Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 120 - Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Selfish Gene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jkxgao (talk · contribs)
• Dodi 8238 (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a dispute on the title "Selfish Gene". I edited the issue with the new info from a book http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-wonder-of-cultured-cells-super-selfish-johnson-gao/1113796730?ean=9781462699933. Mr. Dodi 8238 deleted my edit with the main reason that it is not related to Richard Dawkins' book. Obviously "selfish Gene" shall not only use Richard Dawkins's idea, which formed 30 years ago. As the advance of science, the Richard Dawkins' idea becomes in complete. I added the following words in my editing. Johnson K. Gao stated further on the advantage of "selfish Genes" in the process of Natural Selection in his book[3] From page 8, line 10 to page 9, line 6: --- “selfish” gene (the genome type of it could be temporary expressed by SS or Ss and ss), and/or a “greedy” gene (GG or Gg and gg), and/or, an “invading” gene (II or Ii and ii), and/or all of those three genes in a single cell. If the cell is not selfish (recessive genome type of ss), or, not greedy (gg), or, not invading (ii), it is impossible for that cell to internalize so many nano-gold assembled agarose-gelatin microbeads into its body. The human body consists of enormous single cells. Our personal character is manifested by the integrity of the character of many single cells. Suppose that the nature of human cells is similar to the cultured cells shown in the above picture, in which those cultured cells could be a reasonable demonstration of the domination of selfish gene SS or Ss, greedy gene GG or Gg, or, invading gene II or Ii, and if the Darwin’s law of Natural Selection is correct, then, that kind of cell will have the opportunity to survive. On the contrary, if the individual cell is of less selfish, or, more intended to be sacrifice, i.e. the genome type of ss, gg and ii, which will show disability in phagocytosis (or, the cell refuses eating, or, tolerates hungry), that kind of cell could have been starved to death or far earlier to be perished from the Earth---

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I hope that Mr. Dodi 8238 will not keep the openion that other people could not edit the "Selfish Gene" besides the Richard Dawkins' book.

How do you think we can help?

Wiki should let every one to edit. Not "One person's forum.

Summary of dispute by Dodi 8238

I think this comes down to two things:

1. The book that Jkxgao (talk · contribs) wants to use as a source (Gao, Johnson Kui-Xiong (June 11, 2012). The Wonder of Cultured Cells-Super Selfish: (A Critical Argument with Karl Marx). Publish America. ISBN 9781462699933.) is published by a company that engages in the self-publishing business. Wikipedia has a policy against using self-published sources: WP:SPS.
2. If readers are interested in reading about current developments in selfish gene theory, they can read about them on Gene-centered view of evolution, which is an article about selfish gene theory. The Selfish Gene, on the other hand, is an article about the 1976 book on evolution by Richard Dawkins. Writing about something other than Dawkins's book in the article about Dawkins's book is off topic, even if it were based on reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; or mainstream newspapers.

Maybe "Selfish gene" and "Selfish genes" should be redirected to Gene-centered view of evolution? This way, people who search for these terms wouldn't confuse The Selfish Gene as being an article about selfish gene theory. This is something that could be discussed on Talk:The Selfish Gene. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC) [edited 13:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)]

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

Dodi 8238 has given a good summary of the situation. I would not change the redirect Selfish gene because the book is extremely well known (for those with an interest in the topic), and "selfish gene" is a phrase irrevocably associated with the book. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Selfish_Gene discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to other forms of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
•   Note to participants: The only discussion is located here and here. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Grand Slam Championship#Section removal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ranze (talk · contribs)
• Vjmlhds (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been an ongoing problem involving User:Vjmlhds removing content from the article.

I addressed the user and their conduct in a section made June 15, but they have neglected to participate in it, even though they were pinged and should therefore be aware of it.

They have participated in the talk page in 2010, 2012 and 2013, and even recently replied June 8 to a section made June 2, so I expect Vj knows how to participate and is opting not to do so.

WP:NEGOTIATION has been valuable between myself and User:HHH Pedrigree in making us understanding of each other's reasons for wanting certain changes, but I have not been able to further this with VJ.

Per WP:DISPUTE I have focused on content and repeatedly disengaged, not wanting to start an edit war, hoping they would stop. However they actively monitor and keep deleting information from the page.

I don't know if the next step should be WP:RFM but I figured I would appeal on the noticeboard first.

VJ's reversions have been dismissive and rude:

• June 8: "Let's keep it simple as can be...all this extra color coding and what not just makes it more complicated than it needs to be."
• June 15: "Making things way too convoluted."
• June 20: "don't make things more complicated than what it needs to be...the simpler the better"
• June 25: "Sigh"
• June 29: "Sigh...again"
• July 28: "really?"

As you can see, this all began June 8th when he reverted to his revision 664126588 from May 26, itself a reversion to a revision 662750616 from May 17 by HHH Pedigree.

VJ has even gone so far as to call my edit "unconstructive" through a warning notice on my talk page. The template instructs me to engage the user in conversation in the talk page, even though I did exactly that and was not replied to.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have brought the issue up repeatedly on the talk page and left extensive edit summaries explaining the reasons for edits.

How do you think we can help?

I would like some uninvolved viewpoints on the value of including or excluding certain information as we disagree on its importance here.

Summary of dispute by Vjmlhds

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Grand Slam_Championship#Section_removal discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There does not appear to have been discussion on the article talk page. I am not declining this case at this time, but am recommending that there be discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ubiquinol#Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Committed molecules (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I inserted data about a characteristic of Ubiquinol which is a possible use of the drug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubiquinol&curid=11212543&diff=673651112&oldid=673641926

I have been reverted. I was reverted before because user Alexbrn claimed my sources were not reliable. I tried two times for different data until finally I have presented a pubmed indexed reference exactly as opposing users asked me on reliable references noticeboard and on talkpage. One of them has reverted again and I shall dispute this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion and reliable sources noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

Please assign us a neutral volunteer as some editors are prejudiced that data being inserted may be promotional or not reliably sourced. I have updated my reference to good one and changed the data to match their objections but an editor has still removed it and called expert MEDRS review a speculation. I shall dispute this.

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Ubiquinol#Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

It would appear that Jytdog, Alexbrn and Ronz have not managed to get over the lack of understanding, (by what appears to be a newbie at first glance, judging by behaviour, and is certainly a SPA who first registered about a year and a half ago,) who still doesn't understand MEDRS, or that all editors mentioned as part of a dispute here should be notified by the OP, whom I will now notify. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Ashton 29 (talk · contribs)
• HappyWaldo (talk · contribs)
• YuMaNuMa (talk · contribs)
• Brycehughes (talk · contribs)
• HiLo48 (talk · contribs)
• Elekhh (talk · contribs)
• Saruman-the-white (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have constantly tried to come to a resolution regarding a Melbourne, Australia infobox montage. The current one has a skyline photo that is far too dark and busy to be compressed into a tiny montage, not to mention it's a decade old. Secondly, I have tried numerous times to meet a compromise with a particular editor (User:HappyWaldo) about changing it, but he promotes the belief that there's nothing wrong with the current one. I like change, particularly if it involves resolving problems. I have a problem that the current montage is outdated, and that there needs to be a bit of variation in what it depicts.

I came to Wikipedia believing it was a collaborative effort where every edit is welcome, within reason and so long as the edits improved the article or added something relevant. But HappyWaldo very often disputes and reverts changes I make, making things a bit uninviting. He seems to like to promote discussion, suggesting that I should "take it to the Talk page", yet every time I do this, he's the only one with a problem about my changes. Other editors seem to be okay with the montage proposals I've made.

I just added my montage into the page, but I assume he will revert it sometime soon.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've taken the discussion to the talk page. Asked for his reasoning on why there's a problem with my edits (his complaints are always arbitrary and incidental criticisms like "it's too stretched", it's an "awkward angle", etc.) Mostly subjective criticisms, as criticism usually is by nature.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can decide yourselves which montage you think suits this article on the basis of how contemporary the images are (Melbourne's skyline is changing dramatically, which is why I introduced a new skyline panorama), how inviting and attractive it makes the city seem, what it depicts (the aerial of the stadium was my idea, he initially opposed it, and the image of the parklands has also been opposed by him, yet I think it's crucial because Melbourne's well known for its greenery.

Summary of dispute by HappyWaldo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

"HappyWaldo very often disputes and reverts changes I make" As I reminded Ashton on the Melbourne talk page: "... you've changed and added more images on the Melbourne page than any other user. Count them. The idea that there's some kind of unspoken policy of 'stagnancy', or that I'm out to revert all your edits, is simply not true." This went unacknowledged. I have tried complimenting Ashton on some of his work on the Melbourne page in an attempt to encourage him and build cordial relations, but this also went unacknowledged.

"... he's the only one with a problem about my changes. Other editors seem to be okay with the montage proposals I've made." It's clear from the Melbourne talk page that users YuMaNuMa, Brycehughes, HiLo48 and Elekhh oppose your image changes. The only user to support one of your montage proposals is Saruman-the-white. I have probably been more persistent than anyone in opposing some of your edits to the Melbourne page for reasons stated in edit summaries and on the talk page. Why? Someone has to. I don't want to see another article fall into disrepair.

"... the aerial of the stadium was my idea, he initially opposed it" My initial response: "The proposed MCG image isn't bad. I'm all for changing the montage if better images can be found." It is Elekhh who opposed (and still opposes) the aerial shot of the MCG. I added the aerial shot to the current montage in an attempt to appease Ashton. My arguments for the current montage and against Ashton's proposals are all on the Melbourne talk page and in edit summaries. I have only ever asked for discussions per WP:BRD. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

These editors have opposed other changes, namely the Housing in Melbourne image, not the infobox montage. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

HiLo48 and Elekhh have opposed your montages (here, here). The total opposition to your housing images is pertinent because it shows how far back this goes. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by YuMaNuMa

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Brycehughes

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Elekhh

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ashton 29 has been for long pursuing changes to images in Melbourne related articles. At times this went unopposed, but many other times he/she persisted despite opposing arguments. At times sock-puppets were used. In the current dispute Ashton 29 seems to ignore arguments by others, and not following WP:CIVIL in his interaction with User:HappyWaldo. When proposing changes, claims regarding the qualities of the alternative images are often inconsistent. For example it is argued that the skyline needs to be changed because it is already '8 years old' although earlier the argument was that Federation Square shouldn't be included because 'has only been around since 2002'. The skyline image is apparently too dark, but in one of the proposals another dark sunset image was added.

While probably everyone agrees that there cannot be a perfect montage that shows all key aspects of a city, a consensus is hard to reach when arguments are ignored, and when multiple issues are conflated, such as the (1) content of the montage (what is being represented), (2) the particular perspective chosen to show a building and (3) the quality of the image. I suggest discussing these one-by-one could help find consensus. --ELEKHH^T 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Saruman-the-white

I am not a resident of Melbourne, so you might say that I am less 'emotionally invested' in this debate, however it also gives me the perspective of an objective outsider who has visited the city on many occasions. The reason for my supporting Ashton's proposal is that, from my perspective, the current montage does not even begin to do the city justice. The skyline photo, which is the most important photo in the entire article, is completely dark and indistinct. It could be a picture of any skyline at night, and it does not show anything of the geography and landscape of the city, or even any detail of the attractive and quite distinctive high rise buildings on the skyline. In short, I could not think of a skyline photo that does a worse job of showcasing the city's distinctive, recognisable skyline. Even an outsider from Brisbane like myself knows that the most recognisable view is that taken from Williamstown, for example. In addition to this, the remaining photos are largely dull and uninspired. Ashton's proposal makes use of better photographs than those that currently exist.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Melbourne discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - On the one hand, there has been extended discussion on the talk page, going back almost a year, some of the discussion being recent, so that the dispute is ripe for resolution. On the other hand, in view of the nature of the dispute, which appears to have to do with an image rather than text, a Request for Comments is probably in order. The role of a moderator might be to assist in preparing the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening statement by moderator

I am willing to take this case as volunteer moderator if the editors are agreeable to settling the dispute over what image to use via a Request for Comments, with my own role being facilitating the posting of the RFC. If multiple editors do not want an RFC used, then I will withdraw as moderator and request that a different moderator take the case. Are the editors willing to rely on an RFC? If so, there will be brief discussion of what images to use in the RFC, followed by the actual RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The infobox has a montage of six images. The first one, of the Melbourne City Centre, appears to be the focus of the dispute. Are there other images in the montage that are also questioned? Can the editors provide links to alternate montages that they would like included in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just this one, as far as alternate montages go: File:Melbourne montage 6.jpg. I am willing to have an RFC. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I only saw two proposed image montages, so I have created an RFC to choose between the two of them at Talk: Melbourne. Unless there are any other issues, I will be closing this thread within 24 hours as taken care of by the RFC. Please state your positions on what image montage you want in detail at Threaded Discussion and cast your !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:YoungStartup Ventures (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Truthbeeetold (talk · contribs)
• Bgwhite (talk · contribs)
• Magioladitis (talk · contribs)
• yosefemet (talk · contribs)
• Zach Vega (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. this article has been created with the sole intent of portraying this company in a negative light. the first "article" referenced is not even an article. it is an email exchange and opinions of someone that was allowed the forum to bad mouth this company. Why would Wikipedia allow for this to happen?

