Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43 - 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

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

Users involved

• 96.28.85.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)
• Tonyhammond (talk · contribs)
• Smartse (talk · contribs)
• Kilopi (talk · contribs)
• Enric Naval (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Trying to get a more balanced and evidence based, rather than emotional content on the article page. Encountering significant resistance from a couple of editors who seem to have a lot more experience than me on the page and seem to be running a negatively biased agenda against the product. I have presnted several resounces (peer reviewed scientific studies) and federal trade commission resolutions that directly contradict specific statements on the article page, but an comments or requests for rational discourse end in derision, flat out refusal or accuse me of having a pro-Monavie agenda when the real bias is actually the opposite. Would like to find someone with whom we can discuss this rationally, or I fe.ar the only other alternative would be to request the page be dropped, which would be a shame if it is solely because of a couple of editor's negative bias on this issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried to have rational fact-based discussions on talk page. Called, talked with a senior editor and e-mailed evidence that page was inaccurate and heavily biased.

How do you think we can help?

I do not know. I am new to Wikipedia. But I am also an Actuary, and very familiar with the subject. I would think Wikipedia would want its own guidelines to be followed regarding bias and personal soapboxes. The agenda here seems to be strongly biased against Monavie, nutritional science or anyone who has an opinion contrary to the editor. When faced with reasonable discourse the response seems to be to use abusive language, say no, or accuse the responder with having a pro MonaVie agenda.

Opening comments by Rhode Island Red

I think that the trigger on DR was pulled too early in this case, as I did not yet even have the chance to respond to Tony's latest comment (just posted today in fact) on the article Talk page and was in fact in the process of doing so when I received a notice regarding the DR request. It's not even clear to me why I was included on the DR because, although I'm a contributor to the article, I had not made a single comment on the thread Tony started to air his grievances nor was I responsible for writing the text in question. Tony initially expressed some very focused concerns about specific content in the article related to polyphenols, which was being actively discussed. Now Tony has broadened this into a more general unfocused indictment that seems to suggest that the entire article is biased. Not only do I not agree, but I see this as avoidance of engaging in discussion about the issues on the talk page.

If Tony has issues with any of the content beyond that dealing with polyphenols, this is the first we've heard about it, and it should have been presented on the talk page first. DR should only be used when the Talk page fails to resolve an issue. I have just now added my comment to the article Talk page[1] regarding the issue Tony raised about polyphenols and I think we should keep the discussion focused on that, at least for now, instead of subverting the talk page and launching on a tail-chasing exercise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Andy the Grump

I can see no point in continuing this procedure until we get a statement from User:Tonyhammond regarding any possible relationship with MonaVie, as would be required under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. I note that Tonyhammond's only edits to Wikipedia have been on the MonaVie talk page [2]. Please note that apart from his first post which called for the deletion of the article [3], and a brief attempt to get the lede revised to remove sourced material relating to the blindingly-obvious resemblance of MonaVie's business practices to a pyramid scheme, Tonyhammond's sole efforts have been engaged in requesting that we contravene WP:MEDRS policy and revise content to imply that this overpriced fruit juice has health benefits - something for which needless to say, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has brought action against MonaVie for in the past. There is no scientific whatsoever to support claims that MonaVie products have significant health benefits (unsurprising, since the company doesn't actually tell its customers how much of the supposedly-beneficial substances there actually is in their products), and quite sufficient evidence to demonstrate that were the claims regarding the supposed benefits of these substances proven, they could be obtained much more cheaply without getting involved in complex multi-level marketing schemes. Wikipedia isn't here to promote such dubious business practices, and neither is it here to mislead our readers regarding the supposed benefits of products touted by such businesses. If they want free advertising, they should seek it elsewhere - and I suggest that they ensure they comply with FDA requirements in doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. "In conclusion, emphasis of polyphenols as physiological antioxidant ingredients in superfruit or other natural health products is scientifically baseless, deceptive and unlawful by promoting unproved antioxidant health benefits that may induce consumer purchases". Closing statement from New Roles for Polyphenols, A 3-Part report on Current Regulations & the State of Science in Nutraceuticals World [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll start by saying I am new to Wikipedia and may not be up on all the appropriate processes as I am learning here. I do appreciate Wikipedia and have always valued it as a source of balanced, accurate information in other areas. I believe the one reference above that is unsigned may have been from me when I didn't realize I was not logged in at one point. My only hope here is that we can comply with the basic principles of the Wikipedia articles for a balanced, neutral presentation on this topic. As a professional and an Actuary, I am very familiar with the scientific process, very experienced in this area, and follow a code of ethics that requires me to meet a higher standard of fact-finding and truth than just citing newspaper articles with people's opinions that are not evidence-based. I would like to get more references to clinical research and the findings of the FTC than the opinions of people opposed to Monavie, multi-level marketing or whatever other agenda they are promoting. Either that, or fall back on the adage to "first do no harm." The article as it currently stands is not neutral--by WP standards--appears to be someone's soapbox to discredit a nutritional product that in it's simplest form is just fruit juice. If we want to say that it is just fruit juice, we should say that. But instead there seems to be a lot of anti-Monavie, anti-nutrition, old "facts," and character, company and product assasination occurring in the article and a reluctance to consider any evidence to the contrary. Would simply like to see some reasoned discourse prevailing here, not closed minds and opinions. Either that, or, "do no harm" by removing the article until cooler, more rational heads can prevail. Tonyhammond (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I want to make sure it is clear that I am not making ANY health claims about MonaVie or asking/suggesting any should be made. I was and am suggesting that there are differing views in the scientific community regarding Polyphenols. I do not believe that I offered or suggested that those differing views and studies in any way suggests anything positive or negative for Monavie, but I felt it does suggest that certain statements in the Monavie article ABOUT POLYPHENOLS are inaccurate. I did find one article that directly referenced Monavie which I referenced, but did not press that point when someone pointed out it was a small sample size an not peer-reviewed. I agree with the point that there are no currently available peer-reviewed studies that suggest any health claims for MonaVie. My concern has always been and remains the lack of neutrality in the reporting in the article.96.28.85.164 (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonyhammond (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No shenanigans. Just think that the bias needs addressed or the entire article needs rewritten in a neutral way. Then it can be reposted. I compare it to other articles--such as AMWAY article, which seems more balanced, Then again, I am new here, so maybe what seems balanced to me is different. Also, as for not having edited anything else, when I find something else I know something about and feel needs edited, I will try to help there, as well. Getting back to what is neutral, it seems to me that there are sources other than the FDA on polyphenols. If the test of whether any statements on polyphenols are accurate is based on the FDA's comments, then you are correct. The FDA has said nothing is proven. So how do we consider all the other clinical journals and studies out there? Or is the government and the FDA the final arbiter of what Wikipedia should base all its statements on. If the answer to that question is we do not consider them, then I am obviously wasting my time and now understand the rules.

On another front, the pyramid scheme comment can be considered similarly. Let me make an example from the last discussion. So it sounds like we are going to use the government's FDA as the sole arbiter when it comes to what is appropriate to say, but we are not going to rely on the Federal Trade Commission as the final arbiter on whether something is a pyramid scheme or not. In both cases, polyphenols or pyramid schemes, we need to present both sides if we present either--if we want to claim neutrality. Otherwise, there is a bias and lack of neutrality. So if we say something resembles a pyramid scheme, we should also say that the FTC has weighed in on this already and said compensation plans similar to monavie's are not pyramid schemes. By the way, I am not against calling a pyramid scheme a pyramid scheme. But I am against making an unfounded accusation against someone or something when we know it is not true. How would anyone like being accused and convicted of a crime because he looks like the perpetrator when the prosecutor had evidence he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. It is the same thing.Tonyhammond (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this article for neutrality since the last time MonaVie tried to whitewash it. I've been watching from the sidelines, but haven't played a role in writing its content. My position is that any health claims about the product be well-sourced (WP:MEDRS is a good standard) and that the text not extrapolate a conclusion beyond what reliable sources support. Specifically, we oughtn't stretch a study about some nutrient into a conclusion about the health benefits of a juice (allegedly) containing that nutrient. Usually MonaVie's promoters are the worst abusers of the science, but in fairness to Tony, the same high standards should be applied whether the text mentions positive or negative health effects of the juices. Kilopi (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The US FDA already complained to Mona vie for claiming that their product had health benefits[5]. In 2008 the FDA said you can't market polyphenols as an antioxidant because it's not proven scientifically in humans in vivo [6].

In Talk:MonaVie#Antioxidant_effect_of_polyphenols_and_natural_phenols, Rhode Island makes RS-based arguments about why the changes proposed by Tom would make the article much less accurate.

And Mona vie is not marketed as "just fruit juice", Mona vie claims that the fruits included in the beverage are in the proportions ideal for nutrition purposes, for example[7] (click on "fruit blends"). And some of its products are more than "just fruit juice", they include special compounds developed and trademarked by Mona vie, for example "We isolated, standardized, and combined this novel compound with other powerful polyphenols to create Enlivenox®, which boasts 10 times the polyphenolic power of traditional açai.(click on "açavie" in the last link).

P.S.: Wikipedia is not biased against Mona vie. Wikipedia relies in mainstream reliable sources, and those sources say that polyphenols in food are not proven to have effects on humans. So, wikipedia ends up saying that Mona vie does not work. I suggest that you convince the FDA about the virtues of your product, and that you get the FDA to say in their website that polyphenols in food are beneficial for humans. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.S.: I think that Tom wants to cite more clinical studies (primary sources), in order to disproof the conclusions of the FDA and other sources (secondary sources). Tom, if you read WP:MEDREV, you will that this is discouraged in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Monavie article and talk page discussion

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

Rhode Island Red has been notified about this thread as the bot would not. We should wait for his response before opening for discussion. Remember that this is a noticeboard about content disputes, and not conduct disputes. Go to WP:COIN about COI. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added my opening comment now, so I'm assuming it's OK to begin the discussion. My opening comment pretty much sums it up, but after I wrote that and my most recent comment on the article's talk page, I noticed that Tony is now requesting that the article be removed entirely. On that, I must call shenanigans. I assumed good faith initially -- i.e., that Tony was merely interested in improving the section on polyphenols, but his latest request, out of the blue, to yank the article entirely (a B-class article incidentally) is just ridiculous, and it belies a hidden agenda. I was reluctant to engage in any speculation about WP:COI, but now I am of the same opinion as Andy regarding this possibility. IMO it is highly likely, especially given the chronic pattern in the past of anon WP:SPA editors blanking unflattering content. I suggest closing the DR and sending this back to the Talk page, where Tony should have aired all of his grievances in the first place. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

On a further note, I noticed that Enric Naval was excluded from Tony's DR request, even though he was a key participant in the polyphenol discussion in question (while, as I pointed out above, I was not). Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added Smartse, Kilopi and Enric Naval. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As Ebe123 has suggested, conflict of interest concerns should be brought to the COI noticeboard. For this discussion, let's focus on the content dispute. It may be useful to continue the dispute resolution process, if only to establish greater consensus on the issue with input from uninvolved editors. As for the discussion on Talk:MonaVie#Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols, I agree with the responding editors that the sources must directly mention MonaVie if they are to be included and that the claims of the sources must be accurately represented per our guidelines on medical sources. Otherwise, it qualifies as synthesis, which is a form of original research discouraged on Wikipedia. --SGCM (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tony's comment about neutrality: Although maintaining a neutral point of view is important on Wikipedia, so is accurately representing the scientific and academic consensus on a subject. While there may be many point of views on a subject, each POV must be given its due weight based on the viewpoints of academics.--SGCM (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that representing the consensus of the scientific and academic community is appropriate. The issue, of course, is in deciding when there is a consensus.Tonyhammond (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. didn't realize discussion should be added here rather than attached to initial comments. Sorry. Will add any future comments here.Tonyhammond (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonyhammond, would you care to comment on my enquiry regarding any possible conflict of interest on your behalf? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to, but you may not like the answer. I do have a relationship with Monavie. A couple years ago, I was having serious health problems. After nearly a year of seeing several doctors who could tell me little except to de-stress my life, a staff member gave me some Monavie. Eventually, she encouraged me to drink it, shared her story of its benefits and I started drinking it. Three months later my health problem was mostly gone. Seven months later my doctor gave me a clean bill of health and encouraged me to keep doing "whatever" was helping.. I have continued using and sharing the product ever since. Now, having said that, the Wikipedia COI guidelines state that COI is only an issue when someone is making edits or interfering with presenting a Neutral Point of View. I have not attempted to make any edits directly to the page. I don't even know if I could do such a thing. What I have done--as an actuary and a professional-- in all my discussions on the Talk page, is to try to support and encourage a NPOV on the product and the company. According to the Wikipedia COI page--even with my relationship with Monavie--I am well within Wikipedsia's guidance on COI.Tonyhammond (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can take it as read from that splendid bit of anecdotal puffery that "using and sharing the product ever since" includes being, at minimum, a distributor of the product? Or am I mistaken? I'm sure you know full well what is meant by a 'conflict of interest', and it has little to do with 'sharing' things for the benefit of humankind in general. Do you have a financial conflict of interest? I'm sure you know darned well that was what I was asking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tony. If your health problem was caused by a lack of some vitamins or other nutrients, then it will disappear as soon as you start taking food or drinks that contain said nutrients. Mona vie beverages seem to use juices from a lot of different fruits. Theorically, Mona vie drinks will have a lot of different nutrients. Some of those nutrients are bound to be the ones that you are lacking in your diet.

Doctors will always tell you to have a diet more rich in varied fruits and vegetables, such a diet is bound to have all the nutrients you need. Most people already have a diet rich in milk and meat, and they have to be ordered to eat more fish, bread, fruits and vegetables of all sorts, distributed over the week. And less fried food, and less refined sugar, and less garbage food, because they are all empty calories, and they make you reduce the amount of healthy stuff that you take.

So Mona vie may be very healthy for you. Just not because of the polyphenols, but because it's full of varied nutrients that you may lack otherwise in your diet. And now my own anecdotal evidence. I buy a combination of dried fruits and put them in cold water and store it in the fridge, and they make a red liquid similar to tea. It makes me feel much better. I'm guessing that the dried fruits happen to have a nutrient that I usually lack in my diet. Another anecdotal evidence: when I was studying on another city, I never ate fish, and my knees started to hurt. If I ate fish, the hurting was gone the following day, and my knees kept well for a couple of weeks or so. Summary: eat varied foods of the nutrient-rich variety. If Mona vie works for you, then drink it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to comment that DR trigger may have been pulled too early...you may be correct. Again, maybe I am showing my newness to WP again. I was not sure where to turn, however, when one editor in particular was being abusive in both tone and language. I did not think that was appropriate or consistent with WP guidelines. As I have always said, I am happy to keep discussions going as long as we can do so cooly and rationally. As for the comments about other biases in the article. I had mentioned the pyramid scheme comment previously. The other comments, you are correct, were not made on the talk page. That was presented in another forum/process. Again, maybe because I am still learning WP, I am not yet sure where to raise those issues other than the talk page. Any guidance you want to share would be appreciated.Tonyhammond (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony and 96 IP': Reading this for the first time and from a relatively uninvolved viewpoint I have some direct questions I'd like to put to you.

