the opposite views, discuss below if necessary. Cabe6403 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Please see my comment under the "Polish-French" heading. Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The case for Polish

The case for Polish-French

Per WP:OPENPARA he should be described as Polish-French, because he spent much of his life in France and was a French citizen. 2Awwsome 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Such questions of nationality are seen very differently now from how they were seen in the 19th century, when most Europeans were "subjects" rather than "citizens". The fact that after some years in France Chopin was issued with a French passport is interesting, but it seems likely that he could have got a Russian or Polish one if he had wanted to. I don't think Chopin's birthplace is the real issue, either. He was born in 1810 in the Duchy of Warsaw. Was that Poland? In a sense it was, in a sense it wasn't. Chopin grew up (after 1815) in Congress Poland, which was a largely Polish-speaking puppet state of the Russian Empire. In the lead of the article he is now described as "Polish", with a link to Poles. That suggests he was ethnically Polish. In fact, he was ethnically half Polish, and half French. "Polish-French" seems to me correct from two points of view, that of ethnicity and that of his right to live in both countries. Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NB, the Frédéric Chopin article of the online Encyclopædia Britannica has "Polish French". Moonraker (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Harvey Milk and related articles

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Related content, some with elements of this discussion as well. Presumably these would need editing as well, and in some cases retitling.

Users involved

• Rebroad (talk · contribs)
• Varnent (talk · contribs)
• Twp (talk · contribs)
• Dmol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of users are pushing the viewpoint that Harvey Milk was assassinated. He was certainly murdered, but I do not think the circumstances of his death warrant use of the assassination, which is pushing an agenda. Many other authors online also agree with this viewpoint. I would also argue that even if opinion is divided, the word killed is still the safer word to use as this term would still include assassination.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article talk pages and on user talk pages. Breaching of the 3RR occurred, so I have chosen to cease these options and instead open up discussion to the wider community.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully bring unbiased views to the table.

Summary of dispute by Varnent

Most of my thoughts in regards to Rebroad's claims have already been made on Talk:Harvey Milk. However, here is a recap from my perspective:

• Rebroad was asked (by me) not to make this edit until consensus had been reach. I undid his attempts to make the edits while the discussion was still taking place.
• The discussion has not gotten contentious or, in my opinion, elevated to a need for moderation. However, I would appreciate more people weighing in as the discussion has been limited thus far.
• The only citation provided to support the change is a film critic's personal opinion posted on their website. I have not been able to find any reliable sources indicating that assassination is an invalid term to use.
• Others provided around a dozen citations from reliable sources that support the existing language.
• A case could certainly be made that the incident is most often referred to as an assassination (yes - sometimes interchangeably with murder).
• Generally WP policies indicate that changes like this need better justification than "some think this is a bad wording" - something more to the effect of "here is proof that this is factually inaccurate" would be better. So far that has not been submitted - beyond a non-cited dictionary definition and film critic's essay.
• Wiktionary's definition says "political motives" - not "gain or payment". I think you could logically argue that even if a broader Misplaced Pages definition of assassination did not apply - there is plenty of reason to believe that the assassinations were politically motivated. Implying that both Milk and Moscone were killed while working in a political role in a government building by a fellow politician over a political disagreement (White staying in office or not) seems to be ignoring the word "political" way too many times.
• The definitions offered by The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Random House, or Oxford do not match the one Rebroad provided.

I will repeat my questions as well:

• Can someone please cite your source for the change? "Many other authors online also agree with this viewpoint." Who? So far you have not provided enough evidence to help anyone make a decision on this change - beyond your own claims that not supporting this change "is pushing an agenda." Itself a pretty bold statement that lacks any further evidence.
• Can Rebroad please cite the dictionary definition that this claim is working from?
• Please help list exactly which articles you are proposing this change for.
• What breach of WP:3RR was made? I count two reverts by me, one revert by Rebroad, all of them over about six days. 3RR is "more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." That claim does not apply here.