2. the piece has many facilities, both based on what the company charges and how they conduct business

3. the top section is "criticism" even though the company has been around for over 15 years, has tons of testimonials, video highlights and world class keynotes, other REAL articles yet this is the best description?

4. why should this company even be listed on wikipedia?

5. why is it that some companies can have a proper description written and then be closed to edits, while these vandals can write whatever they want?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

have modified to something that is a real company description, with ought this unfair tone of slandering this company. this is really not something wikipedia should allow people to do. it doesn't make sense.

How do you think we can help?

please step in and take a stand against this crime. it is unfair.

1. please change your rules. it is not ok that anyone can simply g in a create a company profile. you need to realize that people are trying to harm their competitors with this and the fact that people are hiring themselves out for writing articles doesn't help.

there should be strict guidelines of how a company profile must be written. if you allow a "criticism" section then it should exist by every single companies profile

Summary of dispute by Bgwhite

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Magioladitis

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by yosefemet

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zach Vega

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:YoungStartup Ventures discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There have been two recent statements by editors, which is not extended discussion. This filing would appear to be premature, and the editors should attempt to discuss at the talk page. I am not declining this case at this time, but I am recommending that it be declined (without prejudice if discussion is unproductive). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Wikipedia is not a directory and does not have company profiles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which (almost) anyone can edit, and it has articles about subjects that are considered notable and are written from a neutral point of view. This dispute resolution noticeboard is intended to resolve disputes over content, including over neutrality. This does appear to be a dispute over neutrality, but should first be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Yishai Schlissel#West Bank (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Irn (talk · contribs)
• Zigzig20s (talk · contribs)
• Circeus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The text, as it currently stands, refers to the "West Bank, also known as the Judea and Samaria Area." Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), this should be simply "West Bank". User:Zigzig20s thinks there is should be special exception to the guideline (which represents a consensus reached after an ArbCom case on the issue) because of the context.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just the talk: page.

How do you think we can help?

We've come to an impasse.

Summary of dispute by Zigzig20s

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Yishai Schlissel#West_Bank discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - I am accepting this case for discussion.

It appears that the question is whether to add the phrase after West Bank, "also known as the Judea and Samaria area". Is there any other issue? If the issue is whether to add the phrase "also known as the Judea and Samaria area", and there is a naming convention listed above, what is the reason for disregarding the naming convention? The naming convention, which was developed under ArbCom guidance in order to avoid persistent conflict, says that in modern references, "Judea and Samaria" should only be used in special contexts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

These are very precisely the arguments myself and irn have made to zigzig. He has not actually given any reason why they are not sufficient for him (Far as I can tell his arguments boils down to "I don't want to call it West Bank".). Personally, him posting on this board seems to me like a transparent stalling tactic ("Pleasedo not revert until the dispute resolution has been completed"). Circéus (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I started this discussion here before you became involved because I was so frustrated with Zigig. Zigzig has yet to participate here. -- Irn (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I misunderstood the "wait for consensus" revert he did. He seems to have drifted away from the issue (but not entirely off the article) at the moment, but I'm not sure if it's temporary. Circéus (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I created the page, so obviously I am interested in the page. I think we could keep "West Bank" in the "early life" section, even though I already explained on the talkpage that it makes no sense to me in terms of the context: Schlissel, like any Israeli zionist settler, would never call it "West Bank". But actually, later in the article, the phrase "Judea and Samaria" comes up again because that is the name of the local police department (used by Haaretz), and I don't think Wikipedia should be renaming an Israeli police department. So I don't mind having "West Bank" to refer to his hometown in the "early life" section as long as we keep the official name of the police department in the other section. Problem solved?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for participating over here, and thank you for your attempt at compromise. Unfortunately, referring to the land area as "Judea and Samaria" still goes against the guideline. In the sentence about the police, I think it might be best to replace "not Judea and Samaria etc." with "outside of their jurisdiction". -- Irn (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why would Wikipedia rename an Israeli police district? Haaretz (a left-wing newspaper btw) uses the phrase "Judea and Samaria Police District". Why do you want to rename or remove it? It is what it is called in Israel. We have not renamed Judea and Samaria Division. Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What? What are you responding to? That's not what I suggested. -- Irn (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying either. But perhaps I can end this by saying: I have zero interest in Wikidrama. Please leave me alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I intend to check this page at least every 24 hours. I expect all editors to check it at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to call the attention of the editors to point 5 of the naming policy, which states: "When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the neutral point of view." Is the proponent specifically using that wording to refer to the administrative area and its police district? If so, is the proponent willing to use the exact wording permitted by the guidelines? Are the other editors willing to use that exact wording to refer to an administrative district? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I "the proponent"? All I am saying is that you can redact "Judea and Samaria" from the "early life" section if you want (even though I still believe it makes zero sense in this specific context, but I will let it go if this ends this Wikidrama), but I do not recommend renaming an official Israeli police district. I would like this discussion to end here as I feel uncomfortable. Please leave me alone. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Zigzig refuses to participate, I went ahead and implemented the change I mentioned above, and the page now should be in compliance with the guideline. And I guess this is over now? Thank you, Robert McClenon, for trying to help out. -- Irn (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:RobertACavendish#Republic of Aquitaine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• The primary discussion on this matter can be found in this prior version of that talk page

Users involved

• WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)
• RobertACavendish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview RobertACavendish has been adding content in several locations about the "Republic of Aquitaine", a micronation. I have reverted several of these additions at Micronation#Alternative governments, and have rejected a "protected edit request" at List of micronations based on the fact that no reliable sources are available for this micronation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a dialog with RobertACavendish at his talk page to attempt to resolve the issue. After a brief discussion, he ended the discussion rather abruptly.

How do you think we can help?

I would like disinterested third parties to evaluate RobertACavendish's additions regarding the Republic of Aquitaine to ascertain whether they should remain or be deleted.

Summary of dispute by RobertACavendish

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:RobertACavendish#Republic of Aquitaine discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on a user talk page, it has not been extensive. I am not declining this case at this time, but would suggest further discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've found additional discussion and have linked it, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

• I would have continued the discussion at the user talk page, had RobertACavendish not closed the discussion abruptly. At that point, I felt any further commenting on the user's talk page would have been pointless, and there was a clear need for outside intervention. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with how to respond to everything you have made notations on. However, there are a few that are lacking. Your retort to most responses have not always been kind nor professional. I ended our discussion abruptly as you have said, because we were going back and forth... and not getting anywhere. Then you basically threatened me, saying that you would would bring all this to a higher level... and anything I would post in the future, YOU would be the first to suggest it be deleted. I responded by asking you to bring this to a higher level because I think you are letting your emotions guide you in your moderation. I agreed that the one article I would attain more sources for, however I felt that my other article had merit to be listed. Hence why I ASKED YOU TO BRING THIS TO A HIGHER LEVEL.

Moderators, please look at all the corresponding texts back and forth, not just the ones that Wiki61 pulled out to make it seem as if he has been giving me all the information needed, and being nothing but helpful during this entire ordeal.

I feel taking his recommendations for the one article, and deleting it myself (so it is a non issue) shows that I am interested in abiding by the wiki standards. I ended the conversation, because he didn't want it out in the open... which I didn't know about. So I ended the conversation. Yes it was abrupt, however I didn't know how to end it any other way with out being harassed by him. RobertACavendish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've moved RobertACavendish's comments to the "discussion" section where they belong.

Regarding whether my responses have been kind or professional, I will leave that to others to decide. My suggestion to Mr Cavendish about page deletion ran along these lines: he thinks his topic (the Republic of Aquitaine) is suitable for inclusion at Wikipedia, and so has scattered references to it in several places, but has not yet actually created an article about it. I feel it is not notable, and so references to it in other places is inappropriate. To resolve the question of notability once and for all, I recommended that he create the article, that I would then nominate for deletion, so that the actual notability of the topic could be discussed among a wider audience. I was not threatening him in any way, but rather suggesting an avenue to invite a wider community discussion of the topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61 You mentioned that one of the major conventions to us being listed in the mocronation website was that we were not recognized. I would like bring your attention to the very first thing that pops up from wikipedia when you type in micronation:Direct link--> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c151/Robert_Davis/Screen%20Shot%202015-07-30%20at%209.42.58%20AM_zpsc2nryur7.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertACavendish (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@RobertACavendish: Robert, you've missed my point. Recognition isn't required to be listed as a micronation. Notability is required. And you have not demonstrated that the Republic of Aquitaine is notable. The screenshot you posted is the result of a Google search (not a Wikipedia search), and it shows that the most prominent result of a Google search on the term "micronation" is the Wikipedia article on the topic. This is quite common; Wikipedia pages are often the most prominent search result in Google. How does this prove that the Republic of Aquitaine is in any way notable? The point about sovereignty or recognition is moot; the question to be answered for inclusion at Wikipedia is the question of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61 I'm sorry but if you go back over all of your notes from yesterday the biggest contention was that we were not a full recognized state or nation. You then mentioned that that was an article from google. Here are the first couple paragraphs from the official wikipedia micronation website. You did also say in our correspondence yesterday that there were other micronations listed on the main wiki page that had lass citing or sources. I have not seen any of those taken down. So if we have more valid citations (roughly 8 - and yes some were from press releases that you don't accept), I find myself perplexed why our article was removed. I do understand the need for an independent wiki page, to be added unto the listing of nations. However this is not the article I am questioning.
first couple paragraphs on main wiki page of machinations: A micronation, sometimes referred to as a model country or new country project, is an entity that claims to be an independent nation or state but is not officially recognized by world governments or major international organizations.

Micronations are distinguished from imaginary countries and from other kinds of social groups (such as eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations) by expressing a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty over some physical territory. RobertACavendish (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@RobertACavendish: Robert, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the question to be answered is not recognition, but notability. If I gave any responses that muddied that point, I apologize. As for the presence of other micronation articles that do not meet muster, they have not been taken down because I have not chosen to pursue that activity. If you wish to do so, have at it. For now, I think that you and I have made our positions clear, and we should allow the volunteers who monitor this board to review the issue and voice their opinions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61 As you requested I re added the information that you deleted. I would like others to take a look at it and see if it belongs: Robert McClenon the direct link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#Alternative_governments RobertACavendish (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I, like Robert McClenon, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me note that while I see the problem with this material, WikiDan61's standard for it is not correct. Notability is only a standard for whether articles should or should not exist as a whole, but as the lede of the Notability guideline specifically says, notability is not the test for whether information should or should not be included in an article. That being the case, whether the information could stand alone as an article if it survived a deletion discussion certainly might indicate that it could also be included in an article, but its failure to survive a deletion discussion would not indicate that it could not be included in an article. The basic tests of whether something should or should not be included in an article are Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Based upon the sources cited in the deleted material from the talk page discussion, I think that these inclusions — which have no non-PRIMARY reliable sources — fail the UNDUE subsection of the Neutral Point of View policy and the NOTSOAP subsection of the What Wikipedia is Not policy and should not be included here. Moreover, the currently cited sources cannot even be used as a PRIMARY source since they fairly plainly violate the SPS section of the Verifiability Policy, since their claims to sovereignty and, indeed, existence are both (a) exceptional claims and (b) claims about third parties which cause the ABOUTSELF exceptions to SPS not to apply. I see no reason to believe that, based on the current sourcing, this material can appear in Wikipedia. Whether it might be included if supported by sources acceptable to Wikipedia cannot be determined until those sources are added. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the issue to be resolved for the time being. A third editor (Yopie) who has not previously been involved in (or, as far as I know, aware of) this dispute, has also reverted the addition of the Republic of Aquitaine material to Micronation, and left a note at Mr Cavendish's talk page. Mr Cavendish has replied to the note, but has not further tried to restore the material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me note further that even if a standalone article were attempted so as to justify Aquitaine's inclusion in a standalone list containing only entries which have standalone articles, it needs to be remembered that under the Primary source policy that neither articles nor large sections of articles can be based solely on primary sources and also remembered that the Independence of sources subsection of the Notability guideline for organizations says that the "primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" and goes on to say that anything produced by the organization itself, specifically including websites and press releases, cannot be considered in making that determination. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: This dispute appears to be concluded. Unless someone objects to closure by 17:20 UTC on August 5, 2015, any volunteer may close this case as resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Deathtrap (film)#Deathtrap/Sleuth plot similarity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)
• Ring Cinema (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a sentence to the lead for this article stating that the film bears similarities to Sleuth (1972 film), also starring Michael Caine, and I provided citations to reviews by Roger Ebert, Janet Maslin, as well as several published books which explicitly note the similarities between the two films. Ring Cinema has repeatedly deleted all this information based on only his/her opinion that the similarities are "not particularly strong." Now he has also deleted this same information on the Sleuth (1972 film) article as well, verging on edit warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provided more sources after info was incorrectly called "uncited". Asked on Talk page for policies, guidelines, or consensus that indicates this reliably sourced information should be excluded. Provided multiple examples of other film articles that mention similar films in their leads to demonstrate consensus that this kind of info is appropriate.