1. Are you the same person? The combined editing style and desire to file down the "inconvenient truth" about the product. Wikipedia strongly discourages registered users editing while logged out and discourages the use of multiple accounts especially when determining consensus.
2. As mentioned before based on your admision that you've experience anecdotal benefits of this product you should be very careful about what you write as our Conflict of Interest policy frowns on people editing to promote a product they have monetary interest in. Please declare explicitly if you are an end customer or if you're a distributor to other people.
3. Finally, as the article is about the company/it's products is it a good idea to be inflating the nutritional/health benefits of the product?

I think once these issues are clarified we'll have a better understanding of how to evaluate the conesensus about these benefits. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Tony posting this personal wonder cure claim on the DR page. It has no bearing whatsoever on the content dispute; it is WP:OR; it is WP:ADVOCACY; it is far-fetched to say the least; and it simply has no place here. This type of self-serving promotion is so out of place that I feel the comment should be removed altogether. WP should not serve as forum for promotion or unsubstantiated health claims and this comment should not be part of the permanent record. Tony has already conceded the polyphenol argument[8], so at this point I think DR should be closed and we should all move back to the article Talk page, or at least we should be after we resolve the COI issue, which I think is pretty clear too at this point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:COI issue should be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard. If the content dispute has been resolved (which seems to be the consensus at this point), then the request should be closed. Any objections?--SGCM (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2012 (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

• Zoophilia and the law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Someone963852 (talk · contribs)
• Bali ultimate (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Plateau99 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The zoophilia and the law article has been drastically altered since August 18th (because of the belief that there was "POV" in it). This article should be returned to the way it was on August 18th. There were some citation problems, but the solution is not to erase all of the information at once. The solution is to find sources that match the sentences. The current version of the article is too anti-zoosexual. Also, the recent edits to the article are themselves POV (an attempt to make the article more anti-zoosexual).

All attempts to restore the article to its previous state have failed because people keep reverting. I believe that if I continue to try and restore the article, I will just get into more edit wars.

I have had discussions with User:Someone963852 in the past and they have gone nowhere. Plateau99 (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, it has failed.

How do you think we can help?

Restore the article back to the way it was on August 18, 2012.

I have tried to step in here a number of times but so far it has done nothing. (1; 2; 3) Since he came back in 2010, Plateau has been a SPA on the topic of zoophilia (contribs) arguing that zoophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation (Diff 1; Diff 2). Someone963852 on the other hand, seems to edit on a variety of topics (contribs) and does not seem to have a POV on the topic and is trying to move the subject closer to NPOV (diff 3; diff 4). Much like Someone963852, the two others cited here have only been working towards NPOV (diff 4; diff 5) There is little reason to suspect that the DRN can have an effect here except act as a card punched on the way to arbcom or AN/I. The only thing I can think will help here is a topic ban or an indef block and the DRN can't help there. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To get to the heart of the issue here, it seems like Plateau99 is here to push a POV rather than to build an encyclopedia. I think that the amount of edit-warring blocks is evidence of this, also his statement that "The solution is to find sources that match the sentences" (of his version) is very telling. Disregarding the subject of his POV, advancing an agenda on-wiki is not Ok. I would like to think that a final warning would be effective here, but given the amount of time this has been going on, I am inclined to agree with Guerillero's sentiment in his last sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It bothers me that people here are not assuming good faith -- they are assuming that I have an "agenda", when in fact I am trying to improve it (Wikipedia) like everyone else. Also, the thing I said about "finding sources that match the sentences" was taken out of context. I was referring to the fact that sentences (created be me or anyone else) do not necessarily need to be immediately deleted, and may turn out to be verifiable with a legitimate source. If such sources are not found, then they should be deleted -- but to immediately delete them may not be the best choice.

The only reason that Someone963852 and I have been blocked for edit warring in the past is because we had conflicting views about how to improve the article, and such conflicts weren't resolved. I started this section in the DRN to prevent another edit war and to counteract censorship and mass blanking -- both actions which are against Wikipedia's guidelines. Plateau99 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm unfamiliar with this incident and really don't have strong opinions in either way. Since we've had two administrators respond, I'll that into consideration, but as DRN is largely toothless, I would hate to consider this a step or 'punch-card' for the road to arbcom. I'm going to do everything I can to end the problem here before the drastic approaches are required. In doing so, I'm going to opt for a streamlined process. Give me a few moments to read the materials and the article in question. To assess the nature of the edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the August 20th revisions, much of the content was not cited. The 'Impact of laws' section is pretty clear case of what HAS to be cited. Other comments like "Most of these new laws have been created during a "surge" of intolerant anti-zoosexual legislation..." are clearly NOT NPOV. The term 'intolerant' and emphasis from 'surge' is clear with its POV. Frankly, I would like to see EVERY sentence in this article sourced, double sourced or triple sourced with a bunch of footnotes and high-quality resources being used to do so. The article cannot even get the USA laws correct, so I doubt the foreign ones are that much better. Its a complete mess, but I think that this DRN, specifically about CONTENT, can easily be resolved by working together. I'd like both parties to suggest changes here. I'll make subsections if you prefer, so that focused discussion can take place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the user Plateau99 is currently blocked, I've asked for a conditional unblock to address the matter. If accepted for a conditional unblock, the user would be required to only edit at WP:DRN, to resolve the content dispute and be given a chance to make a difference. I've also asked as part of this conditional unblock that if he is found to be in violation of said condition, the block be reinstated. Such a measure would be easy spot, but I believe the user should answer to the concerns here, rather then be dismissed entirely. A last chance, if you will. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal context

'Laws on bestiality tend to be shaped by animal welfare concerns, moral views and cultural beliefs. Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse.' - This section needs to be expanded, I'd like to see this eventually moved to Background and changed a better title to deal with the 'Society' aspect which is key to shaping views and thus laws. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent legislation

This section should be expanded to a world view matter or fixed to address legislation that will appear in the tables below it. I'd probably detail the history of legislation rather than just 'recent' legislation. That way it can be defined by region and show the evolution of the laws. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Background

Much of this is too vague, this should be the major focus that ties in from the Zoophilia article to focus SPECIFICALLY on the laws. This is key to tying the ideas to citations and setting up the flow of the article in an objective way. I'd avoid citing cases here unless they show a landmark case which results in major national changes. This section should lay out the ideas and views, of both sides, without attacks on one another. Even though the society focus on zoophilia is negative, discussing the matter neutrally is important and from a removed point of interest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Common reasons given for laws

I do not like the title of this section. But it should be broken into Religious concerns (by religion) and abuse or disease concerns, notable cases which pushed lawmakers would apply here as well. Reasons for the laws, should be easy to source, as just about every religion makes a point about this, and every nation keeps it laws 'in the know' for these things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Laws against zoophilia

Needs to be renamed 'National Laws on Zoophilia' or something to that effect. Needs an image. Hidden list should contain links to EVERY nation or state which has a law that is displayed on the image. The pornography laws section should be held to this standard as well.

Notable cases

Wikipedia articles only please. As of this time, looks like only one applies. I think we can agree on this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please preserve all references, and summarize them accurately and neutrally. I am persuaded that, for example, summarizing [9] as "Most of these new laws have been created during a "surge" of intolerant anti-zoosexual legislation which occurred in the 2000s (decade) and in the early 2010s; for example, bestiality was banned in Pennsylvania in 1999" was not accurate. The article is clear that the repeal was unintentional. But early revisions that removed this reference entirely were not the solution, and I'm glad to see it's back in the present version. Still, the most recent set of revisions includes some other deletions of relevant sources. [10] All editors carry an intrinsic POV on any given issue (even before they know what it is), and if it stimulates them to go out and find more sources and bring them in, great - but if it leads them to misrepresent what the sources say, or delete sources, then that's a problem. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Case status

Status query: Does this case need to stay open? Plateau99 has been indef blocked and Chris' appeal for a limited unblock has not been granted. Chris is now trying to rehabilitate Plateau99 by getting Plateau99 to edit in a reasonable fashion on Plateau99's user talk page. That's well and good, but since blocked users are not supposed to be able to edit, and any edits they do make are to be removed regardless of how legitimate those edits might otherwise be, having Plateau99 prove there that he can edit reasonably is one thing, but having him do so for purposes of contributing to the article is entirely another. It would, therefore, seem to me that for so long as Plateau99 remains indef blocked that there is no longer any dispute to consider here unless there is a dispute between the other involved editors. I don't think that's the case and that, instead, that this is turning into a discussion of how best to edit the article. If that's correct then this ought to be closed and the discussion ought to continue at the article talk page, but perhaps I'm wrong. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there might be. While there might be good reason to block for misrepresenting sources (I didn't evaluate it) I find Tarc's statement near the end of that block discussion to be highly undesirable. "WP:NPOV means to treat all significant points of view fairly; the view that zoophilia is normal or acceptable in society is so far down the scale of deviancy that it does not even register on the scale. It does not deserve and should not be given equal footing in any Wikipedia article alongside the overwhelming sources that are critical of and condemning of the practice." I hope that such is not a statement to be endorsed here. As the article details, there are several countries permitting the production of bestiality films, and you shouldn't write off whole countries as fringe POVs. Wikipedia should fairly reflect the relative preponderance of opinion against the practice, but also permit a fair presentation of the support for its legality, maintaining an anthropological detachment. Brood parasites can decimate, even extinguish a species, and Wikipedia could play a positive role by not subordinating inquiry to disgust when contemplating the ways in which humans confuse other animals for themselves. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether or not the block, or the reasoning behind the block, was proper is not one for this forum. The issue of the extent to which the not-absolutely-anti-zoophilia point of view (I hesitate to characterize it as necessarily pro-zoophilia) should be included in the article, whether equally or as a fringe point of view, is indeed a content question, of course. But I'm afraid that I don't see a current dispute about that which has been fully discussed at the article page except the one involving Plateau99 and other editors. Plateau99's fate appears to have stemmed more from how he went about trying to get the material included than about the best weight of the material itself and the statement which you quote above, and other similar opinions expressed in the ANI discussion, may be capable of being disregarded as hyperbole. If you, Wnt, or someone else wishes to approach it in a more careful, Wiki-proper fashion with reliable sourcing and a willingness to discuss it then that attempt may develop into a content dispute with editors who wish to reject it out of hand, but to say that such a content dispute now exists merely because of the opinions expressed in the ANI discussion when no one other than Plateau99 has made a recent attempt to develop that position at the article page is getting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Other regular DRN'ers may disagree, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This could have been a run-of-the-mill case focusing on the application of WP:UNDUE. User Plateau99 could have, for example, given two different versions of a section and asked DRN volunteers to weigh the merits of the two sections, based on sourcing & UNDUE & NPOV policies. But Plateau99 also had some behavior issues, and the content issue got tangled up with the behavior issue. In any case, it looks like that is overcome by events: Plateau99 is now blocked, so there is no editor available to present one side of the the UNDUE arguments. So I agree with TM that the case could probably be closed. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2012 (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

• Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Casprings (talk · contribs)
• 209.6.69.227 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I will argue that the IP editor is trying to place WP:POV into the article. The subject of this request is the background section but I feel his edits on the war on women show the same intent. Most of my argument centers on WP:UNDUE . Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. The IP, continues to try to take the wording of the article to place undue weight on certain aspects. While I will use other WP policies to make the argument, I think in the end, it adds up to a strong effort to put WP:POV. These comments are made off a comparison of these the current version and this version.

First, this version

Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, was invited by Democrats to speak at a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care.^[1] The exception applies to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees."Contraception and Insura".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page has been tried as well as a RfC. A request at DRN has already been placed before. However, 209.6.69.227 rejected to participate. I also tried to bring this to the arbritration commetiee, but was told it was too soon.

How do you think we can help?

Indicate the best steps to resolving the issue.

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

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy discussion

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

I will just go on the talk page. The IP does not want to be here, but he's okay on the talk page. I suggest closing the Peer review for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That has been closed. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2012 (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

• Mutliple locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Scholarlyarticles (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I had an editing dispute with editor Diannaa. Since then she has changed nearly all of my contribution. All of my references and information were correctly cited on subjects as varied as Mili Vanilli to Eli broad to Don Simpson, Girl you know it's true, Jimmy Henchman. She has removed correct citations. All seems to be as a result of a edit dispute on the Sean Combs page as of August 20. In looking at her history since this time she has devoted efforts to rewriting history and removing solid references. I would like someone with more experience than her to look at her history and the information she is targeting, and to read the citations she is removing particularly as of August 20th. I'm questioning her objectivity and neutrality. She does not allow neutral information into the Sean Combs page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to resolve on Talk page

How do you think we can help?

I would like a more experienced editor to look in depth at her history since August 20th and in particular with regard to the Combs page. Due to a disagreement on that page, she has taken out all nearly Wikipedia. All of these pages were well-referenced. The effect is making Wikipedia less accurate.

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

mutliple locations discussion

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

This looks like a conduct dispute between two editors. DRN only handles content disputes.--SGCM (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to close this. First of all, the reporter has been blocked, and second of all, Diannaa did nothing wrong. Lastly, DRN does not handle user conduct disputes. Electric Catfish 23:18, 22 August 2012 (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

• Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:RHaworth/2012 Jul 15#Deleted Neocate page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EmmaEJarvis (talk · contribs)
• RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nutricia make a product called Neocate - a milk substitute for babies who suffer from Cow's Milk Allergy (CMA). I work for an agency assisting Nutricia with their parent care. Recently we ran a workshop in which Mum's of babies with CMA told us that when they first had their diagnosis, they found it very difficult to find much information on the products that are available to treat their child. When we asked where they would expect to be able to find this information, Wikipedia came top of the list. In response to this need, we put together an article that describes what Neocate is, what CMA is, and other associated conditions. This article has not been written with the intention to persuade or sell Neocate, or even raise awareness - it is simply designed as an information resource for concerned Mums looking for more information about the product. We submitted this article to Wikipedia around March of this year. The article was subsequently deleted by an editor, RHaworth. From subsequent discussions, my understanding is that he feels that the reason the article is inappropriate is that it has been submitted by someone with an affiliation to Nutricia, who therefore has a conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I began a discussion on RHaworth's talk page, to which he rapidly responded.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to understand how I can fulfil the needs of these Mum's looking for information whilst remaining within Wikipedia's etiquette and policies. I would appreciate any advice or help you can offer.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth/2012_Jul_15#Deleted_Neocate_page discussion

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

The 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

• John Donne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ColonelHenry (talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong (talk · contribs)
• afterwriting (talk · contribs)
• anglicanus (talk · contribs)
• John K (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

an editor added two categories to the article--16th century and 17th century protestants. They are relevant given the he subject and the history. While the article isn't well written, they are still relevant.