Note: I have a stated interest in matters related to Harvey Milk. I believe my edits have been within policies, and not based on opinion, and have asked that any changes be made after consensus. If consensus is reached that a change should be made, I would obviously not revert the change. However, I do not believe a change of that scale should be made without discussion. --Varnent (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twp

Rebroad's basic point seems to be that Harvey Milk's murder shouldn't be called an assassination because Dan White killed Harvey Milk out of a personal grudge, rather than for political reasons. I just don't think the distinction between "assassination" and "murder" is really all that hard and fast. One of the most notorious assassination attempts ever in the U.S. -- the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan -- was also not politically motivated, but instead was driven by the gunman's psychotic belief that killing Reagan would impress Jodie Foster. Yet we still refer to it as an "assassination attempt". Our own article on assassination defines it as "the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons ... it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance ..." So I think that referring to Harvey Milk's murder as an "assassination" is both consistent with our own guidelines and is the best reflection of the conventional wisdom on the matter. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dmol

I do not agree with the change from "assassination" to "murder" for the following reasons.

The word assassination is used in the two main articles from the very beginning. (Harvey Milk 2006, and Moscone–Milk Assassinations 2008)

A consensus has long been established on this issue, with only 1 or 2 editors arguing against that consensus.

It is very easy to find references that describe the killing as assassination, which I also think is the correct term. In a quick search, I have found , , , , , all of which refer to an assassination.

That some websites, books, or even Misplaced Pages articles, refer to "killings" or "murders", does not take from the fact that "assasination" is in widespread use. As an aside, it is easy to find mention of President Kennedy being "murdered" also.

User Mwelch raised two very good points on the M-M A talk page, namely –

1/ But what specifically do you think disqualifies this from that term? The fact that they were co-workers? Why would that make a difference? Indira Gandhi was killed by two men who worked directly for her. So that means it was not an assassination?

2/As for the specific crime for which the person was (or in some cases, was not) convicted, that seems a rather inadequate criterion upon which to base the determination. John Hinckley was not convicted of anything, and his motive was even less political that were Dan White's. Nonetheless, Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan is almost universally referred to as an attempted assassination. (End quote)

No user has found a reliable source to show that the term "assassination" is incorrect. It is all coming down to personal and subjective opinion, which has no place on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for the right of reply.--Dmol (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Milk and related articles discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also a DRN volunteer and I'd like to throw this out for consideration: The mission of DRN is to handle disputes, but no dispute exists if consensus already exists and one or more editors are merely arguing against consensus. In this case, the assassination language has been in the Harvey Milk article for many, many months. I've not gone back to see when it was first introduced or to see if it was introduced through a positive consensus or was just put in and no one objected, but either way it's clearly been there long enough to indicate silent consensus. We now have four editors — the three listed above plus Protonk — who feel that the assassination language is appropriate. In light of the long history of the term in the article, four editors who currently feel that the term is appropriate and back up their opinions with sources which refer to the event as an assassination looks an awful lot like a consensus to me. (And that point will be even stronger if the term was introduced pursuant to a consensus discussion, but I think that it's strong enough as it is.) I do not have any problem whatsoever with an editor arguing at the article talk page for a different term — consensus can change — but it has to change and unless there is a very clear-cut demonstration that the term plainly and beyond dispute violates Misplaced Pages policy I don't see that seeking dispute resolution is particularly appropriate in this case. The talk page and RFC are the places to seek to change an existing consensus. (And even if there is a clear policy objection, someone will need to go back to see if the term was inserted as a local exception to policy.) My suggestion would be to close or withdraw this DRN filing and to continue the discussion at the article talk page and to perhaps file a RFC to draw more editors into the discussion, but I'll leave it up to my colleague Guy Macon to decide whether to close this request for that reason.

An RFC might also be an appropriate means, if done properly and proper notices are given, to raise the issue across the range of articles mentioned above. Since each Misplaced Pages article stands on its own, the term may be adopted by consensus in some articles and not in others and discussion must take place separately for and about each article; the WP:CONLIMITED policy says that editors involved at one article or wikiproject — such as DRN — cannot make "rules" which apply to other articles.

As a last note, if this does go forward, Protonk probably ought to be added as a party.

Regards (and a tip 'o the hat to my colleague, Guy), TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that everyone has made their initial statements, I am opening this up for discussion. The way I like to work on resolving disputes (and of course how we want to work on resolving this dispute is open for discussion) is to focus on one issue at a time by asking questions. If it seems that I am only challenging one side, that's because I want to focus on one question. Wait a while and the other side will be in the hot seat. Also, feel free to continue discussing anything you want on the article talk page.

I am going to start with a couple of questions for Rebroad just to clarify the request being made here.

