Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

  – This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• MisterDub (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• dave souza (talk · contribs)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• Noformation (talk · contribs)
• Yopienso (talk · contribs)
• BabyJonas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:North8000 wishes to add some information about previous uses of the phrase intelligent design before its adoption by creation scientists. I (and others) feel this information belongs elsewhere, in the Teleological argument.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is a recurring discussion on the Talk pages. It gets much attention, the consensus ends up keeping the current page, and discussion dies down until the issue is reopened. No other steps have been taken.

How do you think we can help?

I think this dispute revolves around the common names for these subjects, and it would be nice to have some input on that front. North8000 often characterizes it as a problem of scope (i.e. that the article currently disregards all intelligent design (ID) that is not associated with the Discovery Institute), and we could probably use some expertise in distinguishing ID from the teleological argument (aka argument from design).

Summary of dispute by North8000

This is more complex than described:

• There are three larger interrelated issues ("chicken-and-the-egg" type interrelations) and the described question is merely a proposed edit relating to them it is not the issue.
• There is a larger longer term difference of opinion. The described edit is just a tiny bit of addressing concerns expressed by a large number of editors. Also, as many of those have been "chased away" an RFC with external eyes may be needed. (though the vast majority of the editors there keep it on a high plane and do not do such things which makes this very promising)

Nevertheless I would be happy to participate here. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by dave souza

Since before April 2012, North8000 has been arguing that the scope of the ID article and the term is broader than the modern adaptation of the design argument as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. As an outcome of discussion on his June 2012 proposal for a scope-defining statement which would have widened the scope of the article, trimming of the Origins of the term section was discussed. Following broad agreement that original research and examples unrelated to the current usage should be trimmed, I made edits starting to implement this on 3 July 2012, then following talk page discussion, moved examples to a footnote.[1] Thus examples which are peripheral to modern use of the term are covered in summary style.

North8000 has persisted with discussions trying to widen the scope of the ID article beyond the modern usage of intelligent design, and has repeatedly requested that more prominence should be given in the article to these offtopic examples of what he calls Historic intelligent design material. Despite repeated requests, no new secondary sources have been shown to support these proposed changes. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Guettarda

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

Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu

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

Summary of dispute by Cla68

This is a content dispute that probably should be addressed in an RfC as recommended by North8000. North8000 mentions that editors have been "chased away" which is a reference to what I believe is a larger problem with that article. The talk page for the Intelligent Design article is one of the most hostile discussion forums I have ever come across in Wikipedia. I myself have been subjected to personal insults on that article talk page several times in the last few months after posting an opinion. Opinions left by new or IP editors are sometimes removed by other editors, and other editors on that page feel it is ok to revert war on contributions to the article without prior discussion. I believe effective administrator intervention may be necessary. Notice I said "effective". Unfortunately, I don't believe WP's current administration is up to the task. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Andrew Lancaster

Maybe more opinions can help but I note there are already a fairly large number of experienced good faith editors on the article talk page, and the discussion is fairly rational. The basic policies which are relevant are clear, and not really in dispute, and this is as far as I can see a case where careful balancing/judgment is inevitably going to require some discussion. I'd suggest anyone interested should look at the talk page first and consider whether it is better to post directly there (keeping all discussion in one place).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

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

Summary of dispute by Noformation

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

Summary of dispute by Yopienso

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

Summary of dispute by BabyJonas

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

Talk:Intelligent design discussion

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

• I'd have to concur with Cla68 here. An RFC I think would be the best way to go - get as many uninvolved people discussing this as possible, and come to a consensus that way. I'd be happy to help set up the RFC. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like this one has gone quiet - I'll close it out in 24 hours if there's nothing else discussed here but an RFC seems the way to go with this one. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Before closing this, perhaps people would like to take account of what is happening on the Teleological argument page. I see that it is involved in this dispute. In an edit blitz, the term "intelligent design" has been introduced by one editor (appearing above) pretty well everywhere. This seems to be a spill-over from the dispute going on here. I, and another editor, tried to show that the introduction of 'intelligence', in the phrase "argument from design" was a recent thing, while the editor, just referred to, removed my cited quotations, saying they were OR. It sounds very similar to what is going on here. I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Steven an RFC must definitely be in the minds of several of us, but I guess a major concern must come from the question of how to define the core of the complex question, and in such a way that it does not become a beauty contest. The concerns leading to proposals for change are still apparently poorly understood by some editors, partly because of the subject matter and partly because it involves areas of WP policy where people often have misunderstandings. And so the concerns tend to become simplified into absolute proposals whereas there must be dozens of ways of alleviating those concerns if editing and discussion were more healthy on that article. => Maybe it is a silly idea, but I was just thinking that a recent event might help: I have broken a recent major revert into 9 separable edits which I think could be considered independently: [2]. At least a few of them are kind of practical digestible versions of some of the core concerns separating the most active discussants. Just wondering if this makes any helpful sense. BTW although Myrvin probably thinks I'm annoying I agree with him fully that there are several articles which are clearly and openly linked back to the controversy on intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable concern, Andrew. In the past some mediations have functioned to just help define scope. I might head over to the talk page, do some reading and ponder how we can proceed from here but I'm open to the idea of guiding the discussion if that would be of assistance. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anti-Serb sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A group of users think that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment (based on source which I believe is outdated politically motivated primary source). This view is also based on WP:CONSISTENCY - because no other article (45 of them) on hatred toward an ethnic group does not have criticism section.