I reverted when someone removed the categories. They claimed "Anglicans aren't protestants" Well, I am one, and yes we are. User reverted again, I reverted. Two other users have stepped in to remove the material.

I've provided proof that the categories are relevant, but that seems to be ignored despite my edit summary saying "SEE TALK PAGE"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've provided my proof at the talk page for John Donne regarding why these two categories are relevant (I didn't even originally put them on the article, but they are relevant to the article subject). I've reached out to the other editors continuing to remove this material (it's really insignificant, two categories...but still categories have a purpose). I've reverted the work a few times, but every time I turn around, someone else is reverting it.

How do you think we can help?

Absent finding a way to tag categories with citations, we need some way of making sure other editors who ignore proof don't go off half-cocked and remove material.

I reverted the addition of the Protestant categories because the article made no mention of protestants and Anglicanism is considered by many to be a distinct branch of Christianity altogether. See the article on Anglicanism I am happy to be proved wrong I am certainly no expert on religion and have no axe to grind one way or the other.Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I don't know why I have been dragged into this, but I have been an Anglican priest in England, Canada and Australia for over 30 years and I am definitely *not* a Protestant. Some Anglicans may prefer to identify themselves as such but this is not the usual view among Anglicans in most countries. In fact, as the article on Anglicanism rightly says, Anglicanism is often called 'Catholic and Reformed'. There is another common expression that Anglicans are 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic and Reformed but not Protestant'. Anglicanus (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fellow Anglican, but I disagree. We aren't Baptists, but we're still regarded historically and theologically as protestant. You should also reread the Anglicanism article--the lede states clearly: Many of the new Anglican formularies of the mid 16th century corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism and these reforms in the Church of England were understood by one of those most responsible for them, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, as navigating a middle way between two of the emerging Protestant traditions, namely Lutheranism and Calvinism.[6] (Footnote: Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life, Yale University Press, p.617 (1996). -- if Yale the bastion of Anglicanism in the US publishes this...). Considering the Anglican church at the time of Donne (the subject of this dispute) was markedly "protestant" and considered by those around it as "protestant", any claim of "catholic and reformed" and "not protestant" is irrelevant. Claiming to be a reformed church with roots in the Reformation but denying being "protestant"--is disingenuous revisionism (likely Tractarian) and logically akin to saying "No, I most certainly am not a fisherman and I don't go fishing, I just have a habit of putting hooks in the water and the fish just like eating them." Saint Andrew would be proud. ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing debate on Wikipedia and it isn't going to be resolved by any discussion here. Anyone can argue anything with logic and selective sources. As has been indicated on the John Donne talk page, there is no shortage of sources which argue differently from you. So if you want to resolve this matter then create a separate category for 16th century Anglicans. Continuing to insist that Anglicans are Protestants will not resolve things because too many Anglicans disagree with you and they are entitled to be respected. Anglicanus (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I like the proposal of 16th Century Anglicans, etc., to resolve this. If the other participants in this dispute agree with this, I think that would be an acceptable compromise. When it comes to sources, I only care about reliable sources. If there are two sides, it's appropriate to address both sides. It's not so much a matter of "sides" it's presenting a information in a historically-accurate fashion with a focus towards being comprehensive. Anglicans at the time of Donne's life and work were considered (and chiefly considered themselves) Protestants. The fact is, it's insignificant in relation to the whole article...and the relevant point of dispute is for the articles that focus on Anglicanism. There shouldn't be a protest for categorizing a Protestant writer who happens to be Anglican as either of these labels when both are relevant and historically accurate. However, to be considered down the road...what would be the reaction if someone made Cat:16th Century Anglicans a subcategory of Cat:16th Century Protestants? --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a few points. Firstly, the notion that the Church of England and its affiliated churches represents a distinct tradition of Christianity called "Anglicanism" that was distinct from Protestantism is one which only emerged clearly in the nineteenth century, after the Oxford Movement did its work. Even then, it is a disputed notion, not universally accepted within the Anglican community, and certain member churches (most obviously the Church of Ireland) pretty clearly identify themselves as Protestant, as do many individual congregations and believers.

Before the Oxford Movement, however, we don't even need to get into disputes like this. For the three hundred years from the Elizabethan Settlement to the Oxford Movement the Church of England was pretty unquestionably viewed as Protestant by everyone involved, with the possible exception of the Laudian movement of the mid 17th century, which was ephemeral until some of its ideas were revived by Newman, et al, in the 19th century. If you look at the usage of the word "Protestant" and other related concepts in the 17th and 18th centuries (and even, really, the 19th century, when the Oxford Movement was a distinct minority), it becomes clear that the Church of England and the Church of Ireland were viewed as Protestant churches. The Act of Settlement required that the heir to the throne be a Protestant, and be in communion with the Church of England. The "Protestant Ascendancy" referred to the domination of Ireland by members of the established Church of Ireland. And the general usage of "Protestant" often referred specifically to members of the Established Church - you can find sources which talk about "Protestants and Dissenters," for instance.

In addition, use of the term "Anglican" is essentially anachronistic in the 17th century, and so are references to "Anglican priests." Before the 20th century, members of the clergy in the Church of England were not usually called priests. I haven't seen anyone actually dispute this on the talk page.

Finally, to get to Donne himself, there seem to be plenty of sources which describe him as a protestant, not very many which describe him as an Anglican, and none which describe him as not a Protestant. john k (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

John Donne discussion

Hello everyone, I am a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have protected the article from editing, as there has been a lot of reverting going on in the last couple of days. Let's try and talk things out here instead, so that we can all reach an agreement that we are comfortable with. I noticed two parts to this dispute: the first is whether to include Category:16th-century Protestants and Category:17th-century Protestants in the article, and the second is the related issue of whether we should describe Donne as an "Anglican priest" or a "clergyman in the Church of England".

About the categorisation issue - I had a look round the category system, and I found that we actually already have some categories that might apply:

• Category:16th-century Anglican priests
• Category:17th-century Anglican priests
• Category:17th-century Anglicans
• Category:17th-century Anglican clergy

However, at the moment the categorisation in this area seems a little confused. For example, in Category:16th-century clergy we have both Category:16th-century Anglican priests and Category:16th-century Christian clergy, which hardly seems logical. Also, given that arguments have been made against using "17th-century Anglican" at all, it doesn't seem likely that using these categories would help resolve the dispute. (Please do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, though!)

I think that to fully resolve this issue we would need to have a discussion about how to categorise all of the articles that are in a similar situation. The question of whether we use "Anglican priest" or "clergyman in the Church of England", and the question of whether the 16th- and 17th-century Protestants categories apply, would seem to apply to many articles, not just the one about Donne. Once we decide on how to categorise these people in general, then we can update all the articles in question and fix the category system, and it should prevent the problem from recurring in different articles. Does everyone agree with my assessment of the situation? Let me know what you think. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Anglican priests" is supposed to be a subset of "Anglican clergy," I think. I guess the idea is to distinguish priests from deacons and bishops, but it smacks of anachronism - while Anglican clergymen have always been ordained as priests, they were not typically called priests after the break with Rome and before the twentieth century. john k (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How would you comment on applicability of Categorization guideline? I'm particularly interested in your opinions about the following statements from § Articles:

1. "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate."
2. "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article."

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to me that the above categories would make an excellent compromise. I too am an Anglican, and I also don't characterize myself as a protestant. However, I know others that do, and as said before the history of the Anglican Church is full of this very dispute. Sidestepping the issue, by including the article in the "Anglican" categories is probably the best solution. (Plus, it has the benefit of greater accuracy by virtue of specificity) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2012 (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, but 1shmt (talk · contribs) refuses to engage on the talk page and just keeps adding the same content. IPWAI (talk · contribs) has engaged but keeps adding the same content.

Location of dispute

• Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 1shmt (talk · contribs)
• aichikawa (talk · contribs)
• Scolaire (talk · contribs)
• IPWAI (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

More than one editor keeps adding additional media comments in a section when there is already sufficient media commentary on a recent subject. Editors don't seem to understand or case about issues of recentism as they are too close to the subject.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple warnings in talk pages for both by myself and Scolaire. Didn't work.

How do you think we can help?

Requesting temporary full protection

This case is bizarre! It was filed by Aichikawa, who then "tweaked it" so that it ((edited at 14.35:) unintentionally) appears to have been filed by 1shmt. Aichikawa complains that "the editor refuses to engage on the talk page and just keeps adding his edit", but Aichikawa has steadfastly refused to post to Talk:Joan Juliet Buck, preferring to discuss by edit summary or on user talk pages. His/her contributions on user talk pages include such collaborative suggestions as "Step three: Bark up another tree" and "This is your second warning...you will be kicked off Wikipedia". 1shmt, on the other hand, has had an account for all of 24 hours, has only edited Joan Juliet Buck and is already using edit summaries like "If you are being paid by Buck for the editing work here, please disclose the fact".

I myself only got involved because of an earlier request here by IPWAI, which was not proceeded with, and which I noticed while reading another, unrelated request. I have edited the section down so that it is written in an encyclopaedic way, giving due weight to a single episode in the person's life without a mass of "he said and she said" type quotes. The other two named editors, plus a couple more, just continue to add more quotes, either pro- or anti-, and edit-war with each other without any serious attempt to discuss it on the talk page.

I do think that page protection would be in order here, and the sooner the better. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Aichikawa: 1shmt has talked on the talk page; you have steadfastly refused. As to how the case was opened, I merely stated facts. Shouty capitals don't alter the facts. I have amended my original statement to make it look less accusatory. Going through 1shmt's history, he doesn't even seem to be aware of this DRN, let alone claiming to have initiated it. Have you informed him of it on his talk page? Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So sorry Scolaire, not everyone's an expert on Wikipedia like you. Yes I filed this originally, but since IT WAS MY FIRST TIME EVER FILING A DISPUTE RESOLUTION I borrowed the template for the request on John Donne (above this one). When I thought I was done, it said "the request was receiving the attention of aichikawa" which is NOT what I wanted? Go through 1shmt's history and you will see that he is the one that signed off on claiming to be the one who submitted the request since I didn't know how to put that in initially. (Corrected now.) Why would 1shmt do this? Do we care? Has already categorically refused to talk on the talk page. Can't we block him already?Aichikawa (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
@Scolaire: So 1shmt didn't put himself in, I made a mistake, as did you about me. Let's move on. I also thought 1shmt would be automatically informed, just as you were and was I when I composed this discussion in the first place. You think it'd help? I tend not to think so but I'll invite both again if you want. I also added IPWAI because he's totally relevant to the conversation about needing temporary full protection and has popped up again just in time to insist YET AGAIN on his same Michael Totten edit.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

General discussion

Would protection help here? Electric Catfish 19:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It would. I suggest 1 week for the discussion here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it'd help as protection only blocks from anonymous IPs, no? 1shmt seems to have been created after the last block.--Aichikawa (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not discuss here before a DRN volunteer opens discussion. Use the talk page if necessary. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll request it or have an admin who works here do it at the end of the discussion, if it is still needed. Electric Catfish 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I thought you were an sysop, and there's only Mr. Stradivarius who comes here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, you never know who might drop by. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not currently a sysop, but will hopefully be one soon :). Anyways, besides Mr. Stradivarius, there's also ItsZippy, and don't forget about Bbb23! Electric Catfish 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So lets start the discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I right that only one side of the dispute is here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a named user but I don't really have a "side", and aichikawa has made a post but you couldn't really call it a statement. So the question is, has either side of the dispute turned up? Scolaire (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I don't see the actual dispute: talk page contains 6 comments (4 by you, 1 by 1shmt and 1 by Redactor1802) and isn't particularly enlightening, as both replies to your comments boil down to "I disagree, reverting". Furthermore, the opening statements mostly address others' behavior (while this board only deals with content, not conduct disputes) and the brief description of the issue (which is not exactly neutral, dare I note) is also puzzling. Could you please do us a favor and name the editors you believe participate in the dispute? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Aichikawa, 1shmt, Redactor1802 and IPWAI (who has not edited for a few days). Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

TBH I don't think you are going to get a coherent statement from any of those, so the chance of a successful DR is pretty small. Scolaire (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you request temporary full protection? If not, why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to interject myself again in this very messy thing (don't know what to call it). Aichikawa filed this dispute and has yet to make a statement describing the nature of the dispute. All I see are comments about conduct, which is not what this board is for. Then there is all this discussion about protection of the article. One has to assume that some believe that the content dispute is so serious that the article should be locked. In any event, such a request would normally be made at WP:RFPP, not here, and the relevant question is why should it be protected, not why should it not be protected (a very odd way of putting it). Maybe Ebe123 can manage to put this dispute back on track, but so far it seems to be a major waste of everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, temporary full protection would be fantastic. I didn't request it as I forgot what it was called. 1shmt (talk · contribs) IPWAI (talk · contribs) have been consistently adding further criticism into the article's "Controversy" section which Scolaire edited down to make relevant to people outside of American East Coast media circles. Here is 1shmt: [11][12] [13][14] and IPWAI who has come back with the SAME arguments in two weeks: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] This is to illustrate that Joan Juliet Buck needs more than semi-protection status as it is dealing with editors who have personal and/or political agendas and refuse not only to show up in discussions they are called into but can't seem to move on from talk discussions if they participate at all.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still miss the point. Full protection prevents anyone from editing the article except an admin. Semi-protection prevents non-auto-confirmed users from editing the article. Just to use your two examples, 1shmt is a non-auto-confirmed user, and IPWAI is auto-confirmed. Therefore, semi-protection would prevent 1shmt from editing the article but not IPWAI. Full protection is warranted, not because of the agendas of users, but because of a protracted content dispute involving edit-warring among many editors and therefore not amenable to sanctions. At the risk of repeating myself (no one seems to be listening), I have yet to see anyone here request protection of any kind at WP:RFPP. I have yet to see anyone make a statement here as to what the content dispute is really about. All I see are out-of-context conduct accusations and wrangling.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2012 (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:Assam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Assam#Etymology of Assam
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Assam#Etymology

Users involved

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The section Assam#Etymology is currently in a very confused state. Any attempt to clean it, and replace it with a cleaner and condensed content has been resisted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB from now). Talk page discussions, WP:3O, WP:RS/N have failed to move BB in any way, and he is deeply entrenched in his beliefs. During WP:RS/N discussion, a paragraph was vetted as a possible replacement, and accepted. An attempt was made to replace the section with this paragraph, which BB has reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• The section Assam#Etymology is currently is a very confused state. An effort to condense the text is resisted by [[User::Bhaskarbhagawati]] (BB from now)
• An initial effort was made (Talk:Assam#Etymology of Assam) to discuss the issue, but no compromise was possible.
• A WP:3O (diff) was unsuccessful, with BB rejecting the 3rd party opinion. (diff)
• A WP:RS/N was attempted (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Assam#Etymology), with BB largely ignoring the endorsement of Alternate Text 4 that was made at there.
• The "Alternate Text 4" was reverted by BB (diff)

How do you think we can help?