First, you don't want the word assassinate. Must it be replaced with killed or is murdered or some other word acceptable?

Second, there are two possible reasons for not wanting to not use assassinate, and I want to clarify which argument you are making.

You could argue that we can't use it. This would require you to provide citations to reliable sources supporting that. If the citations are overwhelming (quality counts as well as numbers) and most of the sources say that it is a killing or that it isn't an assassination -- or if they say the opposite -- I would expect you to all to follow the sources.

You could argue that the sources do not force us to use one term or the other, but rather that this is up to editorial judgement and that your choice of words is clearer, more accurate, etc. If you want to make this argument, you need to convince other editors and get a consensus for your version. Usually it is pretty clear what the consensus is, but if there is a serious question we can post an RfC.

So please let us know which argument you are making, because each has a completely different counterargument and would lead me to ask different kinds of question. I would ask the rest of you to hold off a bit until we clarify the above points. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm not that attached the the outcome, but I do want the article to be "not misleading", and currently I believe it is. Most people upon hearing the word "assassination" imagine that it is a) planned, and b) involving more than 1 person, i.e. a conspiracy, and c) politically motivated. Milk's death was none of these. To argue that it was politically motivated because he was a politician and his killer was too is a very weak argument - and conflates correlation with causation. I even spoke to several staff (including the manager) of the Harvey Milk Diner in San Diego yesterday to ask if they felt "assassination" was the correct term, and they felt it was not. I suggest that rather than refer to other articles that incorrect use the term, it may be prudent to ask members of the public what their understanding of the term is. It does seem that the word assassination has been incorrect used for other murders and attempted murders. Overall, if we're going to start using the word assassination for everyone involved in politics who is killed or attempted to be killed, then it will eventually render the word to mean little more than "a politician who was killed". If that's what we want the word to mean, then I suggest we keep the article as it is. I do however advise against this, and suggest we use the word as it's currently 1) understood, and 2) defined by dictionaries. Thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. OK, let me address those who disagree with Rebroad on this; first of all, we can drop all talk about what the sources say unless the source actually says that assassination can not be used or another term must be used. That's because this is not a "hey folks, the sources say X so the article has to say X no matter what your opinion is" argument. Instead, this is a question of editorial judgement and thus Rebroad needs to convince a significant number of editors to agree as explained in WP:CONSENSUS. Of course he is always free to post an RfC (See WP:RfC) and see if getting outside editors to weigh in will turn the consensus his way, but first I want to verify that everybody understands his argument and are not convinced by it. As I said before, I am going to do the same for the arguments on the other side a bit later, so don't assume that I support either side.

Rebroad, you state "Most people upon hearing the word "assassination" imagine that it is a) planned, and b) involving more than 1 person, i.e. a conspiracy, and c) politically motivated." I don't think that the first two are at all convincing. If assassinations involve more that one person, then President Garfield wasn't assassinated and there is a serious debate about whether the deaths of President McKinley and President Kennedy were assassinations. Likewise, if you want to argue that the Milk killing wasn't planned, you would have to explain why White had a gun, why he entered City Hall through a first floor window, thus avoiding City Hall's metal detectors, and why he was charged with first-degree (planned) murder. I really don't think you are going to convince anyone that it wasn't planned.

So that leaves us with the "assassinations are always politically motivated" argument. First off, your anecdote about the Harvey Milk Diner must be disregarded under Misplaced Pages's rules. It was original research, the patrons of the diner are not reliable sources, and the sample is biased and too small.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us the following definition:

1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously

2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

The terms "a usually prominent person" and "often for political reasons" argues against assassinations always being politically motivated.

On the other hand, Wiktionary defines it as

1: Killing or murder for political reasons

...which would tend to support the argument (Please note that Merriam-Webster is a more reliable source than Wiktionary).

Of course what I think (pretend to think, actually; in a day or so I will be doing my best to refute the arguments on the other side) doesn't matter. What matters is consensus. Have you been able to convince anyone? Do you have a good reason to believe that the editors that have been working on the page have a systemic bias (conscious or unconscious) and that an RfC is likely to go your way? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Scott Joplin

No extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard before seeking help here. Talk page discussion is required by all forms of content dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages before seeking dispute resolution. Ask for discussion at the article talk page, and if the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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