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved editors to provide policy/guideline and precedent-based consensus on the appropriateness of including this reliably sourced information.

Summary of dispute by Ring Cinema

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Deathtrap (film)#Deathtrap/Sleuth plot similarity discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Honours Count? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chrisuae (talk · contribs)
• PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
• Autonova (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a table in the article in the Football rivalry section that was un-referenced and disagreed with other sources. I added references to football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA, plus the official Liverpool FC and Manchester United websites and some major media sites and mentioned the subtle differences of opinion on these sites. I believe this removed the bias inherent in the article.

User PeeJay2K3 disagreed and reverted the edits with different reasons each time. I attempted to address these reasons on the talk page and received 3rd party backing for using FIFA and UEFA as references.

In the latest change, the user has removed these references and reverted to the original table but added citations to the official club websites that do not match its content. References to FIFA, UEFA and major media sites were removed as was the paragraph mentioning the subtle differences in their data.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to address the concerns of the other user regarding formatting while still maintaining neutral and factual language and the references.

How do you think we can help?

Please provide guidance on the use of FIFA, UEFA and the official club websites as valid references. Also provide guidance on the use of the paragraph mentioning the subtle differences in the data provided by these sources.

Summary of dispute by PeeJay2K3

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The original table may have been unreferenced, but now it is not. I firmly believe that objections were raised to the original table because it happened to place Manchester United ahead of Liverpool in terms of the number of honours the two clubs have won. Other editors have attempted to modify this by arbitrarily deciding that some honours are "major" and others not, picking and choosing from various sources such that their POV appears to be supported. As I have stated on the article talk page, different sources consider different competitions "major" and "minor", some do not distinguish at all. I even provided a source that accurately reflected the article as it was before this lame dispute started. But apparently the idea that Manchester United is a more successful club than Liverpool is one that some people just can't handle. – PeeJay 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Further minor addition: I also believe that this article is not the place to determine the major/minor nature of any competitions. If such categorisation must take place, it should be done at a WikiProject-wide level, not just this one article. – PeeJay 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Autonova

For simplicity, the question boils down to: which edit is more comprehensive, neutral, and beneficial to the article? This one, which is supported by Chrisuae and myself: [1], or the article's current state, which is supported by PeeJay. Autonova (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Honours Count?|Honours count? discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page, so that this issue does appear to be ripe for moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice

• This case has been inactive for almost seven days. It also seems that talk page discussion stopped around five days ago. @Chrisuae, PeeJay2K3, and Autonova: Is this still an active dispute? If not, this case will be closed in 24 hours. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MrScorch6200 Yes this is still active. Two of us agree on an edit, one of us does not and continually reverts our edit and ignores our discussion. So we need input from a third party. Autonova (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I refuse to engage further in this debate without third-party mediation. – PeeJay 23:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a debate if the other party ignores the majority of the points and shapeshifts their argument. Autonova (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200, PeeJay2K3, and Autonova:A neutral mediator would be appreciated. The current state of the article is biased. It contains a table that accurately references a single source (BBC) and inaccurately references the two clubs involved. The edits that Autonova and I support use the most authoritative football sources available: FIFA and UEFA in addition to accurately referencing the two clubs and the BBC and other media sources. There is some variance in the data presented by these sources and this was noted in detail in the edits using very neutral language while using the sources in order of prominence. Unfortunately, the edits immediately get reverted without a valid reason provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs)

• I would be happy to assist with mediating this dispute starting tomorrow. I have some real life matters to attend to first, then will get up to speed with this dispute and hope to get things moving ASAP. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, North of Eden. Autonova (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• As a preliminary matter, I agree with PeeJay that this isn't the place to determine what awards are "minor" or "major". I am far from an expert on these things, and such decisions are best left to the relevant WikiProject. That said, this issue isn't the crux of the dispute. As I see it, we should try to reach an outcome where the table's content reflects the most reliable and independent sources available. Just so things are clear, PeeJay, what is your position on the independence/relability of the FIFA and UEFA sources? Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @PeeJay2K3, Autonova, and Chrisuae: North of Eden (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, first of all, thanks User:North of Eden for helping out here. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes look at a dispute. Personally, I believe FIFA and UEFA are extremely reliable when it comes to the accuracy of their information, i.e. the teams won those competitions in the years both FIFA and UEFA have specified, but I don't believe they're sufficiently independent to be relied on as definitive sources, since they leave out particular competitions that other sources keep in. But despite what others might think, I'm not just talking about the Community Shield here; UEFA leaves out the FIFA Club World Cup, for example, while both leave out the Community Shield despite both clubs considering it worthy of mention on their own websites. The BBC, as a truly independent source, includes the Community Shield in their list of the clubs' achievements, as do other media (although it's a bit of a mixed bag as to whether a particular media source includes the Community Shield in any given list; some do in one list, then omit it in another). The best solution, in my book, is to include the trophies that both clubs consider worthy, i.e. the Premier League/First Division, the FA Cup, the League Cup, the Community Shield, the Champions League/European Cup, the UEFA Cup, the Cup Winners' Cup, the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup, and the FIFA Club World Cup. I include the UEFA Cup and the Cup Winners' Cup despite only one of the clubs having won either of them since they're effectively the same competition now. – PeeJay 08:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes thanks again User:North of Eden. With all due respect to PeeJay, I reject the assertion that both of the clubs' websites list the same set of trophies as the BBC source, as you can see here: the Man Utd site lists them [2], but the Liverpool site [3] is more ambiguous, listing the Charity Shield amongst even the reserve and youth team titles. And the BBC article itself is out of date. So the article in its current state as decided by PeeJay relies on an out of date BBC article, and picks and chooses a common set of trophies from the club websites, which don't agree with each other. Important to note is that the article in its current state omits every other source in favour of this - the BBC source is the only one found thus far which lists this set of trophies. This surely qualifies as undue weight. Our proposed edit: [4] lists a broad variety of sources, each giving a slightly different set of trophies, including the BBC article. The source for the trophy table was decided as FIFA, which Chrisuae and I deemed to be the most neutral and reliable. Autonova (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Just as a hypothetical, would it be possible to use two tables in the article? One, a la the one favored by Autonova and Chrisuae, would indicate that it is the result of official FIFA/UEFA tabulation. The other, "narrower" table would be in accordance with the tabulation done by the BBC and each club. If this isn't acceptable, it's no problem; I'm just throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks. North of Eden (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
          • It's a reasonable suggestion, but I'd say it would be pretty redundant to have two tables when the only real difference between them would be the presence/absence of the Community Shield. Essentially, this argument comes down to two users accusing me of having a Manchester United bias by wanting to include the Community Shield, while I believe they have an anti-Manchester United bias for wanting to exclude it. WP:AGF has been failed on both sides. We both have valid reasons for wanting to include/exclude the Community Shield, but if you exclude it, you almost have to exclude a few competitions that are of a similar nature. – PeeJay 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
            • One possible alternative would be removing some or all of the contentious content from the table and discussing it in paragraph format below. North of Eden (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Perhaps I was just too stubborn to see that before, but that is effectively what the other two tried already. Helps to hear it from an impartial observer though. – PeeJay 14:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @PeeJay2K3: I definitely don't want to infer that you're in the wrong at this point. If you do feel comfortable with the table-and-paragraph setup, that's great, but I am happy to continue this discussion if you'd prefer that. Your suggestion that competitions similar to the Community Shield should also be excluded may merit further discussion. North of Eden (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. To be honest, I can see how a lot of sources would support the position that the Community Shield isn't worth including in a list of honours, but the fact that the clubs themselves include it, as do a significant number of reliable sources (albeit not necessarily a majority) makes me think it's worth further discussion. What irritates me is the incongruity between people's logic when it comes to the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup. They're all just glorified friendlies, like the Community Shield, except it seems that the fact that they take place on an international level makes people think they're somehow worth more. Perhaps they are worth more due to the fact that it takes more to qualify for them, but only someone with a poor sense of logic would use that idea to denigrate the Community Shield, thus serving their own POV that Liverpool are the "more successful" club out of the two. – PeeJay 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Is there any kind of database outside of FIFA/UEFA/the BBC (and the other sources listed) that would provide further substantiation for either your point or Autonova's? Maybe having some additional sourcing would help. I understand your point regarding the other honors. It seems to me like the BBC and FIFA/UEFA sources clash; I understand Autonova's point about the reliability and timeliness of the BBC source, and that's something to discuss, also. North of Eden (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • The BBC source may be out of date for the exact numbers, but in terms of its assessment of which trophies are worth listing, it matches perfectly with the way the article has existed for the last several years. It's only recently that the contention regarding the Community Shield has arisen from Chrisuae and Autonova. – PeeJay 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
          • What if the current table were kept intact, but with two "Total" columns instead of one? The first "Total" column would remain the same; the second could have an annotation indicating that it's based off FIFA/UEFA tabulation. This way, both viewpoints would be incorporated into the table, without the redundancy of two tables. North of Eden (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• In the article itself, it does not provide any opinion on which competitions are major or minor. It does reveals the amount of honours, each team has won in its history. However it does not include honours such as Liverpool winning Division 2. Therefore, I suggest that all honours won by each club should be mentioned with the possibility of splitting it into two sections with Major Honours including Premier League, Champions League, Europa League, FA Cup & League Cup then stating all the Other Honours including Community Shield, Super Cup and Club World Cup.CovCity97 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That is a good suggestion. Do the parties have any thoughts on either this or my suggestion above? Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Firstly, to catch up with the points raised so far: the Charity Shield is unique in that it is before the first Premier League match of the season. It is widely considered to have a lower status than other tournaments. Alex Ferguson himself said, "It's always a game we never quite use as a do or die thing; we use it as a barometer for fitness", as included in the trophy's article. Also as Peejay alluded to, it's also a domestic trophy so is naturally less high-profile than the other short tournaments such as the UEFA Super Cup. Secondly, I feel I need to repeat this since it wasn't acknowledged - the two club's websites are surely not sufficient references for the article's current content, as they each list a different set of trophies? Per your suggestion, North of Eden, of two total columns, I would support it if additional sources could be found which corroborate the BBC set of trophies. Giving a whole column for one source and another column for seven sources seems like undue wighting (in Chrisuae and my favoured edit, we list alongside the BBC source FIFA, UEFA and [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). With regard to CovCity97's suggestion, I essentially tried this back in January: [10], but it was reverted by PeeJay, which started this dispute. By April ([11]) I had gathered five reliable sources to back up the major vs. minor trophy distinction ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). I predictably agree with CovCity97's suggestion, as it would add additional information for the reader on the minor trophies, which my edit didn't do. Autonova (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem with CovCity's suggestion is that he appears to be implying that we should list all the trophies on both clubs' own honours lists, including the Lancashire Cup and the Carlsberg Cup, which no other source would ever consider listing. How do we reconcile including those just so we can say we're including everything? Also, the clubs may treat the Community Shield as a "warm-up" of sorts, but it's still a legitimate competition, as justified by the fact that several media outlets include it in totals. You also say it's unique in that it takes place before the start of the English league season, but the UEFA Super Cup is similarly unique in that it takes place before the start of the Champions League/Europa League competitions proper, while the Club World Cup takes place at the end of the calendar year. Hardly a valid measure of the legitimacy of any competition. If anything, the Community Shield's status as the curtain-raiser to the English football season should serve to enhance its reputation. – PeeJay 20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @PeeJay2K3 and Autonova:Thanks User:North of Eden and User:CovCity97 for helping out with this discussion. How about a combination of the two mentioned solutions? I like the idea of the FIFA table with a total and then an additional table listing every other honour the clubs have won, regardless of the status of the trophy, with an overall total followed by the paragraph . Although there is no single definitive source, FIFA is the most authoritative source on football matters. I think we are in agreement as to the relative importance of the trophies, but are not yet in agreement as to where to draw the line between those worthy of inclusion and those that are not. For this reason, I believe we should select FIFA as the most prominent source and any disagreements on other credible sources should be mentioned in a paragraph with in-text attribution, which I think follows Neutrality. I do not believe that the BBC should be used as the source for the primary table because, although it is a credible source and should be mentioned in the paragraph, I don't think it is more prominent than FIFA on football matters, especially as it presents a minority point of view and has broadcast rights to some of the trophies including the Community Shield. I agree with User:PeeJay2K3 about the Community Shield being similar to the other Super Cups (glorified friendlies) but the Community Shield is different in that it was originally invitational, was not always contested by previous trophy winners, was sometimes between Div 1 and Div 2 or Southern League winners, is played pre-season (Arsenal once declined to participate in favour of other pre-season friendlies) and was often shared. Also, the two clubs' official websites list every trophy ever won by the clubs, but they split them into multiple tables. The Liverpool site [17] lists the season-long, large-scale participation trophies in a prominent table at the top of their trophy page and then lists every other honour the club has won in a separate table using a small font. Manchester United [18] list their "Domestic" and "European" honors in side-by-side tables and then have a table below listing "Other" honours. Both club websites include the Community Shield in the lower table. They disagree only on the UEFA Super cup (ManU include it, Liverpool do not). If we go with this, the table would look something like this followed by the paragraph that User:Autonova and I support in our proposed edit: [19]