• Encourage User:Bhaskarbhagawati to accept the WP:3O and WP:RS/N opinion
• If not suggest next stage for resolution of this dispute

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

Assam discussion

While waiting for party Bhaskarbhagawati to supply an opening comment ... it would help if both parties could prepare a list of quotes from the best sources they have to support their respective proposals for the etymology section's text. The quotes will be useful to help find a resolution. The sources & quotes located at Talk:Assam#Notes are a good start. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be a synopsis of the main article Etymology of Assam. Many more references are available there. Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the links supplied by the filing party, but to be honest the discussion is so scattered amongst various pages that I think supplying a list of quotes here would make both parties cases much clearer. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My initial thoughts were to have each party prepare a list of, say, their top five sources on the issue, and present quotes from those sources here. That should be a good starting point. --Noleander (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User Bhaskarbhagawati has not visited WP in the last few days. I've posted a reminder about this case on their Talk page. If they have not responded by, say, August 26th, perhaps we could close this case with the understanding that Chaipau's sourcing is proper. --Noleander (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

List of quotes from Chaipau

• "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1
• "These references show that the term 'Axom or Asom' was earlier used to mean the Shan community...Subsequently the term came to be used to mean also the territory they ruled", M Taher, Geography of Assam (Delhi, 2001) pp2-3
• "...but most probably Asama meaning peerless or unequalled is a latter day Sanskritisation of some earlier from like Āchām", Banikanta Kakati, Early Aspects of Assamese Literature (Gauhati, 1953) p2
• "I got a copy of Frans van der Heiden’s book in Dutch, published in 1944. Several times the name of Assam is mentioned in this publication. I was able to find a copy of the original Dutch publication, published in 1675 in the library of the Maritime Museum, Rotterdam and compared the two publications. The 1944 version has extra preface added by the publisher including a map of Bengale drawn around 1661 where the name of Assam is mentioned." (Waleh 2008)
• "Sankardeva, in one of his verses, composed in the early sixteenth century, while referring to the castes and communities of the then Assam used the term Axom to mean the Ahom." (Taher 2001, p. 2)
• "Muhammadan historians wrote Āshām, and in the early dates of British rule it was spelt with only one 's'.", Edward Gait, History of Assam (Calcutta, 1906) p240
• "... Thus little room is left for the fanciful origin of the name Asam from Sanskrit to mean 'uneven' ([terrain]) or 'unparalleled' (people)" (Neog 1962, p. 2)
• "Assam is the English form of 'Asama' (ie peerless) which is apparently a Sanskritised form of the tribal name Ahom", D C Sircar, Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa in The Comprehensive History of Assam Vol I (Guwahati, 1991) p59 cf1

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

• Agha Waqar Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tahiracreole (talk · contribs)
• DMacks (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article "Agha Waqar Ahmad" which is the name of an invrestor of water fuelled car is redirected to article "Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad car" While there another full article named "Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car" I think it is more appropriate to redirect it to Full article rather to part of an article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

If I make changes and redirect the article to full article it is reverted. Please have a review on that.

How do you think we can help?

You can allow redirection of the article "Agha Waqar Ahmad" to the article "Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car" rahter at the moment it is resirected to "Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad car"

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

The notification of this DRN was the first I can remember hearing from anyone about any of my actions related to this set of articles (either on my talkpage or on the article talk-pages) in several weeks and I have no idea what actions or statements of mine are being disputed, so I am unable to make a statement about the substance of the dispute at this time. DMacks (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agha Waqar Ahmad discussion

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

Well I see that the article Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car is immediately viewable upon redirect, but to redirect ANY search to his water-fueled car might be more appropriate in this case, however I believe a claim could be made that a subjects biography would take precedent, and barring that, the focus of a major work (the car) would redirect to the page about said invention. Thus, a separate article, independent of the creation, allowing for expansion, is permitted, but probably not undue. My major concern is that this is universally recognized as a matter of fraud along with the list of 'water-fueled' vehicles namely because hydrolysis requires MORE energy than can be recovered from subsequent reaction. So its placement in that page may be justified. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I, like Chris, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Could you please provide a link to where you have attempted to discuss this on a talk page? I can find no such attempt in your user contributions. I would note that closely related issues have been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar Ahmad, but in the latter discussion, the closing administrator commented, "redirecting to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car may be more appropriate if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car is closed as 'keep'" and Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car was indeed subsequently closed as "keep." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Supplement: Unless the listing editor can point to a discussion of this matter, this thread should be closed as premature and even if s/he can provide such a pointer, it still might should be closed due to Redirects for discussion being the proper forum for that dispute. Should it? — TM 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@DMacks: Just to address your uncertainty, though I think this request is probably a non-starter, I think it was probably your single edit here, with the listing editor possibly thinking that you were also responsible for the subsequent bot edit as well. I added you into the dispute and notified you on that presumption. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected Agha Waqar Ahmad to Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car. It seems entirely logical to redirect it there now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car has been closed as keep. Hopefully ClueBot NG won't mark it as vandalism this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And now I've reported this false positive to the ClueBot operators. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:52, 23 August 2012 (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

• 0.999... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mjs1138 (talk · contribs)
• Huon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My edits are continuously deleted to protect an ignorant and cruel establishment. To keep people from knowing that .111... in not equal to 1/9 is a crime against humanity.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The other side is committed to enforcing its ignorant viewpoint.

How do you think we can help?

Understand that a repeating decimal represents an incomplete division. .333... is not equal to 1/3. For the love of God, use the brains he gave you and think. THERE IS ALWAYS A REMAINDER NOT REPRESENTED IN THE QUOTIENT!!!

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

Firstly, despite Mjs1138's claims, he has not "dicussed" the issue on the talk page (unless we count this rant, which predates this request by a mere 30 minutes). Secondly, his edits have been reverted not just by me, but also by Gandalf61 and Rrburke (history); I cannot tell why I was singled out as the representative of the "ignorant and cruel establishment" (hyperbole much?). Thirdly, this is a content dispute that can be solved by having a look at reliable sources. The one I immediately have at hand is a little obscure, but reliable nonetheless: von Mangoldt, Hans (1911). Einführung in die höhere Mathematik. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel. p. 148. Mangoldt explicitly says 1/3=0.333... and explains what he means by "0.333..." so that the equation is true. There's nothig about "incomplete division" in that definition; rather, repeating decimals, like all decimals, are defined via sequences (other mathematicians may use infinite series, but that's an equivalent definition). Huon (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

0.999... discussion

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

Disputes need to be discussed on the talk page before being brought to DRN.--SGCM (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, please try and keep a clear head when submitting a DRN request. While we're happy to help solve content disputes, I think a that terming a disagreement over a mathematical rounding of a fraction a "Crime against Humanity" doesn't quite measure up to, oh, genocide. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2012 (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

• No Country for Old Men (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jasoncward (talk · contribs)
• Ring Cinema (talk · contribs)
• RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editors Ring Cinema and RepublicanJacobite are either the same editor or are engaging in tag team editing. Together they have violated WP:3RR by reverting the same edit 3 times in a 2 hour period.

Editor Ring Cinema has tried to WP:OWN this article for at least three years. The archived talk pages are filled with dozens of good faith attempts to edit this article. Ring replies to and dismisses them all until his definition of consensus is achieved, which means he dismisses/reverts anything she does not like. The article is well over 50% of its guideline maximum size only because of one editor.

The refusal of 2 editors to either allow others to edit this article to a maximm guideline size (60-100k) or edit it themselves to a correct size is bringing disrepute to this encyclopedia in front of a wide audience - as this article is cited as prime evidence for an article held hostage by extremists with an agenda...in this case they not only really really adore this film but are excessively proud of their own lenghty opinions of this film and are using Wikipedia as an advertsing venue.

A typical casual reader can not use this article, it is clearly a near verbatim copy of someone's academic paper for an introductory film course at a provincial trade school. It is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry, in its current bloated form.

The sanctions, bans and previous discipline problems of editors Ring Cinema and RepublicanJacobite have failed, there is in fact no way to edit this article to its guideline size without their interference. They attempt to make their own rules about how this article should be edited by manating that any significant changes require their approval, even though VERY WIDE consensus has been achived or quite awhile that this article needs to be DRASTICALLY trimmed in size. Ring Cinema and RepublicanJacobite are preventing consensus rule as their previous disipleproblems indicate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

3rd opinion, editing, discussions on talk

How do you think we can help?

Nominate a 3rd party to edit the article to a reasonable size, split the article into 3 or more separate articles. Again, nothing in the content is offensive or reslly disputed, it is just that there is too much of it.

This seems extremely premature. We have barely discussed it. Jason wrote one long posting and I answered. He seems to think it's his decision to make alone. Since we agree that the article should be shorter, that is a start. He is inexperienced editing film articles and I am not. He has erroneously accused me of making an emotional appeal and being resistant to shortening; both are inaccurate. I responded to his suggestions, finding some good and some not. I should mention that I am not the editor who contributed the extended material. Sometimes I made cuts when new material was ill-formed. I simply do not wish to throw away something good. Instead of starting with changes that have gained some acceptance and proceeding from there, he seems intent on taking a blunt instrument to the article. No need for haste.

I agree with Ring Cinema: this is unwarranted. There has been an ongoing discussion about the length, with a number of opinions expressed. No one has argued that there is not a problem, the question is how to address it. Simply deleting large sections of the article is not the answer. I reverted those deletions and told the editor that, per BRD, discussion had to continue 'til a consensus was reached. His next step, it seems, was to come here. This is highly premature. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men discussion

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

The 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 User talk:Jasper Deng#Your source please.

Location of dispute

• User talk:Jasper Deng#Your source please (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Windows 8 editions article claims that:

1. Windows 8 is compatible with all previously published Windows applications
2. Microsoft has not yet released maximum-supported system specifications, such as the maximum amount of RAM or logical processors

I deleted these statements due to their lack of source but User:Jasper Deng has restored them. He refuses to supply any source and refuses to let me delete them either.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just discussed in User talk:Jasper Deng talk page. The discussion has reached a standstill.

How do you think we can help?

How do I think you can help resolve the dispute? Strange question. If I had an answer for it, perhaps I would have not been here.

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

I consider the verification of the third statement to be easy. However if I'm convinced doing so does not constitute WP:V to the best extent possible I will back off. I consider such a statement as verifiable as the saying that Microsoft has not released details on Windows 9. More later.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 editions discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for the "Opening comments by Jasper Deng" section to be filled out so I can hear from both sides before I open up this section for comments.

While we are waiting for that, I would like everyone involved to review the following Wikipedia policies, guidelines and (optional) essays. Even if you are sure that you understand our policies, please take a moment and review them again:

WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CONSBUILD, WP:BRD.

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am now opening this up for discussion.

My first question is this; is our goal to show which versions share a lot of code (which would require citations to reliable third party sources) or is our goal to show the names chosen by Microsoft (which would best be established by referring to official Microsoft documents)? For example, Windows ME shares a lot of code with Windows 98, Windows Server 2008 shares a lot of code with Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 R2 shares a lot of code with Windows 7, but Windows Server 2008 R2 is quite different from Windows Server 2008 -- especially the i386 version. Which way do we want to go with Windows 8 versions?

Also, are there any particular edits to the page that any of you would like to be examined closely? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Guy Macon

If you are referring to #1, I must say you are the third person with his own unique interpretation of this clause. I was the second. I thought it meant all applications released for all previous versions of Windows work without a compromise on Windows 8 Core/Pro/Enterprise. Such an assertion would be so controversial that would require more than one source. Jasper Deng, however, explained it differently. So far it seems this statement is miserably ambiguous.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking at the talk page and edit history. Consider trying to prove a negative. For example, no reliable source says that Microsoft is not a major producer of snack foods. WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source." Saying that Microsoft is not a major producer of snack foods is not likely to be challenged, and so could be included. (The question of why we are even discussing snack foods is another issue -- just because something is allowed doesn't mean it improves the article.)

So what about the statement "Microsoft has not yet released maximum-supported system specifications"? Does that need a citation to a reliable source? Or is the failure of anyone challenging the statement to find a source for the specs enough? This raises the following question; how do you, the Wikipedia editor, know that Microsoft has not released this information? Did you read it in a reliable source? If so, cite the source and we are done. Did you look for the info and not find it? That would be WP:OR. If that is how you know, the best you can do is to say that the info is unknown, not that we know that Microsoft didn't release it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Guy Macon

Just ask yourself: How can the original contributor be 100% sure that Microsoft has not published a single piece of spec, be it free or premium, electronic or paper, to the general public or its subscribed training partners? Has he or she indeed purchased and studied all? Third-party publishers have already published products on Windows Store and a device certification program for Certified Windows 8 Devices is already open. Have these third-party developers or manufacturers not received any spec regarding maximum limits of the supported hardware? Unlikely enough to force us submit a source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to wait for Jasper Deng to respond before commenting on the above. In the meantime, I would like to float a trial balloon: Sooner or later Microsoft will publish that information where it will be easy to find. How about creating a column for it with "TBD" for any values we don't have a number for (which is all of them at the moment)? On the plus side that would give us a convenient place to put the info when we get it. On the minus side, columns with the same value in each entry are annoying, so maybe this is a bad idea. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note, that the first statement is known to be false (eg. KLC isn't working). If there is a published claim, it may be quoted though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That statement has been modified so it no longer makes the claim. I think Guy Macon's idea in the previous comment is a good idea. I don't care if Microsoft gave PC manufacturers that info, since it does not count as "released" to the public in that general sense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jasper. I am afraid the new modified statement is worse than the former. It now says "Possible to be compatible with current Windows applications" which raises the question of "how exactly possible?" and "who says so?" This new statement is also contrary to your initial assertion that you are simply trying to expand on the difference between x86 and ARM platforms.