I proposed not to deny or justify hatred in Controversy section but to present explanations in one or couple of sentences within the main body of the article (with no outdated politically motivated primary sources) or to point to articles which provide more context in the See also section.

Peacemaker67 and Joy do not agree.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

To organize discussion based on human common sense, arguments and wikipedia policies without unnecessary personalization, uncivility and fallacy, which would hopefully lead to consensus about this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67

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

I will not be able to enter into this discussion properly until I have access to a real computer (at least five days away). I'm on iPhone, and it just isn't practical. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will just briefly add that the "group of users" Antidiskriminator alludes to is a group of one. The other two editors that have engaged in this discussion are a registered account that has made a total of two edits (both to the talk page thread in question), and an IP that has made one edit (also to this talk page thread). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Joy

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

Please see Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment#Criticism?? etc. The entirety of the article has a variety of problems; pruning the criticism altogether, which is what was suggested originally, would easily be seen as whitewashing, and adding just another problem to the pile. Antidiskriminator seems to have a tendency of making various edits consistent with Serbian nationalist talking points, recently he 'earned' an WP:ARBMAC topic ban over one Serbian World War II issue (a Chetnik commander) and led to a move ban over another (the article about the Nazi occupation of Serbia), and this appears to be no exception - let's shun the criticism from the get-go just because it doesn't fit our preferred narrative. Assorted Croatian and other nationalists who tried to delete the entire article on their own deluded premises notwithstanding -- the criticism of the use of this term in the more recent history is entirely legitimate, and is already sourced to several English-language publications that appear to be reliable sources. The term has been tainted in the 1980s with the SANU Memorandum's perfidious invocation of "Serbophobia", and in turn Slobodan Milošević's fake outrage about it - they used it as a blatant technique to make the Serbs look like the perpetual victims, while at the same time they orchestrated all sorts of nastiness in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon and the phrase would be incomplete without the clear description of this issue. Also, as I said earlier, having the criticism section does not in any way invalidate the description of the legitimate applications of the phrase, such as those related to WWII. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by bobrayner

I agree with Joy's stance that the article has broader problems; it's a collection of Serb-nationalist talking points; any fragment that fits the Serb-victimhood trope is put on the page without context. The issue over the criticism section raised by Antidiskriminator seems to be highly selective; there are wider issues that need to be fixed. Same problem we had at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Serb sentiment discussion

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

Hi;

I've asked another regular to help me mediate in this matter, and until he agrees, this will be quite slow to kick off.

--The Historian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  – This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kfar Etzion massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nishidani deleted my editing. the Diff page. The problems are:

• Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
• The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. We could not find a compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully, a volunteer will convince us to find a compromise.

Summary of dispute by nishidani

This is being discussed on the page. Generally ykantor's edit (a) rewrote this, which is, as anyone can see a source-adequate statement of the totally misleading lead that preceded it. Ykantor complains I cancelled his revision of my edit. Were I to complain, I would note he cancelled my edit, and did so rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence to replace it. (b) he added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description of the event with the insinuation that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews. That didn't provide historic context, it implied this event was a behavioural problem in Arabs. This is all I will say here. One does not go to this page to complain about a dispute when the talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions mentioned.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Etzion massacre discussion

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

• Nishidani's version is much better than Ykantor's one. It provides the historical background, which is important in the context of controversial and dramatic events such the massacres of the 1948 war. Nishidani's version is also more detailled. Anyway, major problem is the behaviour of Ykantor who systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events as well as the fact he systematically discusses each detail and complains when discussions don't go in the direction that he wants. He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests and also by the way he intervenes on the different talk pages of wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2Cellos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Eleassar (talk · contribs)
• Odiriuss (talk · contribs)
• Helpbottt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage ([4]) and facebook page ([5]), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo.[6] The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion.