Major honours as defined by FIFA[1][2]	Liverpool FC		Manchester United
FIFA Club World Cup	0		1	2008
Intercontinental Cup	0		1	1999
European Cups/UEFA Champions Leagues	5	1977, 1978, 1981, 1984, 2005	3	1968, 1999, 2008
UEFA Cups	3	1973, 1976, 2001	0
European Cup Winners' Cup	0		1	1991
UEFA Super Cups	3	1977, 2001, 2005	1	1991
English championships	18	1901, 1906, 1922, 1923, 1947, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990	20	1908, 1911, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1965, 1967, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013
FA Cups	7	1965, 1974, 1986, 1989, 1992, 2001, 2006	11	1909, 1948, 1963, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1990, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2004
League Cups	8	1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1995, 2001, 2003, 2012	4	1992, 2006, 2009, 2010
Total	44		42
Additional first-team honours as defined by the official club websites	Liverpool FC		Manchester United
FA Community Shield	15 (5 shared)	1964*, 1965*, 1966, 1974*, 1976, 1977*, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986*, 1988, 1989, 1990*, 2001, 2006 (* shared)	20 (4 shared)	1908, 1911, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1965*, 1967*, 1977*, 1983, 1990*, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 (* shared)
FA Super Cup	1	1986	0
Dvision 2 Championship	4	1893–94, 1895–96, 1904–05, 1961–62	2	1935–36, 1974–75
Lancashire League	1	1892	0
Overall Total	65		64

Chrisuae (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

• • • • • User:PeeJay2K3 Of course it's a legitimate competition. The point I'm making re: the start of the league is that it merges the competition with pre-season (off the cuff, these two sources refer to it as a preseason event: [20], [21]). So it's unique because it is arguably a preseason match, held before fitness has been finalised, as Ferguson alludes to. With regard to the complete set of trophies, it seems reasonable to stick with the major honours and minor honours as detailed by the above sources, including FIFA. I'm interested in what others think however. Autonova (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Chrisuae for the draft table. What do folks think about using that? I'm happy to continue discussion, but I think it really helps to reach middle ground, and still covers the honors in contention. @PeeJay2K3:, what are your thoughts on the table? North of Eden (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes looks good to me, good work Chrisuae. Autonova (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To be honest, from a design perspective, I find it to be unwieldy. If I were in a hyperbolic mood, I might even say it disgusts the aesthete in me. There's far too much white space in there for my liking, and the words "as defined by..." seem completely unnecessary; the source for the list should be evident by the footnotes provided. The years of each title aren't necessary either; all we need is the number of titles – when they were won is irrelevant to the success of each club. Furthermore, I disagree profoundly with the inclusion of both the Lancashire League and the Second Division. Winning the Second Division isn't an honour worth including in the article; the table is supposed to be comparing the successes of the two clubs, but there's no success to be had in being in the Second Division, even if you do end up winning it. Still further, I'm still not happy about the way the Community Shield is being treated differently to the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup; are they not all just glorified friendlies? In my book, either they all are or none of them is. – PeeJay 22:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the table, I would change "English Championships" to "Premier League/Division One" to avoid confusion as the second tier is now known as the Championship. However I do see User:PeeJay2K3 point about UEFA Super Cup, Intercontinental Cup and Club World Cup being treated differently to the Community Shield. In my opinion, I would not include them as Major Honours meaning the Major V Minor dispute is brought up again. I noticed that the El Clasico page list their trophies in categories of International and Domestic, which could be an easier option. The Manchester Derby page labels the honours exactly the way the Liverpool-Manchester United rivalry page is. This surely means any agreements done to the honours on this page, will have to be changed on other pages.CovCity97 (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far to this discussion. I'm looking forward to resuming discussion in the morning. There are still a number of issues that need to be ironed out regarding what will remain in the table, what might be changed in other articles, etc. What do folks think about CovCity's International/Domestic suggestion? That sounds like it might be efficient. Additionally, it would be great if parties could think of a few things they would be able to concede, just in case we have some issues finding middle ground. Essentially, what won't you budge on, and what might you budge on. This will help me come up with additional suggestions in the event that the International/Domestic idea doesn't work out. Thanks much, North of Eden (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the responses to the draft table. I think the dates are useful as we can make them all links to the relevant articles as they are on the clubs' articles or remove them completely @North of Eden:. I agree with User:PeeJay2K3 about the super cups all being "glorified friendlies" and I would be happy to see them relegated to the lower table, but I could not find an authoritative source that does this. I can also see why the Community Shield is different from the other Super Cups for the reasons that Autonova and I have stated previously. Additionally, the Community/Charity Shield has always been to raise money for charities and it was only formalised in 1974 that the teams selected to play in the match should be the FA Cup winners and the League Champions. Prior to that it went through a few different iterations and was contested by teams who had won nothing in the previous season, sometimes from lower divisions. It wasn't always contested by clubs and has been won 7 times by "select XI" teams including twice by amateur teams. Even now, when a team wins both the FA Cup and Premier League, the runners-up contest the Community Shield. In contrast, the other Super Cups do have a slightly higher standing. The UEFA Super cup has always been between the winners of the 2 primary UEFA competitions. This can never be the same team so there is no need to allow runners-up to compete. The FIFA Club World Cup is contested by the continental champions plus the champions of the host nation and has a large financial incentive for the winners. In 2000, Manchester United pulled out of the FA Cup in favour of the FIFA Club World cup. We can debate the relative merits of all of the trophies and may never completely agree, but the table makes no judgement about that as it cites valid sources. I agree with CovCity97 that other rivalry articles may need revision based on FIFA or UEFA information. A quick check of the clubs' articles seems to show they include all trophies. I think the idea to categorize the trophies as Domestic or International has merit, but should be in addition to the draft table because the draft table is based on FIFA information. This would match the way UEFA categorise the data. If we add the International/Domestic classification and remove the years it may look like this:

Major honours as defined by FIFA[1][2]		Liverpool FC	Manchester United
International
	FIFA Club World Cup	0	1
	Intercontinental Cup	0	1
	European Cups/UEFA Champions Leagues	5	3
	UEFA Cups	3	0
	European Cup Winners' Cup	0	1
	UEFA Super Cups	3	1
Domestic	Division One / Premier League	18	20
	FA Cups	7	11
	League Cups	8	4
Total		44	42
Additional first-team honours as defined by the official club websites
Domestic	FA Community Shield	15 (5 shared)	20 (4 shared)
	FA Super Cup	1	0
	Dvision 2 Championship	4	2
	Lancashire League	1	0
Overall Total		65	64

In my opinion including the years/links is useful, but not strictly necessary. Likewise with the International/Domestic classification. However, the use of FIFA/UEFA as the reference to classify the trophies is paramount. The paragraph is also important to discuss the less prominent sources. Chrisuae (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