As for the second, the statement never mentions "general public". In addition, even if it did, I think I am pretty much general public. What do you say to that?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think the idea of a TBD column in a high traffic article is a good idea. It gives the editors the excuse to fill the article with lists after lists of what we don't know or Microsoft has not done. This is at best redundant and at worst indiscriminate. Even if well-cited, Wikipedia is not a directory of things we do not know about Microsoft or things that Microsoft could have done about Windows 8. The best policy to leave out things we do not know; when add them as we discover them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the first phrase in whatever rendition should go. It is a claim that is likely to be challenged, and a potential WP:NOR minefield. I would replace it with a fully attributed quote (On August 26, 2012 John Doe stated: "Windows 8 is compatible with all the Windows software."[1]). Until such quote is found, this claim should be just removed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is where we are. My "extra column" idea is a non-starter. As a DRN volunteer I sometimes throw out a "how about this?" idea to see if all the involved editors like it, but it isn't my place to push for an idea if even one involved editor doesn't like it. The involved editors should work together on the page; we DRN volunteers are here to encourage that, not to become involved editors ourselves. As for the two statements in question, we have three editors (two of us uninvolved other than participating in this DRN case) who agree that those statements need to be sourced or removed. I have carefully read all the arguments here, on the article talk page and on both involved user's talk pages, and have seen no argument that justifies those statements being allowed without sourcing. In my opinion, it is now time for Codename Lisa to remove those statements, for us to wait a day or two in case there is a compelling argument that we have missed, and then to close this case. Dmitrij, do you concur? Does anyone who has not commented yet want to weigh in now before this closes? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the statements. Here is edit diff: [24]. I hope it is for the best. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2012 (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. [25][26]

Location of dispute

• Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Continuation War (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YMB29 (talk · contribs)
• ‎Wanderer602 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The disagreement is about the result (infobox) in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article and a description of an event in the Continuation War article. Basically, the problem is with understanding what the sources actually say vs. what one interprets them to say. The other user seems to have trouble understanding WP:OR and WP:JDLI.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No original research noticeboard,[27] third opinion,[28][29] military history project talk.[30]

How do you think we can help?

Point to what should go into the articles based on the rules.

For the result in the first article, there are sources that almost directly say that the offensive was a Soviet strategic victory.[31] They mention the main strategic goal and say that it was accomplished, which is enough to consider the result a strategic victory (see [32]). So I wanted to change the result to Soviet victory, since strategic victory basically means victory in general. The other user complained that this is not an accurate description of the outcome. The third opinions agreed with me that it was a Soviet victory, but suggested blanking the result or linking to the aftermath section to avoid the dispute.[33] I then suggested the result to be more specific - Strategic Soviet victory,[34][35] which is exactly what the sources say. No one objected and so I changed the result to that, but Wanderer602 then started reverting it.

The second issue is that Soviet/Russian sources describe fighting at a small town near the old Soviet-Finnish border on September 4-5, 1941. ‎When I added this information to the article Wanderer602 started looking at Finnish sources and was not able to find anything about this. He found the Finnish units that were supposed to be in the area, looked up their war diary entries (primary sources) for the dates in question, did not find any evidence of fighting and concluded that nothing happened. So he then added text into the article that questions the Soviet/Russian sources (this section). To me this is obvious synthesis. -YMB29 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ‎ Wanderer602

None of the sources state that it was a Soviet strategic victory. It is a conjecture. WP:3 explicitly stated that they preferred to see no result at all or alternatively a link to separate section in the text instead of a result. YMB29 has repeatedly refused to accept this and instead of following the recommendation that he personally requested added a qualifier to the result (strategic) and ignored the WP:3. User YMB29 never sought for consensus in talk page before making his edit instead he made the edit while the discussion on the issue was still ongoing. In addition user YMB29 later also refused to discuss the matter on the talk page.

First of all, Novyi Beloostrov was not a town, it was a village. To be clear Finnish records (all chronology, books of military history and war diaries) note that fighting took place just outside (north of) of the village but not inside of it. YMB29 claims that Finns took the village on September 4. I looked for the event in the Finnish chronology of the Continuation War and to other books of military history handling the warfare at Karelian Isthmus in 1941 none of which stated anything of a kind. I looked for war diaries of all the Finnish units located in the area at that time, none of which agreed that Finns would have taken the village or fought for it at this time. Demand that there should be an entry stating explicitly that 'there was no fighting at N. Beloostrov' like made by YMB29 is rather odd since if nothing happened then there would have been nothing to be written down about it. All used sources are reliable sources per WP rules, including primary ones which have been used precisely according to WP rules. No synthesis or OR has been involved. I have failed to understand why user YMB29 has insisted on including a supposed minor skirmish of this level to an article handling the whole of the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this, but I did comment at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive#Comments by others in response to a request for input from uninvolved editors which was posted at WT:MILHIST. I think that this would be a highly suitable matter for DRN to take up, though I think that editor conduct is at least part of the problem (and possibly the entire problem). I note that ‎YMB29 and Wanderer602 have been blocked for edit warring over this. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unit war diaries can sometimes reflect differing 'truths' of what went on despite looking like very authentic sources. Remember that six different people seeing the same event can give six different versions. This is why we need to stick to solid secondary or tertiary literature, when historians have been able to sift the claims and come up with reasoned accounts of what happened. In the absence of solid historical literature on both sides, the skirmish or otherwise should not be listed in the article, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Wanderer, YMB, would encourage you both to do further literature searching on this issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had gone through this already in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_13! From Finnish side we have several histories of Finnish advance of 1941 and regimental histories which describe how far Finns advanced at a given date. We have been so thorough in this issue, that I believe that if I get Your permission to combine all this information together, YMB and Wanderer, I could get it published in any Finnish historical journal and very likely in some Russian one also. The real differences between you is really minimal in this issue and could be easily settled with some goodwill. --Whiskey (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive discussion

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

Let's open this thread for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to comments by Buckshot06: That is true but there was no mention of the fighting in war diaries at any level, i checked those from battalion (where possible), regimental, divisional to Finnish GHQ level for the formations in the area. Since user YMB29's source discussed of Finnish casualties i even checked the online Finnish war time dead database which reported that only very few men (IIRC 2) had fallen in the Finnish units responsible for village sector. I fully agree and understand why secondary & tertiary sources are preferred but i was essentially forced to use primary sources since higher level sources that i checked had nothing about this event. There was plenty of discussion of Finnish capture of Staryi Beloostrov (fin: Valkeasaari) but not even a mention of Novyi Beloostrov (fin: Valkeasaaren asema - lit: Valkeasaari railroad station) for that time period. Primary sources were the ones which had some mention of the locality in question but none of those reported fighting there. There are descriptions of Finnish advance extending to the edge of the locality - at a stream between villages of N. Beloostrov and Alexandrovka in the northern (ie. Finnish) edge of the village - but none that Finns would have taken the village or that fighting would have taken place inside the village. As for finding something in the literature, I have checked through various Finnish military historical chronologies and books but have been unable to find references to the event - and to be honest do not even know where i should be looking any more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Searching through sources yourself and making a conclusion to prove something and especially to disprove what reliable sources say is exactly what original research is...

As for sources that the fighting did happened, there are both primary and secondary sources for that. One of the sources I used for the article is even an English language book.[36] -YMB29 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above by Buckshot06: In the absence of solid historical literature on both sides, the skirmish or otherwise should not be listed in the article, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. So far there is none from the Finnish side - not in the (official) war diaries (cited as references) nor in the official chronology (also cited as reference). Language hardly matters if the author has used solely Soviet sources. If you have anything from the Finnish side then please provide them since i have nothing beyond what i have already provided. Also so far i have backed every statement i have made with citations to what the referenced sources have said, so it has not even been OR regardless of your allegations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is pure OR. If you want to question the sources that say that the fighting did happen, you would have to find a secondary source that concludes that there was no fighting.

In the absence of solid historical literature on both sides means that there are no secondary sources from both sides, but there are secondary sources from one of the sides, which say that the fighting did happen. -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, like stated previously, if nothing took place then there would have been nothing to write down about. Not event the official chronology of the war mentions it in any way. And statement in its current form refers to the need to verification from both sides that something took place. Your demand is simply impossible to fulfill since there wouldn't be records of something that didn't take place. Even senior editors commented this matter before, (link to archived discussion) "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource... POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)", and i provided exactly that, the official chronology of the war. And once again, not OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are making the claim based on your personal research of sources; the sources don't say that there was no fighting. You fail to understand that the event did take place according to reliable sources, so the burden of proof is on you if you want to prove that it did not happen, and you have to do this without OR.

Selective quoting of others from discussions that did not lead to anywhere is not going to help you. I can also quote a third opinion, one you ignored: Appropriate if you're writing an essay for a history class, or a book about the subject, that's a fantastic point. However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points. There are a lot of reasons why that point may not have made it into war diaries, from censorship to grief. It's not our role as editors to make guesses as to what happened based on raw evidence. I know that's beuraucratic BS(it really is), but that's how wikipedia works, and for good reason. i kan reed [37] -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, wrong, you are missing the source used in addition to the war diaries which is the official chronology of the war - so you are already badly mistaken in your initial claim that the statement that fighting didn't take place would be based solely on the war diaries or on personal research. The official chronology or history of the war does not make a single mention of fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4-5 September 1941. Neither has done any of the military history books that i have looked into, and i have looked into quite a few to find a single mention of this. If you - or any one else for that matter - can find a Finnish side source please provide it, i haven't found any and neither had user Whiskey. As nothing happened nothing was recorded; so it is physically impossible to find a source stating that there would not have been fighting at that site. Essentially what you demand is a paradox in itself. Also to be more precise, war diary of unit at front-duty at the front facing the village does make a statement, it notes that it 'was quiet' (or calm/tranquil, see translations for 'rauhallinen'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that you found the right unit? Once again, there are plenty of sources that describe the fighting and your own conclusion based on your personal research of Finnish sources means nothing here. Now let others comment. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that continuing the debate on the articles' talk page here (complete with accusations of bad faith) is at all helpful. I agree with Buckshot's comment above; we need to stick to what's been published in reliable sources, and use primary sources with great care (eg, never use them to 'fill in the gaps' in secondary sources in circumstances where this is controversial). In regards to the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive infobox, as I suggested on the article's talk page a while ago, if different sources say different things the two approaches for the infobox are a) to note the differing views on the outcomes of the operation (with citations) or b) simply leave this field blank, and explain the debate over the outcomes of the operation in the article. I suspect that b) is the better option here. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a solution if there was a contradiction between the two sets of sources, but, except for one or two Finnish sources, there is no real contradiction. The sources I found describe the overall strategic result, while Wanderer602's sources focus on one of the many operational goals of the offensive - the invasion of southern Finland, which was not achieved. Setting the result to Strategic Soviet victory does not contradict the fact that one of the offensive's operational goals failed to be accomplished. Strategic victory in the result usually implies that it was not a total victory (see Battle of Coral Sea, Battle of Antietam, First Battle of the Marne). -YMB29 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To make sure the information is of the correct unit i used the chronology and secondary sources which explicitly marked the which unit was located and where. Furthermore i went through the information also from top down to make sure i wouldn't be missing anything. All the sources that describe the fighting are Soviet. And once again, none of the Finnish secondary sources discussing the fighting in the Karelian Isthmus in 1941 mention it either - there are no casualties, nothing. See what Whiskey posted above. As said what you demand is a paradox.

As discussed earlier WP:3 already gave its recommendation on the issue on your request and recommended leaving the result entry empty. You have refused to accept it. I don't really see what we should be discussing here, since matter has been discussed several times over with recommendation of leaving the result entry blank. None of the sources you have quoted on the talk page describe the result as 'strategic victory' - not even victory of any kind - either while your description that it would be solely Finnish view that operation was operational failure is not exactly truthful. Only one which states that war (note, not the offensive) could be considered victory also notes that offensive failed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So are you now claiming that only one source says that the war was a Soviet victory... Only a couple of Finnish sources say that the offensive failed (sorry, but the old Ziemke quote that was fixed in the new version of the book does not count).

So these[38] sources don't prove a Soviet strategic victory? They state the strategic goal and say that the offensive accomplished it, which means that it was a strategic victory (see [39]).

It was recommended that the result be blanked only if there is a contradiction between sources, but there is none as I have explained. Reliable English language sources, including books by known historians like Glantz and Erickson, say that it was a strategic victory, so there is no reason not to use that for a result (I don't like it is not a reason). -YMB29 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction to the statement that operation was operational failure either you do realize that? Also you can not just go ignoring sources because you do not like them, like you are doing with Ziemke. Also none of the sources you provided states that it would have been strategic victory. Most are discussing the outcome of the war, not of the offensive, and the article is about the offensive not about the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources describe the outcome of the offensive; anyone can read them and see for themselves.

There are no sources that say that the entire offensive was a failure on the operational level. I have asked for them, but none were provided.

Again, the old Ziemke quote is wrong, since it was fixed in the new version of his book. This fact cannot be ignored. -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I (or another volunteer) will address the content issues later, but the finger pointing ie. "YOU did/said think X" has to stop, immediately. It's counterproductive to the process of content dispute resolution. Please refrain from continuing discussion until another volunteer (or myself) comments further. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask the parties to comment on this statement: As the sources see the strategic and tactic goals of the offensive differently, the result of the offensive is too controversial to be explained in a couple of words. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that statement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Strategic and tactical goals are always different, so I am not sure what is meant by that.

The result is not anymore complex or controversial than the results of the battles I listed above.

The main point is if there are sources that clearly describe the overall result, why not use them? -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (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

• Enver Čolaković (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PRODUCER (talk · contribs)
• Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is over which language (Bosnian or Croatian) Enver Čolaković wrote in and can be read here for more background. Let me preface this with stating that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin are considered by linguists to all be a single Serbo-Croatian language and that these new separate names are motivated by nationalism. Having said that I have provided a source in which Čolaković himself states he wrote in Bosnian: "I started writing Legend with a specific purpose, to preserve our Bosnian language. Not the language of confessions or nations in Bosnia, but the language of Bosnia." On the other hand Wüstenfuchs suggests that he wrote in Croatian language (something which Čolaković himself never claimed in any capacity) and cites a Croatian book on "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia". I repeatedly told him that "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" and that the claim he spoke Croatian is the personal opinion of the book's author. However, the discussion went in circles and ended with him rambling on about Hitler and Jews.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed for a while and were unable to reach any conclusion and is currently at a standstill.