How do you think we can help?

The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Odiriuss

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

User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that there are at least ten times more secondary sources that clearly state they are Croatian, here are just a few : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/ny-2cellos-fall-tour-idUSnPNNY46392+1e0+PRN20130712,http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/2cellos-to-release-in2ition-on-january-15/10362706, http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/2CELLOS-to-Launch-First-North-American-Tour-in-April-20130319, http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/music/Canadas+Ezrin+takes+unique+Croatian+2Cellos+under/8444073/story.html, http://www.robe.cz/news/article/2cellos-for-robe/, http://www.contactmusic.com/news/2cellos-classical-music-can-be-boring_3445942. Odiriuss (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Helpbottt

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

I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones. --Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2Cellos nationality discussion

Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now? To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion that first took place was because on their official site and facebook page it did not clearly state the nationality of the duo,since then it has been changed to Croatian duo on both their official pages. Eleassar changed the article again yesterday citing some obscure secondary source from 2012 to prove his "case" without posting on the talk page,today i and Helpbottt changed it back and I reported him for vandalism since 99 % of all other secondary sources refer to them as Croatian,except the Slovenian ones. Odiriuss (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to resolve the issue at the talk page, but to no avail, which meant that involvement of a wider community is needed. In regard to Odiriruss's opinion I somehow don't see how he has found out that there are 10 times as many sources stating the band is Croatian not Croatian-Slovenian. A description of the nationality of the band is also a matter not only of their personal choice (no explicit statement about this has been presented), but also of the perception by the environment where they're active. In any case, this is something that sources evidently disagree upon. Per WP:NPOV, we should report all significant opinions and not present any one of them as a fact. If the issue is contentious, we should report in the lead that opinions differ if at all. I therefore support the proposal by Number 57 to leave out the nationality from the lead as their backgrounds are well-described in the first section. This was already implemented by an anonymous user in January 2012,[7], but reverted by User:Scrosby85 a month later,[8] which is a shame. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again,the issue on the talk page was because there was no information about their nationality on their OFFICIAL pages,i cannot stress that enough,now that it has been updated this shouldn't be an issue,only Eleassar is making it one. A simple google search clearly shows the state of secondary sources on this matter,there are virtually none that describe them as Eleassar would like them to be,thus there is no issue whatsoever besides in Eleassars imagination. Odiriuss (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote Odiriuss and then show below that he is wrong.

"What's funny is that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about... There at least ten times more secondary sources that confirm they are Croatian, here are just a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Funny, ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "[reply]

The queries below will prove Odiriuss wrong and Eleassar right. The first query gives correct (advanced) Google search results for "Croatian duo", i.e. without the instances where "Croatian duo" is only a part of the full "Slovenian-Croatian duo" text, and combined with the search for the word "2cellos".
The second query will give you correct results for "Slovenian-Croatian duo" query, combined with the search for "2cellos". The number of hits are 323 and 1100, respectively.
Try for yourself.
Query #1: www.google.com/search?q="Croatian+duo"+2cellos+-"Slovenian-Croatian+duo"
Query #2: https://www.google.com/search?q="Croatian-Slovenian+duo"+2cellos. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Google 2Cellos, or 2Cellos article,not duos and then tell me how many pages it takes to find Croatian-Slovenian?Odiriuss (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked your links, there are barely 3 pages for Croatian-Slovenian, and 14 pages for Croatian even with you query DancingPhilosopher. That is pretty conclusive, thank you. Odiriuss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you search "Croatian duo" 2cellos (https://www.google.hr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=83IoUqCYIs-Kswav0IDYCw#q=%22Croatian+duo%22+2cellos&start=250) you get 25 pages,if you search "Croatian-Slovenian duo" 2cellos (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Croatian-Slovenian+duo%22+2cellos#q=%22Croatian-Slovenian+duo%22+2cellos&start=20) you get 2 full pages and 2 more entries,that is pretty conclusive. Odiriuss (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In numbers, 246 that say Croatian compared to 22 that say Croatian-Slovenian, so i apologise, i was wrong, it's actually more then ten times. Odiriuss (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm one of the volunteers here at DRN. Two things tip the scales here quite clearly: the group self identifies as Croatian, and a majority of reliable sources do as well. It's not our place, nor the place of media outlets or otherwise to dictate the national identification of a person or group. Given the ratio, it'd be undue weight in my opinion to write Croatian-Slovenian. That'd be like saying "Princess Diana was murdered" - just because a handful take that view does not mean we should change it from the largely held one. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also the google test doesn't carry any weight in these types of discussion other than as a quick rule of thumb Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]