• This is more elegant I suppose. Also it's of the same style as the El Clasico table. I'd be happy with this. Autonova (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am very impressed with this table, also. Does the fact that it clearly lists the "major honors" as being defined by FIFA, and the fact that BBC/other sources will be explained in the paragraph, ally editors' concerns? That said, I believe PeeJay had some concerns regarding the validity of the Lancashire Cup being included there. Any thoughts on that? North of Eden (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that the "overall total" at the bottom be removed. As Chrisuae mentioned, the Community Shield was shared some years. And as PeeJay mentioned, including Division Two titles is rather strange since it favours teams who have been relegated from the top league. So I would remove the "overall total" row at the bottom. Autonova (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I think the idea behind the "overall total" was to reach a compromise between PeeJay's suggested table, which more closely resembles the figures in that overall total, and the one favored by you and Chrisuae. But at the end of the day, we have to reflect reliable sources, which may well indicate that Division Two titles shouldn't be included. North of Eden (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I am happy with the table above, the only problem I have now is that will the other articles have to be changed to have this style of table? CovCity97 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm happy with the "Overall total" line, since shared Community Shields are still included in the overall total by both clubs (i.e. it's not typically considered to be "half" a trophy or anything like that). My problem with the "Additional honours" section is that only Liverpool seem to consider the Football League Super Cup, the Second Division and the Lancashire Cup as honours; I don't have a problem with including the Super Cup myself, but the sources don't appear to back up the inclusion of any of those. Unfortunately, that appears to leave only the Community Shield in the "Additional" section, which would probably raise questions among editors who are just passing through the article. A significant number of sources include it, so why not include it in the main body? By the way, does it not seem odd that User:Chrisuae's only contributions to Wikipedia have been in relation to this issue? Seems like somebody has an axe to grind... – PeeJay 20:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Our major roadblock, ultimately, is regarding what sources we should be using to determine the table's content. I think it's almost universally agreed that the material recognized by FIFA and UEFA should count toward each team's total. There is little doubt that FIFA and UEFA are reliable sources when it comes to this sort of thing. I am also inclined to say that the Community Shield, as it's recognized by both teams and by the BBC, should be included in some way. I am less certain of what to do about the other "additional honors". That said, we have to be careful here, as making value judgments on what should and what shouldn't be included in the table, when our sources are not uniform, can lead us into the realm of WP:OR. Given this, I think it's safest to include the other material, but maybe indicate that it isn't recognized by Manchester United, and maybe factor it out of the totals. As usual, this is just a suggestion, and feel free to offer alternative viewpoints. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
            • User:PeeJay2K3, just to set the record straight - I have no axe to grind. I just recently had time to look at editing due to having the summer off work. I edited one other page a while ago (not related to this in any way) before I set up an account. I thought the change I made here improved the article and was uncontroversial as it was backed up by sources that Autonova had added. I think we've made progress with the help of North of Eden and CovCity97 so let's keep the discussion on topic. I agree that a significant number of sources include the Community Shield, but the most authoritative 4 sources (FIFA, UEFA, the clubs official websites) do not include it in the main body with the others, so the table reflects that. The first part of the table is from FIFA, the rest is from the clubs and other sources that list a complete set of honours won by the clubs without regard to major/minor. The Lancashire League win was in 1892 and it was a second tier competition which resulted in promotion to the First division. I thought the second draft table was a good compromise as it shows what is recognised by FIFA along with a complete list. Chrisuae (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
              • The Lancashire League win did not "result" in anything. Entry into The Football League was done via an election in those days; winning the Lancashire League may have strengthened Liverpool's case to join The Football League, but it certainly wasn't a direct contributory factor. Manchester United competed in the Football Alliance back then too, but even if they'd won it, I wouldn't be claiming the Alliance should be included because it was secondary to The Football League, and also because Liverpool never played in it. Comparing the clubs' successes in competitions that only one of them has played in is like comparing apples to oranges. Finally, I still don't see how FIFA and UEFA can make any claim to being the "most authoritative sources"; they may be the governing bodies for world and European football, but when their opinion regarding club honours differs from other sources, it's a bit much to say they're the most authoritative. This whole business over the Community Shield is infuriating; people claim it's not worth including because the clubs don't treat it as a proper competition, but you could say the same about the Football League Cup or even the early rounds of the FA Cup; no one would claim that either of those isn't worth including because of their historical significance, and yet Manchester United didn't even bother to enter the League Cup from 1961 to 1966. Then there are the suggestions that the Community Shield is a "glorified friendly"; in the way it is treated by some, perhaps it is, but it is glorified nonetheless. Other pre-season tournaments, such as the Carlsberg Cup listed on Liverpool's website, are organised on an ad-hoc basis by independent companies or the clubs themselves, whereas the Community Shield (like the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup) is organised by an official governing body of football. You have to win the Premier League or FA Cup to play in it, just like you have to win the Champions League or Europa League to play in the UEFA Super Cup. The sources that choose to denigrate the Community Shield by omitting it from clubs' lists of honours are doing so mistakenly. – PeeJay 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ultimately, is it necessary to include the "overall total" row or column in the table? If we kept it out, and perhaps used a footnote next to the name of each competition included in the table, to explain what source/authority supports its inclusion, would this be satisfactory to all parties? North of Eden (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it not the overall total that indicates the relative success of each club though? As for the line-by-line sourcing, it just seems like overkill to me, but it may be necessary. – PeeJay 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I like the overall total in the table. Although as we have looked at FIFA and UEFA when it comes to major honours internationally such as the Champions League, is it not worth looking at the FA to see what they regard as major honours for the domestic competitions? CovCity97 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @PeeJay2K3: My thinking behind getting rid of the overall total was that it seems to be the lynchpin of much of the contention. Certainly, it would be optimal to keep it in. @CovCity97: I think it would be worthwhile; what do others think? North of Eden (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
        • My point about the overall total row was just a suggestion to solve the division two problem, it's a minor detail for me. I'm happy with the table as it is. I've just had a look through the FA site and can't find a relevant historic honours section to refer to, but others are welcome to try. Autonova (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I think we have a consensus that the FIFA/UEFA information should form a major part of the table, and that we should use these sources as guides for the rest of the information. That said, we certainly don't have consensus on how to incorporate the Community Shield and, to a lesser extent, the other "lesser" honors. To be blunt, do editors think a compromise is possible on this issue? I'm impressed with the civility and complexity this discussion has involved, but I'm not seeing much agreement on how to address the Community Shield. This isn't a bad thing, just something I want to clear up as we continue our discussion. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I am happy with how the table looks above with the Community Shield in the additional honours section. In my personal opinion, I would not count the FIFA Club World Cup and UEFA Super Cup as major honours but if we are using FIFA as our source, which I am not against, then it is right for the competitions to go into the Major honour section. CovCity97 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • The crux of the issue, which has existed since January, is the inclusion of the community shield into a total tally involving tournaments all with higher statuses. All of the sources, bar one, that we have found in our entire discussion, recognise the community shield as separate from other major honours. It is the heart of the issue for me, and so I cannot compromise. I'm glad that others are seeing the logic however and we seem to be happy with this table. Autonova (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                • I can't speak for Liverpool's website, but I'm convinced that Manchester United's website lists the Community Shield separately from the club's other domestic achievements for reasons of aesthetics, i.e. having three groups of three competitions on the page. Obviously the league, FA Cup and League Cup take precedence, which is why the Community Shield was the one to be dropped to the "Other" section. Calling the section "Other" is not an expression meant to demean the competitions contained therein, but only as a description of a section that includes honours that don't fit in the other two sections. Out of all the other websites I've seen that list the Community Shield, none of them have segregated it in any way, other than to put it lower down in the list, as per their opinion of its relative worth compared to the other competitions. Although it may be considered of a lower level than most competitions, that's not to say it shouldn't be considered at all, or that it should be placed in a separate section. – PeeJay 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks to all for the above comments; they are helpful to me in assessing our progress. So far, I would make these conclusions about the status of our discussion. First, the ultimate disagreement here is whether or not the Community Shield should be separated, in the table, from honors deemed "major" or "international" by FIFA and UEFA. It has also been posited by multiple editors that the FIFA Club World Cup and UEFA Super Club, and perhaps other lesser honors, may not merit inclusion in the "main" part of the table. At this point, I'm not seeing an easy resolution to this dispute ,as editors remain fairly far apart in their views of the case. That said, compromise isn't necessary, and is not our goal -- what we need is a result that reflects the majority of substantive, independent reliable sources. As a general query, are there other editors, or perhaps a WikiProject, who would be willing to weigh in (perhaps in an RfC) about this issue? I am happy to continue moderating discussion, but I feel that we aren't making substantial progress in reaching a mutual resolution at this forum. The advantage of an RfC would be that editor who are perhaps "experts" on this subject could offer their well-informed views as to how the Community Shield and similar competitions should be treated, when it comes to each club's honors count. This would be a way of developing a community consensus, something that would likely be more satisfying to all involved than an inconclusive discussion here. What do folks think? North of Eden (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Other editors may weigh in on the prominence of the sources, but would more opinions on the relative merits of the honours affect the article? Even if our own opinions differ from what is contained on those sources, that should not affect the article. I think the table accurately reflects the sources and that the sources are given due prominence. If we include the paragraph under the table that outlines where minor differences of opinion are present on other prominent sources, the article will be improved. As to User:PeeJay2K3's point, the Manchester United website should be taken as accurately representing the views of the club rather than being inaccurate due to aesthetics. The Liverpool website gives the Community Shield the same treatment as the Manchester united website. The draft table is based on what it explicitly says. Am I right in thinking we are all in agreement about the sources? Chrisuae (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
    • Good point, we need consensus on issues relating to sources, not the article content. Regarding the Manchester United website, we have to be careful to refrain from interpreting sources. Also, independence is a key part of reliable sources in this context; admittedly, it's also an issue with the FIFA/UEFA sources. Given this, I think it's absolutely necessary that, however the table is formatted, that it be annotated to reflect the sources from which it has been compiled. North of Eden (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What does a mutual resolution, or consensus, actually entail? It seems that PeeJay is the only editor here who doesn't agree with the proposed table. Again, with all due respect to PeeJay, he is a Manchester United fan, and so it's unlikely he would ever agree with this table. We can argue all we want about how we view the different tournaments, but, as with all things on Wikipedia, it comes down to sources, and as I mentioned, there is only one source found in this whole discussion which includes the Community Shield among the other honours. Our proposed edit will indeed cite this source, for completeness, along with the other sources. But is it necessary to prevent the entire edit from going through because one source, out of ten, disagrees? And one editor, out of five? I don't see any coherent argument against citing FIFA for the table, and all other sources in the paragraph after it. Obviously we could have a table for FIFA, a table for UEFA, a table for each of the official club sites, a table for the Guardian, a table for the Telegraph etc., but that would take up too much space. We have sought third party input on this issue, and I'm grateful for it, and even more grateful that CovCity and North of Eden supports this edit. I'm just curious as to what else there is left to argue. We can defer to the Wikiproject if we want, but they will only echo what the sources tell us, not to mention the Community Shield article itself. I've made all the arguments I'm going to make on this issue, I support the table as it is, and you all know my position on this matter. I'll continue to monitor this discussion but I'm not sure if there's anything else I can do. Autonova (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
        • 24 hour closing notice and recommendation to seek WP:Formal mediation. Thanks for your comments, Autonova. I want to make clear that I don't favor any argument in this dispute, but I'd say there'sa general consensus about what sources the table should reflect. That said, a mutually acceptable resolution is necessary for me to close this discussion as successful. As User:PeeJay2K3 has expressed an alternative viewpoint, and due to User:Autonova's comments above, I would recommend the parties seek formal mediation in lieu of continued discussion here. If editors do not object, I will close this discussion in 24 hours, as unsuccessful but reflective of a general consensus. North of Eden (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:MLS Soccer Sunday#July 2015: This article needs additional citations for verification. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mikeylito (talk · contribs)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement about the use of date formats in the article.

I'm also not happy with the tone of the talk page discussion. I feel it was less than civil.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Once I was clear on what required cleanup, I went and resolved the issues with one exception which I addressed on the talk page. However, with explanation, I did revert the dates to dmy format as I originally posted the article.

How do you think we can help?

I am seeking additional opinions on what took place on this incident. I'm particularly disturbed because rather than explaining my original question on the talk page, the other editor just made wholesale changes without continuing the talk page discussion.

Summary of dispute by Walter Görlitz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The subjects, both the league and networks, are American and so should use MDY per WP:STRONGNAT. That's the format I applied: mdy. WP:DATERET takes a back seat to STRONGNAT as is seen from the second sentence of DATERET.

As for civility, my tagging of the whole article was questioned so I removed the general tag and tagged specific sentences. I was then questioned as to why I changed date format and a lengthy response was made, which showed what I believed to be a misunderstanding of the MoS. I simply responded that STRONGNAT applied, as it does. No insulting. No edit warring. No incivility.

I made no wholesale changes and I did continue talk page discussion. I made three explained changes:

1. per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK
2. General formatting by script which is essentially MOS:TIME and WP:DATERANGE
3. Added refimprove tag to article (TW)

Only after these changes were made did discussion start on talk page. I then changed the general tag to specific ones as described above, and realizing that the date format was wrong for the subject, applied the correct date format. I read the lecture incorrectly asserting DATERET and replied, then MDY again . I'd be happy to see revert whatever wholesale changes I made without discussing after I see what they are.

I don't understand any of the complaints. I would suggest complainant read WP:OWN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:MLS Soccer Sunday#July 2015: This article needs additional citations for verification. discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• The Manual of Style is pretty clear on which date format to use. "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is, for example, July 4, 1976; for most other nations it is, for example, 4 July 1976." As MLS is an American league, the MoS is pretty clear to use 'month day, year' here. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 06:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Mikeylito: Firstly, this noticeboard cannot discuss the conduct of another user. It is possible that user:Walter Görlitz was incivil during the talk page discussion, but we cannot address conduct here. We will only address the content dispute. A good place to go for incivility during a discussion is ANI. Now, for a chance to reiterate here and explain a bit further, why do you feel that dmy should appply over mdy? Scorch (talk | ctrb) 20:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

•   Note to participants: I'm going to go ahead and place this case on hold until Mikeylito returns. He hasn't edited in some days. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 03:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

48 hr closing notice

• I'm going to close this dispute in 48hrs if Mikeylito does not respond. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 11:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Royce Gracie#Royce Gracie BJJ matches (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SubSeven (talk · contribs)
• CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The (BLP) article in question is Royce Gracie, a former mixed martial arts athlete. The other party in the dispute, CrazyAces489, has been trying to introduce a large number of edits to this article over a long period of time. All of these edits. without exception, are in some way discrediting to Royce Gracie. I have opposed all of these edits as I find them to be unsourced or very poorly sourced.

Some of the edits are rather straightforward content disputes while others will be more esoteric to an outsider as they involve additions to fight records. The Wikiproject WP:MMA has established a very clear consensus on the source to use for MMA fighters' records and I am only arguing to adhere to that source.

CrazyAces489 is also trying to add a table for a 'BJJ record' (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) to the article, which is not at all customary in MMA fighters' articles, and my stance is that his sources are far too weak to place in such an authoritative context -- i.e. a fight record table. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many discussions on article talk page and user talk pages

How do you think we can help?

Weigh in on whether CrazyAces489's contributions to the article represent a proper application of WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV

Summary of dispute by CrazyAces489

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Royce Gracie#Royce Gracie_BJJ_matches discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Question: @SubSeven: "The Wikiproject WP:MMA has established a very clear consensus on the source to use for MMA fighters' records" Could you please link to where this consensus was formed? I believe it would be helpful for the moderator taking this case. I am neither taking nor declining this case at this moment. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 02:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
•   Note to participants: CrazyAces489 is semi-retired and hasn't edited since July 9. Regards, Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Zindagi (TV channel)#Moving forward (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (discussion at Zindagi talk page)

Users involved

• Manoflogan (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
• Divy(a)95 (talk · contribs)
• Rockcommer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article in question List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi. The other party TheRedPenOfDoom has been trying to remove all the edits because he feels that any wiki page of networks that does not broadcast any original content should not exist. This is inspite of the fact that wikipages of networks that broadcast syndicated content are allowed to exist. The examples of that are AXN_(India)#Programs_aired_on_AXN_India ,[[22]] and List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_Land

"TheRedPenOfDoom" thinks that they violate WP:Coatrack. In discussion WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks, nowhere does it mention that a wiki page containing a list of syndicated shows should not exist.