How do you think we can help?

Focus the discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines.

Ok, now. I never denied he wrote in Bosnian, that's first. But he also wrote in Croatian. Second, there is other source mentioned in my talk page. Third, your own judgment is to say that various oppinions on language are nationalistic, and you might insult many people who think otherwise. Nevertheless, there are two sources on my talk page, one is in the article. You started a discussion about logical fallacy and a day before you removed a sourced information. The reason why everything ended on "Hitler and Jews" was because I was explaining your fallacy. The book Who is Who in the Independent State of Croatia is a biographical book published in 1998, as I recall, and has nothing to do with the fascist state, but it would be completely different thing if you are linking a current Croatian state with the fascists. --Wüstenfuchs 21:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Enver Čolaković discussion

Can the parties elaborate the arguments against using Serbo-Croatian as the name of the language? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Some linguists say it's the same language other say no. But the question is very complex. Croatian literature is a literature written in Croatian language (or Croaitan standard if you wish), it's the reason why Čolaković is part of it. Serbo-Croatian would mean completely different thing. The best solution would be to keep both, Bosnian and Croatian. For example, some well known writers aren't part of the Croatian literature as they wrote in Serbian language, if it was a same language we would now have a one literature insted of three. Some raise this standarditaion to language, other don't. The best solution, as I think, would be to keep both Bosnian and Croatian as stated. --Wüstenfuchs 02:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no objections to that. In fact it was my first suggestion. No it really isn't "very complex" and the "languages" are all mutually intelligible. Wüstenfuchs, you still have not produced a source that Čolaković considering himself to be writing in Croatian while we do have one of him explicitly considering himself to be writing in Bosnian. "If it was same language we would now have a one literature insted of three", this whole "separate literature" matter (really just finding people, compiling them in a book, and saying they're "ours") is fueled by nationalism and politics and that reasoning would not stand up in the field of linguistics.

In response to the opening comments. It isn't my judgement. One only needs to read the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article to get the gist what's going on. I removed the "sourced information" only after you did not respond to my comment despite being active so I assumed consensus per WP:SILENCE. Also simply adding "sourced information" is not a bulletproof reason for it stay especially when the source supporting the info is not "carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". The same goes for the other source, a school book, where you're citing the opinion of the book writer for something where Čolaković's opinion is already available. I did not start "a discussion about logical fallacy" I merely pointed out the flaw in thinking that because he didn't deny writing Croatian that that somehow supports the notion that he wrote in it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, could the parties comment on the following statement: Within the period of author's activity the naming conventions for languages in Yugoslavia were unstable, and they are still not universally accepted now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The official language in SR Croatia was Croatian and his books were published by Matica hrvatska, he was member of the Croatian Society of Writers, we have two soruces stating he wrote in Croatian, the other saying he translated Sinko (a Hungarian writer) into Croatian. For your quote of Čolaković, PRODUCER, he only stated that he wrote the Legend in order to preserve the Bosnian language, but what about other books? He didn't wanted to preserve the Bosnian language? Let me also note that Bosnian didn't existed at the time, which led me to conclusion that writer was talking about specific dialect beign spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina's region of Bosnia. Croatian language (or standard) has its rulles (ijekavian dialect, infinitive endings etc) so it's a big difference. Linguists agree that grammatical difference between Croatian and for example Serbian is 35%, so it's either, Croatian od Serbian or Bosnian literature. What PRODUCER is doing is the original research. He assumed that Čolaković wrote all of his books in Bosnian even though he published, worked and lived in Croatia's Zagreb and was member of Matica hrvatska and Croatian Society of Writers. I don't see a problem with Bosnian and Croatian standing together, however, PRODUCER saw this as my "croatization" of certaion persons. --Wüstenfuchs 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the official language of Croatia was Croatian before 1974? To my knowledge it was right the opposite, and as Enver Čolaković died in 1976, we can safely state that official language in the time he was writing was Serbo-Croatian.

But it is not of much relevance anyway, as the arguments you draw can't be used per WP:SYNTH. The only source on the question — a book you cited in user talk page discussion — is subject to reasonable concerns over WP:NPOV, so I see no sources in favor of Bosnian, Croatian or both.

That said, the majority viewpoint seems to be that Serbo-Croatian includes both Bosnian and Croatian (either as languages within macrolanguage or as variants within language), so this choice seems to be less controversial.

This conclusion is particularly obvious to me as a person who moved to former Yugoslavia after its dissolution, but at the same time my opinion may be biased, so I retire from this case and leave it to someone with no affiliation with former Yugoslavia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider that he was an active writer during the Independent State of Croatia. But nevertheless, there was also Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language signed also by the Society of Croatian Writers in 1967, of which Čolaković was a member. There is no reason to exclude Croatian or Bosnian, both language should remain as languages in which Čolaković wrote his books. --Wüstenfuchs 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Czarkoff, please see Serbo-Croatian's history (specifically between 1940s-1970s) for an explanation to your above statement.

"we have two soruces stating he wrote in Croatian" Still completely ignoring if the sources are "reliable for the statement being made" and if they are the "best such source for that context".

"his books were published by Matica hrvatska" Yes, his book "Legend" was also published by Matica hrvatska and we know what he said regarding that book. Please stop relying on your own personal conclusions and trying to connect dots to your liking. The fact they are published there does not mean they are in Croatian.

"Linguists agree that grammatical difference between Croatian and for example Serbian is 35%" All linguists agree that it's "35%"? All of them? Really? Also why not 39% or 46% while figures are being pulled out of thin air?

"Bosnian didn't existed at the time, which led me to conclusion that writer was talking about specific dialect" Officiality in government does not determine whether a language exists or does not. Simply because these standards have the status of "official language" in government does not mean they are any more in existence or more authentic than they were in the past. And again the man specifically said "jezik" (language) and not "dijalekt" (dialect).

"He assumed that Čolaković wrote all of his books in Bosnian" I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: "you claim he wrote in Croatian yet you have no evidence of him saying that he did in ANY capacity while on the other hand it's been established that he said that he wrote in Bosnian (regardless of whether you interpret it to be one book or many)". For someone trying to be portrayed as loving to write in Croatian it's a bit odd he never said he actually wrote in it, but did say he wrote in Bosnian.

As for the Croatization bit, it's hard not believe that your pushing it when these diffs exist: [40][41]. This also isn't the first individual. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither he said he wrote all his books in Bosnian. For example, do we need a writer stating he wrote in specific languages? If so, then we should remove German and Hungarian, and we should remove the iformation that Hermann Hesse wrote in German, he acctualy never stated he did, as I recall. Where is the problem for leaving both languages in the infobox? Btw, the fact about the "35%" was published by Croat linguists, you might find it on Google search if you wish. Nevertheless, with so much dispute and disagreement about the language, we shouldn't add SC, but I think the best solution would be to leave the page as it is. --Wüstenfuchs 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the parties agree to "Bosnian, Croatian, German and Hungarian"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about PRODUCER, but I do. --Wüstenfuchs 17:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me also note that the same page from where you took Čolaković's quote also states he wrote in Croatian: http://www.envercolakovic.com/madarskalirika.htm ("Trojezičan od djetinjstva (mađarski, njemački i hrvatski), Enver Čolaković radi, uz svoj bogati književni opus, dvije antologije mađarske i austrijske poezije"). Besides, various sources say he wrote and translated in Croatian. I won't object including Bosnian but still, to many sources that support the information he wrote in Croatian can't be simply ignored. Also his novel the Legend about Ali Pasha was awarded as "the best Croatian novel" in 1943. I hope this might help also - [42]. His book published by the Islamic Community in Zagreb (who are Bosniaks) states he wrote in Croatian (last page, bio). --Wüstenfuchs 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What Čolaković said himself in the actual 1971 interview with Enes Čengić for World magazine is the source. Wustenfuchs you are either unwilling or simply unable to differentiate whose opinion it is that's being cited and for what or the fact that Čolaković's opinion and the opinion of what others think years after his death are two different things. Yes, "Legend", the novel which he specifically stated he wrote in Bosnian was awarded the "best Croatian novel", your point being? As for the Islamic Community in Zagreb source (the fact that you're assuming they are Bosniaks simply because they are Muslims is entirely irrelevant), like your other sources, is again not "reliable for the statement being made" nor the "best such source for that context". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Čolaković wasn't speaking about all of his novels, only the Legend. And the Legend being awarded "the best Croatian novel" speaks for it self. Think that a novel, writen in Chinese becomes the best German novel. All sources cited are relibale sources, it's your own oppinion they aren't. And Čolaković's membership in the Society of Croatian Translators and Society of Croatian Writers also speaks for itself. Do you claim that he translated Sinko in Bosnian while he was member of the Society of Croatian Translators? --Wüstenfuchs 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually if my Russian-language works will be awarded as "the best Croatian articles", they won't become written or even translated to Croatian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But they wouldn't be awared "the best Croatian articles", Russian yes, but not Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 12:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody knows that for sure. Specifically for the works written in Serbo-Croatian or Bosnian "languages" that is 35% different from Croatian for Croatian linguists and is indistinguishable for most part of the remaining world. Furthermore, as the language affairs are motivated politically by far more then linguistically, "the best Croatian book" award says something only about those giving it, not about those receiving it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'l give you a point to think about until any more objective volunteer joins this discussion: Čolaković lived at the time when (1) the official language was Serbo-Croatian and (2) the status of Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian languages was a topic of numerous political discussions and events, but unlike most of contemporary writers he didn't explicitly state his position. Does that indicate anything to you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He also wrote when the official language was Croatian during the Independent State of Croatia when he wrote his best novel... My point is that Croatian language shouldn't be moved as it was one of the languages used by Čolaković. PRODUCER states it's fallacy when I say he wrote in Croatian but Čolaković himself never said he did, but if so we should remove every language and we should remove languages of vast majority of writers, as many of them never said they wrote in certain languages. But nevertheless, modern literature always speaks of him as Croatian writer who wrote in Croatian, not Serbo-Croatian but Croatian. Any book, you may search everywhere. For example here, his book was published in 1970 in Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 12:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which he said he wrote in Bosnian and I already told you that officiality of language in government means nothing. He's "reliable for the statement being made" and the "best such source for this context". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Croatian should remain. As you may see, rest of the books were writen in Croaitan also. --Wüstenfuchs 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they were described as being written in Croatian, which may demonstrate that they indeed are written in Croatian, or that the publisher is saying they are written in Croatian in order to enforce his political position the way he can. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the case because Čolaković's book published in Sarajevo by Sarajevo Publishing in 1997 ([43]) was also writen in Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Has it really stooped to a library catalog as being represented as some authorative source? [44] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, scroll down. Nevertheless, the libary catalogue that I provided is of the Yale University. --Wüstenfuchs 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This link actually shows that he wrote in a language that is considered Croatian, Bosnian or Serbian depending on archive where it was categorized. That is not exactly an argument in favor of any particular language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider that Čolaković wrote for number of newspapers in Croatian language. You may see those in the article. As I said, I agree we leave both Bos and Cro. --Wüstenfuchs 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I am Amadscientist and I have volunteered to review this DR/N. Give me a moment and I will begin.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a look and I would like to thank Dmitrij D. Czarkoff for assistance in moving the discussion forward. At this time I think there is a very good discussion going, however one criteria for filing at DR/N is to have an active talkpage discussion ongoing before filing here. My opinion is that this should be kicked back to the talkpage as not meeting basic criteria to file at DR/N, No talkpage discussion. DRN is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. Moving forward, parties should post each claim being disputed and how it differes from sources. I would also ask that any source being used or quoted for use meet RS criteria so we can begin eliminating what does not work for our standards. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability. I am transferring this discussion intact and in full to be continued on Talk:Enver Čolaković.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2012 (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

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Andromedean (talk · contribs)
• Sport and politics (talk · contribs)
• Showmebeef (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have attempted to provide an article of the controversial attempts to use technological advances in cycling so athletes gain a potential advantage for the London 2012 Olympics.

First of all the article was removed on the basis that 'the British team did well', then on the basis is isn't controversial because no rules were broken. When I find evidence that it is controversial the excuse it doesn't matter how many quotes and research I find, it doesn't make it controversial. Initial tactics involved just removing quotes from reports and even statements on the basis that there 'was no evidence', then more sophisticated methods were used such as I am using 'synthesis'. Suggesting that members may be biased leads to threats that I may be bannd for calling other memebers! I have clarified a point with a University professor to clarify a point, only for users to use the excuse the fact can't be used because it needs an expert to understand. Another example is that improvements in the 1 hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevence to the Olympics because the event isn't used in the Olympics!

The latest tactic is to corrupt the article slowly, and so it appears not to address London 2012 so it can be removed to a less prominent section. This appears mainly the work od one member who encourages this behaviour in a few others.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Send an Email 'ArbCom-l' with the subject Arbitration - Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Technologies_used_for_Olympic_sports Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list

Nothing seems to have happened

How do you think we can help?

Examine if the rules are being misused (overzealous), examining the edits. Point out that members must be unbiased. Warn members not to remove extracts if they are quotes from respected sources. Respect other members research and don't blind users with high sounding wikipedia rules such as 'synthesis' when there is no justification!

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

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussion

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

The 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:Jolla (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TuukkaH (talk · contribs)
• Ocexyz (talk · contribs)
• Bahaltener (talk · contribs)
• Dark Almöhi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Secondary sources and Jolla itself say "Jolla OS is based on MeeGo". Jolla itself also says "Jolla OS is based on Mer". Technically, Jolla OS is based on Mer, and Mer is based on MeeGo. Mer is not very notable (yet) and could be characterised as a technical detail.

Should we trust the secondary sources and keep to them in the article intro? Or, should we make inferences that the secondary sources are incomplete, and keep to the more technically precise formulation?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've discussed the matter for two weeks now on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Focus the discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines.

(Intro)

Thank you for give me more time. I will be able to take part in discussion late on Friday, but it can happen that only on Saturday midday. Here is my statement with sources and text of sources. This has enlarged text but it will save your time on digging into sources, every of them has link so you can verify in person weather they are as here or different. The boldings of txt are by Ocexyz to pay your attention. I tried to make clear where is original text and where is my comment. Those texts has been cut, removed were parts not important for this discussion IMHO, so this is compilation.

0) My point

“Jolla OS is MeeGo based fork and use the core of the Mer which is the MeeGo core fork.” is reasonable, sourced, confirmed, factual and true, and comply Wikipedia standards.

Dispute overview is not clear enough, or not precise enough. Secondary sources and Jolla itself say "Jolla OS is based on MeeGo". Jolla itself also does not say "Jolla OS is based on Mer" (if I am wrong please provide link with confirmation in reliable source) it says "Jolla OS is based on the Mer core ". Technically, Jolla OS is based on the Mer core or the merproject, and Mer is fork of the MeeGo core and MeeGo project. Mer is not well known to end users, but quite notable for interested in vendors and known for the MeeGo and developers community. The Mer core could be characterised as a technical detail among others in the future Jolla OS.

1) The Jolla

There are no sources confirming that Jolla OS is “Based on the Mer Linux” exclusively and only, what is the point of opponents.

Jollla has declared several times by different persons their system is MeeGo and they, the Jolla company, is going to develop MeeGo ecosystem with former, current and future members of MeeGo community including: customers, software and system developers, mobile carriers, including both organizations (like companies-institutions-foundations etc.) and single p...

Ocexyz (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: THE ABOVE 23,580 CHARACTER ENTRY WAS TRUNCATED AT 2,000 CHARACTERS AFTER AUTHOR FAILED TO VOLUNTARILY SHORTEN IT. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In short I was saying that we know that Jolla is technically based on Mer Core, and they use Meego name in their announcements for familiarity (i.e. social/marketing) reasons. We have no sources to show that Jolla is based on Meego project as in contrast to the Mer project (and those are two separately managed projects now). I.e. on something from Meego that is not coming from Mer. Therefore for the sake of clarity and correctness the summary should say that Jolla is based on the Mer Core. I agree to the importance of highlighting that Jolla is historically connected to the Meego project (through Mer), while at the same time I consider it important to highlight that Mer and Meego are distinct now, and Jolla is not based technically on the the frozen project (Meego). So I can propose such phrasing: "Jolla OS is based on the Mer Core and continues the work started by the MeeGo project". Or even clearer it could sound: "Jolla OS is based on the Mer Core through which it continues the work started by the MeeGo project". These phrases will show the distinction and will highlight the relation at the same time.

As already mentioned the dispute is about the expression "Jolla OS is based on Meego". In my opinion this is wrong, because the Meego project was closed last year. Meego was started from Nokia and Intel, however Nokia switched completely to Windows and Intel founded a new partnership with Samsung and started Tizen. Therefore you can see "Tizen" advertised on top and bottom on every Meego webpage. There you can also see the roadmap: https://meego.com/about/roadmaps which ends in 2011, however the planned Meego 1.3 was never finished. The last version is 1.2 and that is under "life-support", i.e. there are bug-fixes and minor updates, nothing else or new. Because Meego was shut down, the open source community took over the project. They forked the codebase, re-organized it and cut down the needed packages. This is called "Mer" or Mer Core. Most notable is that they don't provide a user-interface. Jolla said on twitter that they are "based on Meego" (note the missing version number); however, they also wrote that Jolla OS is "running on Mer", and moreover they openly stated ""#MeeGo is the name people know and love. #merproject is the core OS project name." Therefore it is obvious to me that they use the Meego brand only for advertisement purposes and to gain some attention, but not for technical reasons. My last attempt for a compromise was "Jolla is based on the Meego API", because Meego's API consists only of QT/QT mobile and OpenGL ES, which btw. is not used any longer in Intel's Tizen project. This attempt however, was not fruitful either. The response were some official statements from intel, stating that they are still committed to Meego. Which however is against the facts that the central Qt libraries are not used any longer in Tizen (and of course there are no new roadmaps/plans for Meego). Maybe the best and most neutral statement now would be to omit both, Meego and Mer and only write "based on a FOSS GNU/Linux and Qt and aimed on mobile/small devices", which I believe is what the Jolla people really mean when they say Meego. But of course, I don't have a source or proof for that. Thanks for reading and helping, your decision is very appreciated. I just want the discussion to end soon. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jolla discussion (volume 1)

• Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'll be assisting this request. The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal and nonbinding. The compromise would be to do both. Mention that Jolla is based on Mer, citing a primary source, then write that Mer uses code from Meego, citing a secondary source. That seems to be the basic consensus on the talk page, User:Dark Almöhi supported "Jolla OS is based on Mer and continues the work which was started by MeeGo" and User:Bahaltener supported "Jolla OS is based on Mer Linux core and strongly rooted in the MeeGo project." Although primary sources should be used with caution because of neutrality concerns, they're fine for citing technical details. I'll wait for the opening statements to clarify the issue, but that's my grasp of the dispute so far.--SGCM (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's primary sourced it is the kind of detail which doesn't belong in the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not been picked up by secondary sources and has insufficient weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how technical the details are. I've read the proposals for the lead in the talk page, and I agree that some are too elaborate. The lead should summarize the content of the body paragraphs, per the Manual of Style.--SGCM (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful, the problem is not a long or short introduction, the problem is about the ambiguously used "Meego" term. According to my opinion that term is used in too many contexts with various meanings, therefore it is not suitable to be used at the beginning of a text, as the context there is missing. Thus I either don't want to use it at all, or narrow it down, e.g. by writing "Meego API", or I have to embed it in a context, i.e. explain the whole story. However, for the latter, the aforementioned "elaborateness" is needed. Hence, the article's lead-length is not the problem it is only the consequence of the problem, i.e. secondary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Almöhi (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 August 2012‎ (UTC)

How about a short summary in the lead, followed by a more technical description in the body paragraphs? That's usually the convention.--SGCM (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but the "short summary" so far was "based on Meego", which is in my opinion wrong or at least confusion, as that term is used for all sorts of things. I assume that anybody involved could agree on "based on FOSS GNU/Linux", which could fix the lead problem, but then the same discussion would start in the technical part and we would be back here in no time. After Ocexyz wrote his opening statement, you will maybe see the real problem. He just edited the article now, so hopefully he will write here soon, too. In general how do things work here? Could we somehow ask some Linux "guru" for his expertise, too? --Dark Almöhi (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not a "guru", I might be competent enough to say a word here. Still, we should probably wait a bit more for Ocexyz before we begin. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, ok "guru" was maybe a too strong expression *g*, let's say it like: As long as you know that the Nokia's N9 Meego wasn't Meego you are ok ;-) No, just kidding, I see that you wrote some OpenBSD articles, that is a relief to know. My Jolla article on the German WP was finally deleted by an admin who mainly writes about medieval wars. But well, maybe just a "guru" with a strange hobby, I don't care any longer.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: Me and Bahaltener share the same view. The problem is between us two and the remaining 2 participants. I will write my statement during the week-end, just waiting for the last feedback for the last try to find a compromise without help. Anyway, thanks for your time.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I pinged Ocexyz about his opening comments, and he responded that he would prefer to participate, though he has no time for it until the weekend. Given that the case is filed some time ago, quite a lot of discussion happened at the article's talk page since and at least some of disputants consider Ocexyz's input critical for the dispute resolution process, I would propose to close it now and give it a fresh start on Friday evening (August 24, 2012), when everybody have time to discuss the issue in interactive manner. Any objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem with me, but the discussion on the article's talk page more or less stopped. We have to wait for Ocexyz's input, so - even if you don't close, I don't expect lots of discussion. But do as you like, you are the boss ^^

Just a last note for the upcoming discussion. I googled around and the current problem is probably a bit similar to the previous Harmattan <> Meego difference. Here is an small post about that: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=529073&postcount=14 There are two POVs, developer view and enduser/marketing view, I think our problem is rooted here, too. Ok enough now, cu on Friday, have a nice week. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem with me either. --TuukkaH (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We could close the case, but that would mean that all the participants will have to restate their opening comments. I wonder if there's an option to put it on hold?--SGCM (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean closing means deleting and open up a new,empty one? That I didn't know, I thought it is as you suggested some kind of a "on hold" function. In any case everybody will wait for Ocexyz there are only 2 days left until Friday now. I wouldn't worry too much about it --Dark Almöhi (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that all the opening comments have been posted, it seems that all four parties agree that the lead should mention both Mer and Meego. The dispute is over how the lead should be worded. Would "Jolla uses the Mer core, which is based on the Meego project" for the lead be acceptable to all parties? Let's avoid mentioning whether Jolla is Meego-based or not, and instead, leave it at saying that the Mer project originates from the Meego project. Technical details can be expanded upon in the body paragraphs.--SGCM (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because the Mer core is just a technical detail, the lowest layer and technical one only. Recently an iPhone was pictured to have the Samsung battery. Will you say because of this technical detail that iPhone is Samsung based or Samsung mobile? I think no. More or less this is your proposal. Following this logic we could mentions some dozen if not hundreds names of the same level as Mer is together with Mer (including eg GSM ect.), but it does not make any sense at all. I don't question Jolla OS is using or is based on the Mer core - it is I who have put this for the first time into the article content. If you would say "the operating system based/using FAT32" then not necessary everybody will understand you mean "Windows" right?

MeeGo is superior quality of Jolla OS then the Mer core which in fact is just more developed part of MeeGo. The company use in sources clearly "MeeGo based" and to this can be added a technical detail of the Mer core, this is logical and source based. But not in opposite way IMHO. Also we can't hide that the whole ecosystem by Jolla is based on MeeGo. They build worldwide MeeGo ecosystem but their mobile is only Mer based? Why? This is confusing for most of Wikipeida users. And it is against what sources say also. That would not be any consensus. This could be "Jolla OS is a Linux based on MeeGo and Mer projects" or something. MeeGo is main aspect of the Jolla OS and the Jolla company, just it was formed to continue MeeGo development and use it's opportunities, just can't be omitted. The relation is {MeeGo[Mer(Mer core)]) but not {Mer core[MeeGo]). Wikipedia is not for half-truths IMHO. The consensus can't be against facts, can we agree with this? Ocexyz (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ocexyz, is it possible to re-factor your opening statement to be more succinct? Currently it's rather lengthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• IRWolfie, I have tried hardly a few days already, but discussion is mainly about respecting sources vs. editor's POV, so at this moment I think not - others need to read this to get understand the problem, what is not easy. Otherwise we will not make any progress, as so far. Then it can be moved to the "Jolla talk page" or something. Ocexyz (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a compromise. Let's use a broad statement like "Jolla is derived from the Meego and Mer projects" in the lead, and leave the technical details in the body paragraphs. The lead should avoid using the word "x-based" to describe Jolla, whether Meego-based or Mer-based, which is ambiguous, to sidestep the entire dispute over the technicalities.--SGCM (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

1) How about "Jolla OS Linux came from the Meego and Mer projects"?

2) As we are discussing and you are experienced I'd like to ask: do my arguments and sources as above used are with or against Wikipedia standards? Have I confirmed enough to add to the article (later, not in the led) that Jolla OS is MeeGo based and Mer based of course? And that Jolla is going to build MeeGo ecosystem, but not Mer ecosystem. Note: it does not negate that Jolla OS is also Mer based! I'd like to ask if my approach considering the way I confirm facts upon sources is correct in the Jolla case?

3) My aim is to provide the best possible knowledge about Jolla, Jolla OS and Jolla's products. I have provided materials in my initial statements as I'd like to explain why I think that MeeGo is behind and around all current Jolla actions and plans IMHO.

4) I'd like also to provide all interested current MeeGo background, in good faith. MeeGo still is under development, and as MeeGo, not in frames of Mer, not in frames of Jolla.

No Meego is not any longer in development, see the old roadmap at meego.com. The only thing you can claim is that Meego's idea are living on through Mer, but they have their own name, and are doing a good job now. I don't see any reason to hide their fine work by using the out-dated Meego brand. With the same logic, you might want to use the even older names Moblin or Mameo. A few differences, but more or less the same, so why not use it? The obvious answer to that question is: Because these projects are discontinued, too. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

5) Additional factor is one of last Jolla tweets, which can be treated as further "MeeGo-based" confirmation. Jolla asked about "support of the same QML components, paths, folders ect. than Nokia did for Nokia N9, so developers can repackage apps ease", has answered that "use of QML including Harmattan components is encouraged", but "the details of the SDK will be shown later". Consequences of this can be using in Jolla OS the same structure like the MeeGo instance Harmattan, or it's elements what is IMHO more probable then cloning it. The common element will be again MeeGo, however Harmattan is not pure MeeGo but MeeGo instance only. Ocexyz (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, all the parties agree on the same facts (Jolla uses the Mer core, which originates from the MeeGo, and that Jolla is a successor to the MeeGo project). The dispute is over the wording of the article, and how best to express the claims made by sources. The problems arise, not from the reliable sources per se, but from the ambiguity of the word "based" in the context of the lead. The best solution is to avoid the word entirely. "Jolla OS Linux came from the Meego and Mer projects" is a good compromise. Perhaps "Jolla OS Linux stems from the Meego and Mer projects" might work as well.--SGCM (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note, that I don't see any claim that Jolla uses something from Meego outside Mer, which makes overall dispute somehow weird. IMO the only reason to mention Meego in the lede is to explain Mer's background and status, which may be better served by the explanatory footnote. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind the dispute is that Jolla officially markets itself as a successor to the Meego project, even if it is via Mer.--SGCM (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am affraid you don't get it. Mer is the project which one of its goal have to become MeeGo 2.0. Jolla created own system and described it as "MeeGo based with the Mer core". The merproject itself is not a full Linux distribution so Jolla's Linux can't be Mer Linux for this reason. Mer is a part for developers and vendors, MeeGo is the whole system which contains the core, and it can be used Mer core (and will be). Yes Jolla is building their marketing on MeeGo, as the Jolla company has been established as the foundators has "seen the unused bussiness opportunities in MeeGo". The dispute started as around "to exclude or not to exclude MeeGo" as the Jolla OS is the Mer Linux.

Hurmola and other ex-Nokia staffers launched Jolla and have announced plans to release a MeeGo-based device by the end of 2012. The startup has so far divulged few other concrete details, but previously stated "Jolla Ltd. has been developing a new smartphone product and the OS since the end of 2011. The OS has evolved from MeeGo OS using Mer Core and Qt with Jolla technology including its own brand new UI." My opponents claimed the Mer core is full Linux distribution and completely separated from MeeGo project, what is not true IMHO.

Not acceptable according to me would be to exclude MeeGo and leave Mer, as MeeGo is linux and Jolla's ecosytem, while Mer is the core - set of libraries creating Linux kernel + hardware implementation on various platforms by different chip manufactureres like ARM and Intel microprocessors. Whatmore Jolla is actively contributing to Mer. This is a cooperation not a rivalisation. Discussion is rooted in weak reaserches on subjects which are MeeGo, Mer and Jolla IMHO.