For your reference, I also include his revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673316739. I request you to weigh in as to whether his constant vandalism is justified. I would also like to point out that "TheRedPenOfDoom" has been engaging in a constant edit war on numerous pages. See User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom talk page for more details about this. I would also like to point out that he has indulged in similar behaviour in the past on far more controversial topics WP:Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=639886639&oldid=639885634 and so an action like this is not new for him.

Edit: Zee Zindagi is notable because it chose to broadcast programs from Pakistan. India–Pakistan_relations have been fraught with tension, wars and disputes from the time of its existence. Indian channels and content are officially banned in Pakistan and vice versa. See Indian_soap_operas_in_Pakistan and http://www.firstpost.com/india/stop-broadcast-banned-pakistani-channels-india-delhi-hc-centre-1789341.html from Pakistani and Indian perspective respectively. Zee Zindagi is the first Indian network to broadcast content produced in Pakistan to Indian audiences. That makes it notable in itself. I agree that it is a network owned by Zee Enterprises. But that does not mean that the wiki pages or wiki pages listing programming content should not exist. This is evident in the fact NBC_Sports is a wing of NBCUniversal_Television_Group. The wiki pages of each of wing of the NBCUniversal_Television_Group is allowed to exist. Many channels that broadcast syndicated content have a wiki page with a list of programs List_of_programs_broadcast_by_USA_Network#Syndicated. I have no intention for the Wiki Page to violate television guide. If "TRPOD" objects to any entries violating the rule, he can delete the entry with an appropriate comment, but it does not make sense to delete the entire wiki. Given that the other wiki pages listed above are allowed to exist, lists displayed in List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi should be allowed to exist as well. From the edit logs, it appears that only "TRPOD" seems to object, and no one else. He keeps continuing to edit the pages on the grounds of notability. He is the only wiki person, who thinks that the entries ought to be deleted because they are not "notable". Other users such as "CyphoidBomb" have updated the page. The user's only comment was all the entries should be referenced. I have no objective to that. I only object to the fact that "TRPOD" should have not have the authority to determine what entries are notable. All the entries have been listed with proper references. I have done that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Based on his requests, I have included numerous references in my latest edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673123283. I was going to add more references until he deleted all the content on the page and added a redirect to another page. I offered alternate options in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zindagi_%28TV_channel%29#Moving_forward, but he would not consider any other suggestion.

How do you think we can help?

I would like you to weigh in as to whether List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi wiki page content should be allowed to display a list of programs broadcast by the channel. I believe that it does not violate any rules or standards, given the evidence that other wiki pages are allowed to stand. Manoflogan (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

I have added Divy(a)95 (talk · contribs) and Rockcommer (talk · contribs). I am not interested in participating in a discussion to settle applications of policy and scope with one editor only to have it undone by others.

As stated on the talk page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and provides encyclopedic information as validated by reliable third party sources. Much of the content being pushed into the articles fails basic Wikipedia content policy inappropriately being a WP:COATRACK about programs from which the supposed subject of the article has had no impact other than rebroadcasting, and in general turning Wikipedia into a free webhost and television guide for Zindagi , which itself has not really established that it is notable on its own, rather than being a wing of its parent company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Divy(a)95

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rockcommer

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Zindagi (TV channel)#Moving_forward discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither "taking" nor opening this discussion at this time as we are waiting to see if TRPoD will choose to participate by adding a dispute summary above (and I would remind the parties that participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary, not mandatory). I note, however, that notice and discussion appear to be adequate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've notified the two additional parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• 24 hour closing notice. @Manoflogan, TheRedPenOfDoom, Divy(a)95, and Rockcommer: This thread will be closed in 24 hours unless Divy(a)95 and Rockcommer indicate they have an interest in participating. A party has indicated that these users' participation in the discussion is essential to building legitimate consensus, and I agree given the circumstances of the case. If the discussion is closed and more parties are interested in reopening it at a later date, this is certainly permissible. North of Eden (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Spiro Koleka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Burridheut (talk · contribs)
• Zoupan (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Resnjari (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about these points:

Talk:Spiro Koleka discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. There has been extended discussion on the article talk page. I have added an editor to the list of parties and have notified the non-filing editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I will be checking on the status of this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every other editor to check on its status at least every 48 hours.

Beginning of discussion

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I don't know anything about the subject matter other than the article is the biography of a former Albanian communist politician. There appear to be questions about what to say was the ethnicity of the politician and what to say was the ethnicity of the region of Albania that he resided in. Are there any other questions? Would each of the editors please state briefly what he or she thinks is the issue? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Do not reply to each other at this time. Address your summary to me as the moderator. Once we have better identified what the issues are, perhaps we can talk about improving the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There appear to be two statements that are being challenged. The first is that he was born in a predominantly Greek region. The second is that his family was ethnically Greek. Both statements are sourced. If editors disagree, I have two suggestions. First, provide an alternate source that states otherwise, in which case maybe the statement can be removed. Second, if the sources are questioned, the issue of their reliability can be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard (and discussion here can be suspended while the sources are being checked). Any further comments that refer to an editor will be collapsed or hatted as content on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Comment in this section, not above. Do not reply to each other (at least not at this time). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please reply to the above questions. There are statements that the politician was born in a predominantly Greek region, and that his family was ethnically Greek. These statements are sourced. If other editors have different sources that disagree, we can state that there is a controversy, or we can take issues about the reliability of sources to RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Thank you for volunteering. There are three disputes, kindly see below.

1. Unfounded/undocumented Greek ethnicity of Spiro Koleka. There are no records to prove this, not a single evidence. This is pure speculation. Spiro was considered a patriot among Albanians, meaning a person notable for their deeds to their fatherland. You cannot call an ethnic Greek as an Albanian patriot, or an ethnic Albanian as a Greek patriot. You are a patriot when you serve your country, not your neighbors country. I have posted three scanned publications from different sources that talk about Spiro, ref. talkpage please.

2. Inclusion of the text "near Himara, a predominantly Greek region,[2]"; This text is not relevant at all. It is like adding to this "part of Europe, an island in the pacific". This is provocative and not a constructive edit.

The footnote [2] links to a report that states: "The coastal Himara region of Southern Albania has always had a predominantly ethnic Greek population." If this is irrelevant, or, as you imply, absurd, please indicate how it is irrelevant or absurd. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because Spiro was not born in Himara and he never lived there, so it is a comment out of place. It is also provocative because the word "predominant" means more than 50%, but the Greek presence in the Himara city has never passed the 25%. Here included the people that are 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8 Greek. Burridheut (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

3. This third dispute is not relevant for this article IF the text from dispute#2 is removed. Otherwise it is about the expression "predominantly Greek". Predominantly means in "for the most part" (see merriam-webster dictionary). Now, I want to see one single piece of evidence that Himara has over 50% Greek population. No such record is ever given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burridheut (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So far no decent arguments have been presented against his Greek origin & why the 2 works of Vickers&Pettiffer can be considered incorrect. Even if we ignore the ethnic cpmposition of Himara, Koleka's background is essential for the article.Alexikoua (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of arguments have been provided, by several users. I suggest you read carefully the talk page. Burridheut (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes but not a single decent one. Especially the references you provided lack any trace of credibility (publications of a communist-party organ & tottalitarian regime tertiary? off course fail wp:rs). To sum up Vicker&Pettifer claim should stay so far, being well aware of the quality of the arguments provided to contradict the above authors.Alexikoua (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting the other editors to reply within 24 hours, since I originally requested input 48 hours ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

We will have to try sectioned discussion, because the editors so far are talking past each other rather than to the moderator. There are sourced statements that the subject was of Greek ethnicity. There are sourced statements that the subject was from a predominantly Greek region. Why should these statements be accepted, or why should they be removed? Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not on contributors. If these questions are not addressed constructively within 48 hours, this discussion will be closed as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, are there any other issues besides ethnicity? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Burridheut

The source of Spiros alleged Greek identity is Mr. Pettifer. He has copied himself regarding this topic in all his books, included books coauthored with Mrs. Vickers. So there are several books of him stating the same, sometimes verbatim. So the source of this "news" is only one. That would not be a problem if the author was referring to something that is common knowledge, but this is not and he fails to provide any official records for Spiro coming from a Greek family. Not only there are no official records, but this information is used to build a whole theory as if Spiro Koleka was a rare species that survived and thrived through the Albanian communism despite being Greek. This is totally unfounded by any facts, it is a myth. I demand proof and there is none whatsoever.

Second statement by Alexikoua

My thoughts can be summarised in the following points:

1. His Greek origin is well established by 2 peer reviewed works of Pettifer&Vickers and they are in English. Thus everyone can verify them.
2. The fact that his home place wasn't Himara (the region's municipal center) as stated by Vickers&Pettiffer, but a tiny village Vuno, c. 2-3 kms from Himara, can't be considered as an error. Its not a serious argument to question the credibility of the authors.
3. The issue of the region's (as well as each village's) demographics, isn't excactly related with the subject and should be better dealed in the correspondent articles.
4. The policy of "tokenism" as stated by V&P, which is related to the subject and his Greek background, is an essential part of this biography.Alexikoua (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Zoupan

The subject belonged to the Greek minority, which was openly suppressed (Albanianized) by the Albanian government. Despite this, individuals of the community rose to notable ranks in Communist Albania. As a representative of this circumstance, explicitly stated, I see absolutely no reason in having this removed. Alternate (speculative) views have been welcomed and encouraged in the discussion. There has been attempts to synthesize an "Albanian theory" into the article, however. The whole discussion has been disregarded by Burridheut, who was just blocked for personal attacks and edit-war, which is the main problem in this "dispute", halting constructiveness in the discussion.--Zoupan 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Resnjari

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Balochistan#Recent changes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EdwardH (talk · contribs)
• Rashidzaman786 (talk · contribs)
• Zmaghndstakun (talk · contribs)
• BoogaLouie (talk · contribs)
• Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On July 23rd, BoogaLouie expanded the "Governance and Political Disputes" section (diff). This was reverted by Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun, saying it violates WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. I, BoogaLouie and CyphoidBomb have tried to ask them to give more details on why they think the content violates those policies and how the edits can put into an acceptable form. We have received just one short reply from Rashidzaman786, on July 31st, which was insufficient.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

By prompting Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun to explain, in detail, why they do not agree with the original edits and to help us turn the original edit into something acceptable.

Summary of dispute by Rashidzaman786

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zmaghndstakun

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I had a talk page disscussion over balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus. Now for another article Baluchistan I am here with User Cyphoidbomb on this DRN, but with out being relevant to another article's (Khyber Paktunkhwa) dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BoogaLouie

Basically agree with EdwardH and Cyphoidbomb. I should also say it is very frustrating to spend time and energy doing research, finding citations, and writing a section, cleaning up the article, see it reverted wholesale, spend more time asking questions on the talk page and then get essentially no response from Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun except wiki policy-jargon (WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK). (Here is a comparison of the original version and mine.) The irony is I was prompted to work on the Balochistan article by a suggestion from Zmaghndstakun (see here). --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb

This is a continuation of a dispute that began at the Balochistan, Pakistan province article, which I became involved in in my capacity as a Wikignome. An IP user wanted to introduce content in that article about insurgencies, human rights violations, and economic strife. This was an irritant to some of the other regulars at this article, because they felt the user was pushing a POV. In this edit I took a stab at introducing this content in a neutral tone. After a series of edits by other users, my version eventually got removed. The IP started a RfC. After the IP was found to be a sock operator, the regulars started crossing out the IP's comments, which made the RfC a mess. In spite of the IP's sockpuppetry, I felt that his argument had merit and should be discussed—if human rights violations, economic strife, and insurgencies were affecting this province and could be reliably sourced, there should be a mention of this. I closed the RfC as a procedural issue (all of the strikethroughs made the RfC incomprehensible), opened a new RfC and copied all the non-sock responses to this new RfC. I notified a number of related WikiProjects: WikiProject Human Rights, Central Asia, Geography, History and so forth, to get the widest range of input. Users Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun, who didn't have many edits outside of this subject area, showed up and expressed their opinions at both RfCs, and became the most vocal opponents of this content, even when the regulars seemed to agree that some version of this content was appropriate for inclusion.

Both editors, who I again mention have very few edits at the project but who have taken to throwing around terms like WP:COATRACK, made proclamations about the sort of content that was appropriate for inclusion: Rashidzaman wrote This is an administrative province article and should expand on the History, Government, Geography, Fauna / Flora, Climate, Culture, Sports, Religion, Demography and Administration of the province. POVs being discussed do not belong to this article. The information about Baluchistan insurgency is already covered in Balochistan conflict. When I pressed this user to explain why we should exclude insurgencies, economic strife and human rights violations, which all seem intuitively tied to History, Government, Geography, Culture and Demography, the user never adequately responded. Zmaghndstakun? The same thing. Balochistan should covers gest of Greater Balouchistan movement/conflict and poverty of the region etc. However Balochistan,_Pakistan should not include and just follow the pattren of administrative unit details such as History, Government, Geography, Fauna / Flora, Administration, Districts, Climate, Culture, Education, Economy,Religion, Sports and Demography. When pressed to explain how these topics were not consistent with History, Government, etc., the user never replied directly to this point. Both seemed to say that because content existed at Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan, that no mention of this content belonged at Balochistan, Pakistan. That argument made zero sense to me. "Should we not mention Citizen Kane at Orson Welles?" I asked. No reply.

As for the debate about this content at Balochistan, Zmaghndstakun said explicitly at the RfC, Best solution would be to cover it in page Balochistan's section history as @Mar4d: sugested, specially human rights violations by anti-state militant groups to show WP:NPOV. He also wrote, Balochistan should covers gest of Greater Balouchistan movement/conflict and poverty of the region etc. and I have no objection if it is added to Balochistan (Total region). Rashidzaman wrote, A brief in History section of Balochistan region could also be fine, and Thanks BoogaLouie/Cyphoidbomb for understanding others point of view that greater Balochistan region should include summary of what is already covered in detail in Balochistan conflict. But apparently when BoogaLouie tried this, he got stonewalled by these very same editors, [23][24] who have taken to policing these articles in spite of having virtually no experience editing here. That's where we are today. These SPAs are basically stonewalling any inclusion of unsavory content, and it doesn't seem constructive to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Balochistan#Recent changes discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party is required to notify the other editors on their talk pages. The template {{Subst:DRN-notice}} is normally used for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. Thanks for pointing it out! EdwardH (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Although there has been discussion in the talk page, I don't find them 'extensive'. Because, the opposing party have not explained why/what part of the material (which the supporting party added) fails WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. DRN requires the dispute be discussed by both parties in detail. I feel this is a case for WP:AN/EW unless the opposing party is willing to discuss the issue on the talk page/here. Please wait for another volunteer's suggestion, and do not take actions solely based on my suggestions. Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Zmaghndstakun please refrain from making comments on user conducts. Noticeboards such as WP:AN3,WP:ANI (or) WP:ArbCom maybe used for this purpose. I don't see consensus, when your opinion is opposed by 'three' other editors. My question on why/what part of the content fails WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK still remains unanswered. Please respond with a proper summary of dispute (on the content not on the contributor). I would also like to know if the editors Zmaghndstakun, EdwardH, BoogaLouie and Cyphoidbomb have any issues continuing this case leaving back Rashidzaman786? Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: Would we able to reach a binding level of consensus without him? EdwardH (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@EdwardH: I must make a note that consensus made here are not binding. If an editor does not agree with the consensus here and continues to make his point, then it is considered a conduct issue and can be reported to appropriate noticeboards--JAaron95 ^Talk 16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaaron95 I'm not sure I understand the question. Continue the DRN without Rashid's participation? If neither editor wishes to explain their objections sufficiently, or come up with a compromise, or describe what their ideal version of the article would include, then I don't know what we're doing here and I think we should focus on the open AN3 case. We're here to resolve a dispute. Their lack of participation just strikes me as more stonewalling with no interest in finding a reasonable middle-ground. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I mean, if Zmaghndstakun comes up with reasonable objections, would you (and others) be willing to continue the case without Rashidzaman786? Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jaaron95 If both users are going to tag team to prevent changes to the article, then I think both users should be tasked to explain in detail what their reasonable objections are. I will point out that Ceradon just sanctioned Zmaghndstakun with a 3 month topic ban from articles related to Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Following the reasonable objections by other involved editors, it is required that both Zmaghndstakun and Rashidzaman786 make their statements (on the content) in their respective dispute summaries. Failing to do so in 48 hours, will have this case closed as failed. As for Zmaghndstakun, being under a topic ban (which construes his editing of articles relating to Pakistan), may still participate in this case and (or) discuss the issue in the article's talk page (per WP:ABAN). Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb the problem with Indian editors like you is that you have a coward approach. On Balouchistan Pakistan Talk page when Mard4 and Paksol opposed your anti Pakistan edits you got them edit ban. Then RFC or RFC redo to force your anti pakistan edits. I opposed it then you filed SPI to proof me sock of Paksol where you failed. Even on Baluchistan Talk page you tried the same. Then you started monitering my contribution and got me topic ban just like Mard4 and Paksol. My fault was that I was trying to maintan a pre dispute version to which even edit worrier Jasumkhanum10 also agreed finally but you guys misused that situation to get me topic ban. If all greater baluchistan have sepratism elements then why you guys from india want to show Pakistani Balouchistan in bad light? Now you guys will get banned Rashidzaman786 also because he is also opposing your efforts. A poor coward approach of deceptive cheatness. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, and I have never asked for anyone to be topic banned. More red herring nonsense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Then what was that ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Astrology (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), specifically here

Users involved

• Cantelo (talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The book 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' is a best selling book in the UK, and cites lots of supposed 'evidence' that astrology is true. Since it is providing a major source of information for the UK public to present the case that astrology is true, I believe it deserves mention in the 'Astrology in Literature' section of the wikipedia page on 'Astrology'. My addition included references which established that the book was indeed the best selling spy novel in the UK, and referenced data from the book which allegedly 'prove astrology is true'. On the talk page, as requested, I provided several further mainstream and separate references confirming this. The alternative view claims that the book's best seller status does not matters, and to mention this status would be promotional. Further, it demands that, even though I have provided copious sources which provide mainstream validation that the book is about astrology, they are insufficient.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed it on the Talk page, at length, failed to reach an agreement, then gone here.

How do you think we can help?

I want several experienced Wikipedia editors to look at this. They should look at the evidence in my original post on 'Astrology', and some/all of the external links provided. If they can come to a consensus on whether this is sufficient, or what further information and/or references is required, then they should say what it is. Then the paragraph on the book can be added to the Wikipedia entry on Astrology.

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This request for dispute resolution is misguided on so many counts that it is difficult to know where to start. The assertion that the book is a 'best seller' has only so far been sourced to Amazon - on pages selling the book. No credible source whatsoever has been cited that states that the book is " a major source of information for the UK public to present the case that astrology is true" - unsurprisingly, since the book is a work of fiction. Blogs are not mainstream sources for anything. There has been no evidence presented that the book even meets Wikipedia notability standards, never mind evidence that it is relevant to a discussion of astrology in literature - the only legitimate grounds for inclusion. The astrology article discusses Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser etc in this regard - and cites secondary sources which discuss the topic in depth for the analysis. Adding WP:OR about random newly-published books to the section just because they include material about astrology would be entirely undue per WP:WEIGHT even if properly sourced, and would turn a good article into a collection of trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Astrology discussion

I'm seeing more than enough discussion to begin a thread here, and am happy to moderate it. I see that Astrology is a good article; it's therefore quite important to make sure its content is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. My impression is that the literary and artistic works mentioned in the article are highly noteworthy and have received significant coverage for their astrological ties (e.g. Holst's The Planets). In other words, it isn't just a compilation of any work that has to do with astrology. Given this, our issue seems to be how, and indeed if, the "Secrets of the Last Nazi" book ought to be included in the article. Looking forward to hearing more from the parties. North of Eden (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, North of Eden. There is a case for including it - or at least a mention - because it shows that the literary tradition around astrology has continued to this day. No-one is saying 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' is Shakespearian, but it is an important indication that astrology still features in modern literary. (By analogy, no-one claims 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is literary genius, but it still has a place in a page on Holy Grail lore) Cantelo (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on material verifiable in material published in reliable sources - it is not based on contributors own personal evaluations. Accordingly, you need to cite a source which states that this book is "an important indication that astrology still features in modern litera[ture]". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this group of sources (below), taken as a group, satisfy your criteria of importance and proving that astrology still features in modern literature:

Sam Kiley of Sky News, who is quoted as saying 'This is a remarkable and chilling book - a clever blend of addictive fiction and astonishing revelation.'

Guardian columnist David Boyle, who says ‘Iain King has come up with a thrilling plot and an ingenious idea that has the possibility to turn everyone's ideas upside down and back to front.’

There is part of a quote from The Sun (United Kingdom), which sells 2.2m papers a day, and which reviewed the book. The quote says 'A BRILLIANT but unconventional academic races shadowy agents, a deranged killer and power-mad priests to expose a vast conspiracy... romps along at a ferocious pace.' I can't find an online source for the Sun from when this review was printed, so I can't get the whole review.

This blog from a literary critic which says "King introduces facts and dates to substantiate his thesis making this a mesmerizing novel with the distinct possibility that it introduces new truths in a world of science previously debunked as fakery... backed up by research that brings new ideas into the possibility of reality."

"The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult" By Hans Tridle, ISBN 978-1-312-99589-5 which on page 7 says "Secrets of the Last Nazi by Iain King examines the Third Reich's fascination with astrology and predicting the future". (This quote is verifiable on google books refers to 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'

The Men Reading Book's website, which says "It was obvious that King had done some significant research into planetary effects on human behavior and offers copious references at the end of the book."

Amazon best selling charts (there are several, including this one (Amazon webpage) showing the book in the number four position, and the tweet which showed it had earlier been in the number one position, thereby indicating cultural impact.

Author Renita D'Silva, in this interview, says, "Secrets of the Last Nazi by Iain King - It is fabulous. Turns everything you have believed on its head."

Surely those together answer your requirement: they provide an important indication that astrology still features in modern literature, through the book, 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'. Cantelo (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Not remotely - you aren't providing proper citations for the first three quotes, we don't cite blogs we don't cite Amazon and none of the material you have cited does anything to establish that this book has any particular significance concerning the literature of astrology. Unless and until you can provide properly-sourced and relevant material, I have nothing further to say here - I'm not interested in engaging in repetitive and time-wasting discussions with someone who clearly refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cantelo and AndyTheGrump: Generally, interpreting the result of a group of sources as an explicit conclusion, when none of those sources make that conclusion themselves, is original synthesis and verboten. Also, it seems that only fictional works that are recognized by reliable sources as having a notable connection to astrology are supposed to be in the relevant article section. Would it be satisfactory to simply say something that "Astrology is often discussed in contemporary fiction; novels such as [example], [example], and [example] feature astrology as a plot element"? If such a statement could be reliably sourced, perhaps this novel could be included as an example? North of Eden (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a bare minimum, North of Eden. When a book is outselling all the others in its genre because it has astrology as the main theme, that indicates more than a plot element, and more than just 'contemporary fiction'. It indicates suggestions concerning the truth of astrology still attract strong interest, and that astrology still features strongly in modern culture because of 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'.Cantelo (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cantelo, what you think is 'suggested' is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. Without sources discussing contemporary fiction in relation to astrology, we can't include anything, and without sources discussing this particular book as a specific example of such, it isn't going to be included. WP:OR policy isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