I think "Jolla OS is mobile Linux which came from the Meego and Mer projects" is acceptable. What now is my proposal for consensus. Later in articla any details can be developed.

Yes, discussion is a bit weird, also when opponents do not provide any sources for confirmation. I wanted to show as clearly as possible what is what and why, and not to delete not confirmed by any sources speculations which in my opinion would be legitimate as after ^{[citation needed]} action . So wanted to show all possible arguments. And one day a Finnish person has taken us here to point proper Wikipedia policies to follow. Ocexyz (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you replying to me or Czarkoff? Anyhow, it seems to me that we're nearing a compromise. Are you fine with "Jolla is a mobile Linux-based operating system which stems from the MeeGo and Mer projects"? Slightly reworded, but similar to your proposal, and the proposals of the other parties.--SGCM (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Because "came from" or "stems" sounds weired to me, too, as if two projects were merged into one, like one is the father and the other one is the mother project. But that would be false, as it is simply that Mer is Meego's heir. Somebody may call it Meego 2.0 unofficially, yes, but officially the Meego OS project ended, plus several changes. Hence the new name "Mer" for its successor. We could write Jolla stems from Mer which stems from Meego, but I assume that would be too complicated for a lead, wouldn't it?

Replying to your comment from 18:19:

Yes and the question is if we should follow marketing in a wikipedia article. I only want to mentioned the technical side, because I don't see much sense in paraphrasing advertisement claims for an encyclopedia article. However, we also have a section about corporate affairs. I just got the idea to write "Jolla OS is based on FOSS Linux" in the lead, then Mer in the technical part, and Meego in the corporate affairs under a subsection marketing / ecosystem etc. I wouldn't bother in that case. How about that? --Dark Almöhi (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would "is related to" be acceptable? As in "Jolla is a mobile Linux-based operating system which is related to the MeeGo and Mer projects." Then the technical details will be covered in the body paragraphs, not the lead, as you've proposed.--SGCM (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm "related" ... sounds very weak. If we cannot find a better solution, ok, but it sounds like "related to Unix System V" to me. Instead of such a weak relation, I would omit it then completely. I would only keep it, if it is not explained later in the article in a marketing / technical section.--Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is important that this project is marketed as a new generation of Meego, this should be said explicitly. Still, as I see from the sources, the term Meego is used only to facilitate recognition of the project's base platform. Thus the straightforward policy-based way to address Mer/Meego issue is to drop any mention of "Meego" in the lede itself and leave a footnote explaining the reason why some sources refer to the project as being Meego-based. Leaving Meego in the lede makes the article misleading by implying that some code was taken directly from official Meego repository. This is WP:V in action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree to it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a marketing tool, it need to concentrate on facts. Factual background - Jolla uses Mer. Nothing was said about them using Meego project. Therefore the factual side needs to be mentioned in the introduction. As a compromise it could say - based on Mer which continues Meego. -- Bahaltener (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Excluding any mention of Meego or Mer is an option. But I'm not sure how the parties of this dispute will respond to that proposal.--SGCM (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dmitrij D. Czarkoff: yes. And there is no any confirmation it will NOT have any MeeGo code. Besides of the code there are also rules set by MeeGo project which are taken directly and called above by DA as "MeeGo API". Marketing is only one aspect. IT aspects will follow both MeeGo and Mer projects, not only Mer. Mer core technology is low lewel term like GSM technology for all mobiles, but it is not a mobile. By leaving Mer and dropping MeeGo the article would suggest this product has got nothin common with MeeGo while this is not true. The Jolla smartphone is an element of MeeGo ecosystem not the Mer. The perhaps options would be to use "Jolla OS is mobile Linux fork came from the MeeGo and Mer projects" or "Jolla OS is mobile Linux fork came from the MeeGo/Mer projects". Sometimes it is used "MeeGo/Mer".

I think dropping neither MeeGo nor Mer is acceptable, both are elements of this puzzle. Ocexyz (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@all, about: This is WP:V in action. Yes, that is the point to consider. There are no sources that confirms "Jolla OS comes from Mer" sources says "Jolla OS use the Mer core" this is significant difference. And there are sources says "Jolla is MeeGo based" - that is why I claim that excluding MeeGo is exactly against WP:V. Also Jolla has confirmed this "We use Meego" in Twiter. What DA propose are his speculations about MeeGo and Mer relations, with full respect. Ocexyz (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read my opening statement. Your sources are invalidated by Jolla's other statement, that they are "running on Mer" and ""#MeeGo is the name people know and love. #merproject is the core OS project name." Using sth because of "know and love" but in reality running on Mer is simply marketing and in the strict sense simply wrong --Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see Jolla's last comment, when sb asked about if they are based on the never released Meego 1.3 codebase:

Quote Jolla: We are basing on #merproject core which has been developed since MeeGo project stopped work.

https://twitter.com/JollaMobile/status/237124152283262976

It was mentione above that "primary sources are good for technical details. Jolla dirictly has declared "our OS is MeeGo based with using the Mer core". If I have understood correctly DA would like to treat Jolla OS as developed on Mer OS and not to use MeeGo in the article. There is no such a possibility. There are only a few sources where Mer is mentioned and plenty of sources where MeeGo is confirmed. Wikipedia can't be used for promoting Mer purposes, that would be the case. Ocexyz (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I just don't want it in either the lede (because it could be understood technically), nor in the technical part. But I would not bother if you write about the "Meego ecosystem" in the "cooperate affairs" section in a "marketing" subsection, or whatever you want to call it. Edit: I just made my last idea bold so people can see it easier. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is how a reliable source has been phrasing the relationship between Jolla, Mer, and Meego: "One source Jolla is looking to for talent are contributors to the Linux-based Mer Project, the core operating system of the MeeGo fork Jolla has chosen to build upon" from ZD Net [45]. Perhaps we can use that as an inspiration for how to word the lead?--SGCM (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is a reliable source stating that Jolla is based on Mer, not on any other Meego port. That's why excluding Meego goes in line with WP:V (and keeping it doesn't). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, some reliable sources exclude Mer and focus on Meego. Like this article on PC Magazine or this one on Slashgear.--SGCM (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There would be a problem, if these sources contained the word "Mer", but attributed Jolla to Meego. On contrary, PC Magazine says: "Last month, it was revealed that the new MeeGo OS device will incorporate Mer Core and Qt, as well as a new user interface", which translates to "uses Mer<ref group="note">Most sources call the base platform by its historical name "Meego" instead of specifying the name of the less known descendent.</ref>". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether the lead should mention that Mer is derived from the Meego project. As most of the reliable sources mention Meego along with Mer, I think there is a convincing argument to include it in the lead, per the reliable sources. I don't think it's necessary to relegate it to a note.--SGCM (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This inspiration proposed above something what I have already proposed "smartphones with the mobile Linux operating system, the MeeGo fork using the core of Mer which is based on the previous work of the MeeGo project." what could be transformed to following: "Jolla OS is a mobile Linux operating system, the MeeGo fork built upon the Linux-based Mer Project" - how about this? The same reliable source should be an inspiration also with following: "Those who make the cut will form part of its target of having 100 Finnish staff by the end of 2012, the soft deadline for the launch of its smartphone based on a MeeGo OS fork." Ocexyz (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to it. Seems reasonable.--SGCM (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand you right: do you know any sources claiming that Jolla is based on something different from Mer and in-house UI? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is meritoric mistake in your thinking. How can I upload a picture here, advice me please and you will understand it hope IOcexyz (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Mer is the core distribution, not a base platform, only raw material to built the platform. Mer itself is not a Linux distribution. And second: every bit of the Mer is developed MeeGo, in every aspect. eg: when Ford make order to sub-supplier XYZ for seats, and then mount it in to a car, then this car by complying Ford standards and by saying it still remain Ford but not XYZ.

You asked about sources omitting Mer, there are such a sources. But this is because Mer is only a technical detail. Claiming that Mer is not included to Jolla MeeGo would be a falsification. Ocexyz (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read my initial statement point 2) the mer - so you will understand better relation - in fact Mer is a kind of environment in community to sustain MeeGo, for trademark reasons and for cut several libraries and for approved policy do not use MeeGo name now. But claiming it is not related to MeeGo is just a mistake, and technical one. Ocexyz (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not in relation of Meego and Mer (or Meego and Jolla). The problematic aspect is that you are mixing marketing and technical aspects in one sentence, which is misleading. Technically Jolla is based on Mer, not on Meego old source base. From marketing standpoint it is successor of Meego. These two facts should not be included in the same phrase. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Meego-based", by itself, is misleading, but I don't think anyone is advocating that position anymore. Wording similar to that which is used by the reliable sources, like it "uses the Mer core, which is a fork of the Meego project," might be acceptable to all parties.--SGCM (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because it still makes the relation between these three hidden. Mer is not a fork, it is continued development of Meego, as well as Meego itself was continued development of Moblin and Maemo. Jolla is a custom distribution of Mer, which makes a free ride on well-known Meego trademark. You may safely replace the words "Maemo", "Meego", "Mer" and "Jolla" with "Multix", "Unix", "Linux" and "Debian" respectively, and you'll have the exactly same relation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A fork is continued development.--SGCM (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A fork is development alongside the main project. The project to resurrect another project isn't normally called a fork, as no distinct product is developed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting bogged down in semantics and technicalities in the same way that Talk:Jolla was. We need to reach a compromise, one that accurately represents the reliable sources and one that everyone can agree on. If it's really necessary, let's just directly quote from the source so that we won't have to argue over the wording.--SGCM (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that one may call a text that doesn't eliminate the problem a compromise. In effect, the question behind this particular dispute can be answered either "yes" or "no" ("Jolla is based on Mer" or "Jolla is based on Meego"), and the abomination that is currently in the lede, as well as those proposed above, are worse then any of these answers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dimitri I'll try better formatting text.

Source you asked for http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/07/13/jolla-mobile-picks-up-the-pieces-of-meego-to-build-and-release-a-new-phone

"We want to inherit the best elements from MeeGo," says Hurmola. And there is none a word about Mer. Ocexyz (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I asked for source that says that something from Meego, but not from Mer is in the Jolla. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just quote from the source: "ZDNet has written that Jolla uses the "Linux-based Mer Project, the core operating system of the MeeGo fork Jolla has chosen to build upon." Would quoting from the reliable source make all the parties of the dispute happy? This way, there's no fighting over the wording.--SGCM (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer: "no way". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the absurdity of a dispute over the wording of a single sentence in the lead being several times longer than the actual article. Do you have any Wikipedia policy related objections to quoting from the source? It's acceptable per WP:RS and WP:V.--SGCM (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is unacceptable per WP:MOSINTRO, WP:V and WP:RECENT: we shouldn't quote sources in misleading way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above, against standard. I'd rather propose somthing like this "Jolla OS is mobile Linux, the MeeGo fork built upon Linux-based the Mer Project". I'd like a compromise have sense, so to be applicable anywhere. And I am afraid if after all my too long statemant Dark A still argue MeeGo is only a marketing, then most probably we will be back..... :( Ocexyz (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is factually wrong, because Jolla aren't creating any forks. They are using a fork - i.e. Mer. Precision is important and any obfuscated and confusing summaries aren't acceptable. -- Bahaltener (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What Jolla is doing is exactly creating MeeGo fork, especially in area of UI. Otherwise this UI would not be compatible with other MeeGo fork which is the Mer core distribution. For the user it will be a new UI, but technically it will be MeeGo fork. And whole OS will be MeeGo fork. Exactly precision is important and any obfuscated and confusing summaries aren't acceptable. Ocexyz (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSINTRO allows quotations for controversial materials in the lead: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." The fact that this dispute has been going on for weeks is evidence that it is controversial and "likely to be challenged." I don't see how WP:RECENT applies, and there's nothing misleading about the quote. It's a direct quote from the article.--SGCM (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)\

Honestly, I dislike the use of quotations as a matter of personal taste, but we have to find some sort of resolution that all the parties of the dispute can agree on. Quotations are allowed for claims that are controversial per policy, but usually as a last resort and as long as it is properly attributed per WP:V.--SGCM (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jolla discussion (volume 2)

Alright, let's go over everyone's POVs on the dispute, and try to reach a compromise starting from there:

• The lead should mention both Mer and MeeGo, but emphasize that Jolla is based on the MeeGo ecosystem. (supported by Ocexyz and TuukkaH)
• The lead should mention both Mer and Meego, but emphasize that Jolla is based on Mer, and that Meego is mostly marketing. (supported by Bahaltener and Dark Almöhi)
• Exclude any mention of MeeGo at all, except as a note. (supported by Czarkoff)

So, how do we compromise? Remember, as per WP:RS, the wording must be based on how the reliable sources present the information, and not how we personally view the relationship between Jolla, Mer, and MeeGo. Perhaps we need a DRN on this DRN. :P --SGCM (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, but: " "Jolla OS is mobile Linux, it has evolved from MeeGo OS using Mer Core and Qt with Jolla technology including its own brand new UI." as this is quotations. There are about over 250 sources I ought to look for a proper quotation... I am demotivated, but only a bit.... ;) Ocexyz (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: I once proposed: Jolla OS is based on Mer and continues the work which was started by MeeGo. But it was refused by Ocexyz.

Furthermore you missed my proposal from above (too much text I guess ^^): No reference of Meego or Mer in the lede, then Meego in a "marketing" part and Mer in the technical section.

In general I see a problem with using that wikipedia rule, because we don't have many "reliable sources". Everybody is using Meego, then I visit meego.com and I dont find anything about Jolla or even a roadmap after 2011. That is a "bit" strange imo. The semantics are simply mixed everywhere and we are trying to get that straight. Hence, I doubt that you could solve our problem by using sources, because these sources are the very problem. I liked the fork-idea first, but Czarkoff is right, too. The original meego is not developed any further, thus it is not a fork. This is also part of the problem. Because there is no "real" Meego 2.0, people use the term Meego instead of Mer which is Meego's successor, thus it is "kind of Meego 2.0". You could use that in a casual conversation, but it does not fit the requirements for an encyclopedia imo. --Dark Almöhi (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, not exactly exclude any mention of Meego, but to decouple marketing and technical standpoint. Eg.:

Jolla Oy (commonly called Jolla Mobile) is an independent Finland-based smartphone manufacturer start-up continuing the development of the Linux-based mobile operating system previously known as MeeGo. Jolla intends to announce its first smartphone product, equipped with Mer project's operating system^[a] and custom user interface during 2012.

<...>

Notes

1. ^ After Nokia discontinued the development of MeeGo, Mer project was started as community-based effort to continue the development.