North of Eden - or someone - you're going to have to step in here. My words (eg 'suggested') keep being twisted, and implications drawn which aren't relevant: no-one's trying to renegotiate WP:OR, nor is it remotely relevant in this case. Please let's communicate in good faith! Note that I have provided sources, including a book and a Sky News reporter (and plenty of others) which surpass requirements made by AndyTheGrump; and those requirements aren't even what really matters in this case. Cantelo (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• • @Cantelo: It is important that all editors assume good faith, and that's what I'm seeing so far -- I think it's understandable for a content dispute to become a little heated. I agree that almost all of your references are reliable sources. That said, WP:OR is relevant here. From what I'm seeing, the sources you've provided state two things. Some of them state that the book is about astrology; others state that the book has gained widespread notoriety, and is a bestseller. However, a statement that the book reflects public interest in astrology can't rely on those sources. Instead, to avoid original synthesis, it has to be backed up by a claim of its own, as it introduces a completely new connection into the equation, one that isn't mentioned in the other sources. North of Eden (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You be being side-tracked, here, North of Eden. The addition would come under the sub-section in the Astrology page on 'Cultural Impact'. By agreeing, as you just did, that the book is about astrology, and that the book has gained widespread notoriety, cultural impact has been demonstrated. In other words, the test is not whether we can find a single source which proves public interest in astrology (that should be clear from the number of people who read horoscopes!). The test - which seems to have been applied to other examples in the Cultural Impact section - is whether astrology has impacted on culture. This book is demonstrably popular culture (as you have just agreed), astrology has clearly impacted on it (as you have also agreed), therefore it goes in. And note that, since these are two criteria, we can very easily provide a single (or more) source to prove each one. Cantelo (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it has become self-evident that Cantelo hasn't the slightest interest in providing the necessary sources to justify inclusion of the disputed material, I am withdrawing from this voluntary dispute resolution proces. The material concerned isn't remotely justified, and inclusion would violate multiple Wikipedia policies - notably WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. If it is added again without prior agreement, and without the necessary sourcing, I will report the matter. I am not interested in participating in this facile time-wasting nonsense any longer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So, I've won the argument but the person I've been arguing with has decided to withdraw from the process, thereby refusing to accept the outcome. What happens now in WP:DNR ? Cantelo (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have 'won' no argument. Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary - and I have made it entirely clear what will happen if you violate Wikipedia policies by misusing an article to promote a book based on nothing but your own irrelevant opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so we can agree. I will do as you say, and not promote a book based on nothing but my own irrelevant opinions. Instead, I will add to the 'Cultural Impact' (of astrology) section by noting that astrology still impacts on modern literature through 'Secrets of the Last Nazi', providing references which confirm the book's notoriety (which have already been endorsed by North of Eden and references that astrology has clearly impacted on the book (also the book endorsed by North of Eden). Agreed?Cantelo (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been agreed by anyone. Add the book, and I will call for you to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per AndyTheGrump's withdrawal, I will close this discussion as unsuccessful. Please note that I have not endorsed any position, save to say that I didn't see sufficient WP:RS to indicate a connection between the book and public interest in astrology. If editors wish to return here at a later date, I'm happy to resume the discussion, but I have a feeling that we won't be back at this particular forum. North of Eden (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mark Regnerus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cityside189 (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)
• Nat Gertler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I found an error in the use of a word, offered discussion, waited, then made the edit. It was un-done by one user who did not contribute to the talk page, and I reverted my work. It was then undone by another user who "agreed" with the first opinion, who at that point had not used the talk page for this edit. With my insistence, the second user posted some discussion but did not rely on facts, only opinion, and refuses to utilize a neutral point of view with regard to the item content. Since I am new and do not want to get into edit warring, I tried hard to use the talk pages but the group of users "watching" the page are in collusion to keep the word as it stands because it fits their emotional position on the topic. I can't keep reverting to my earlier work because I will be banned for edit warring. If these two users and their co-horts will agree to use neutral POV and allow the word change to stand, it will allow other users to weigh in on the matter as well, as long as they read and contribute to the talk page before undoing the work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Left messages on their own talk page to invite more dialog, researched the factual definitions of the word, advised users not to change the edit without seeing the talk page, and researched the dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia.

How do you think we can help?

Please admonish the users to allow edits that better position a neutral POV. Advise them that using factual information will aid all of us in making Wikipedia a better, more respected place, and that maintaining an emotional position using false information is not what Wikipedia is all about.

Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity

Nat Gertler captures my sense of why "disclaimer" isn't the right word. I suppose we could use a quote, but I think it's not necessary (& undue, perhaps), and I still don't see the problem with disavowal. Not sure DRN is necessary to sort this out -- and it certainly won't result in other editors being "admonished"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roscelese

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Mark Regnerus discussion

As an editor who is regularly on the page but who has not yet weighed in on this disclaimer/disavowal topic: the material being discussed is not the sort of boilerplate disclaimer that the complaining editor points to (i.e., boilerplate that indicates that this person speaking is not there to represent the point of view of the organization he is being represented as), both because this is being done after the fact and because it takes the step of putting information to contradict the claims being made (i.e., the ASA stance). Had it been the ASA making this statement (or had the school represented the ASA statement as their own stance), this would be a full-throated disavowal. (As it is, it's an oddly passive-aggressivish sort of move; "you don't speak for us, but hey, that guy over there sez you're very wrong. Just sayin'. But hey, it's a free country, everyone can make up their own opinion, amiright?") Plus, merely stating that it is a disclaimer does not state what it is disclaim. "Not intended for use as a suppository" would also be a disclaimer. As such, if we must avoid the word "disavowal", we do it by being more specific, not less. This includes Regnerus's department at the University of Texas-Austin issuing a statement that Regnerus's views "do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin" and that the American Sociological Association "takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families." (Note, I have shifted the statement from being made by the department chair to being made by the department, because that's what's marking this an "official statement" does; it's the opposite of the disclaimer, it is someone speaking in their official position to speak for the department.) I am also going to suggest that we link to this version of the statement, as it is dated earlier and thus better reflects when the statement was actually made, rather than it was reposted; I would've just made this change myself now; but I don't want normal editing to be mistaken for trying to address the core of this dispute in some way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, despite your claim that you will be a "mediator", this is not WP:mediation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the dialog and understanding. I understand now to notice the users involved in a dispute and also that this dispute request may have been premature. I admit I became unsettled and perhaps did not understand as clearly as I do now that "there is no deadline". Thanks for you patience with my learning trajectory.

Disavowal used in the article context is used to mean "Regnerus' own department thinks his research is crappy". But looking carefully at the department statement, it conveys three things. 1. "the research is the author's work and not ours", 2 "the ASA thinks it is crappy and that it's being used to hurt people", and 3. "whoever reads this statement should decide for themselves whether the research is crappy". To condense this three-pronged statement into the word "disavowed" is to sock-puppet the department into supporting the still-contested idea that the research is crappy. If the department said it was crappy, then the article should say that. But the department appears to have sidestepped calling it crappy. Because it has, the Wiki article should be equally careful not to summarize the department's position into a word that carries the negative sentiment. As the department has said in #3, it's up to the reader to decide for themselves. So while there is considerable effort here and elsewhere to affirm the conclusion that this research is all crappy and perhaps an equally active advocacy that the research is not all crappy, the Wiki should stay out of that mess and just report neutrally on the fact of the department issuing the statement. The department's statement is being used on both sides of the crappiness debate to corroborate their specific POVs. I suggested "disclaimer" to replace disavowal because disclaimer allows distancing without judgement, while disavowal generally means that the thing being disavowed is against their views.

I included Roscelese in my dispute because in her words, she prefers disavowed which suggests her own bias and non-neutral POV. She also deleted my inclusion of his study in another article calling it a "bad study". (am I allowed here to comment on her behavior in another article??). Anyway it illuminates my point that some editors prefer the word disavowed because it fit's better with their opinion of the study. I guess we are all free to think as we choose but we should not hijack the department's words and use them to support a particular view. For example I didn't try to summarize that "the department felt pressure to respond to the debate so it carefully crafted a statement that would not disaffirm the research because it still believed in it". If I said that they I would be the one trying to use the department's statement to fit my POV.

Nat's statement is a good one, with additional edit: This includes Regnerus's department at the University of Texas-Austin issuing a statement that Regnerus's views "do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin" and that the American Sociological Association "takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families, and suggests that society as a whole to evaluate his claims".

Finally, I learned about Coatracking. This article may fit the definition, specifically the example "But it's true!"^[1] I think my discomfort and distress also arises from the fact that this article is supposed to be about a living human being ^[2], but most of the text in the article is devoted to a debate about his work, and then moves on to another debated topic about the study's funding source. It really doesn't conform to the sentiment of a biography. Critics in the debate have personalized the author, and here we are in Wikipedia contributing to this. There is much more to this man than his work, but somehow editors have used his biography page to raise (and then try to settle) debate about his work. Perhaps the best way to resolve this current dispute is to correct the word choice and then this entire section should be pulled out and linked over to a place set aside specifically for the debate of the research, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study.

I hope I have illustrated my points with care and diligence and not offended anyone or broken any more rules.

Cityside189 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Cityside189 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Equatorial Guinea#Portuguese in EQG (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ukabia (talk · contribs)
• Luizdl (talk · contribs)
• Aflis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Luizdl has added Portuguese as an official language of Equatorial Guinea citing government sources that, to me, seems vague about whether Portuguese has become official. No other governmental source like UNHCR (2012) and CIA World Factbook (2015) has listed Portuguese as an official language. Users have previously removed Portuguese translations from the article most recently in July 2015 by User:Moalli here with the note "Portuguese is not official, it has only been suggested by the president. Constitution doesn't recognise it yet. Certain users keep inflating figures/presence of Portuguese". User:Luizdl has cited this, which says it will be official, but we still have no solid source that says it has been. There is another source from their UK embassy that I've found here which says it has become official, but I'm still wondering if this is in the constitution as User:Moalli had noted, or if this may be the governments lip service in order to join the CPLP, like some of the criticisms they've received in the press.

The question may be whether wikipedia is the only source of information with Portuguese as an official language of EQG because of some government news posts, or whether we wait to see if this is actually verifiable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have added sources which were out of date or were not focused on the official status of Portuguese, but entry in CPLP. Added another source confirming a presidential decree declaring Portuguese an official language: http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1622890 Aflis (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC) How do you think we can help?

By giving a final word on whether the sources User:Luizdl had used to back the official status of Portuguese in EQG are valid enough considering now other country information sources don't say the same, or we wait to have/find more concrete sources that Portuguese is actually recognised in the fullest capacity as an official language in EQG, and therefore preventing further edits that add Portuguese translations and so on in the article.

Summary of dispute by Luizdl

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Equatorial Guinea#Portuguese_in_EQG discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Goshen High_School_(Indiana) 

Users involved

• Jrobeck59 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Someone keeps changing the mascot "Redskins" to read other than what it is currently! The problem is I have NOT been involved in it, but your website says I am??? I have sent an email to your contact page also explaining this!This is what the page reads when I pull it up: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. I have NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN IT, but agree with the person that says "Redskins" is our current Mascot until 2016!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

NONE - I DID NOT START THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

How do you think we can help?

Leave it alone , LOCK it until January 1st, 2016! It should read this way! "Redskins"! STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS SO CALLED DISPUTE!!!!!!!!!!!

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Goshen High_School_%28Indiana%29 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Valery Kaufman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wmsf1101 (talk · contribs)
• Cannolis (talk · contribs)
• RA0808 (talk · contribs)
• Materialscientist (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over Valery Kaufman’s legal name, which is incorrectly listed as Valeriya Kiseleva. The dispute is documented in Talk, in the “Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015” and “Valery’s real birth name” sections as well as throughout the Edit page. Valery Kaufman’s legal name is Valeriia Kaufman, not Valeriya Kiseleva. This mistake is attributed to a post on a small French blog which incorrectly states “de son vrai nom Valeriya Kiseleva.” Valeriya Kaufman is, instead, a Russian actress. Ms. Kaufman and we have separately repeatedly attempted to correct her legal name, but all edits to her name have been changed back to Valeriya Kiseleva. Wikipedia has now blocked Ms. Kaufman from making any changes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Through both the Talk and Edit pages, the editors were notified that Valery Kaufman’s legal name was being edited because it was incorrect and was referring to a Russian actress. Cannolis responded on the Talk page and asked for a reliable source that contradicts the French blog. In response, a scan of Ms. Kaufman’s Russian passport was provided. However, RA0808 rejected the scan because it is “not an acceptable source” and reverted the changes.

How do you think we can help?

Rule that the statement by Ms. Kaufman and her legal counsel that her legal name is Valeriia Kaufman, which statement is supported by Ms. Kaufman’s scanned passport, is more reliable than an unsourced French blog and allow her page to be corrected.

Summary of dispute by Cannolis

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by RA0808

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Materialscientist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Valery Kaufman discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Erzan (talk · contribs)
• Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whether the area served by Waitrose should be Great Britain or Britain, or remain South of Scotland, England and Wales.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provided links to support the case that Waitrose is serving the North of Scotland and urged users to use the website to see for themselves.

How do you think we can help?

Decide and explain, if not every single part of Wales or England has to have a store (or have goods delivered to it) for both constituencies of Britain to be stated, why treat Scotland separately?

Summary of dispute by Redrose64

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Waitrose discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - While there has been brief discussion on the article talk page, it has been perfunctory. There does not appear to have been extensive discussion. While I am not declining or accepting this case, I am recommending that it be declined pending further discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.