Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Ratnam concept school

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

Repeated addition of text by User:202.83.18.229 and User:Geetha devi (whom I assume to be the same person) which is promotional in tone and a violation of WP:ARTSPAM. I have tried initiating discussion on both talkpages, as well as on the article talkpage, but as yet, neither user has responded. I can no longer remove the text without violating WP:3RR.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

It would appear that these two editors (or possibly one editor) also have a conflict of interest; the text they add refers to the school in the first person plural.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion on both userpages and talkpage; no reply from either editor except to continue edit warring.

  • How do you think we can help?

Administrator warning to both users, remove text from page, 3rd opinion.

Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratnam concept school discussion

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

Hi there Yunshui, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've reverted the edits there myself, as they do seem to be spam and advertising; you've done well not to engage in an edit war. I think this is more of a conduct issue than content, as the problematic users seems to be disruptively editing. I suggest that you go to WP:ANI to resolve this, as they will be able to deal with the editors causing problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:13, 28 October 2011 (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.

James_Brooke

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

James Brooke is considered a Raja, not a Rajah. Raja means Governor or Ruler in Malay. Rajah means Graph (like an excel graph). To Malaysians who read this article may be confused by the title he was given.

Users involved

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed this on the talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Decide if his title should be Raja or Rajah. I have consulted 4 Malay teachers in Malaysia.

NGPriest 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

James_Brooke discussion

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

I'm from Sarawak and lived there. When we talk about him, he refer him to as Raja, not Rajah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja
It shocked me and my friends to refer to him as a graph/chart/graphpaper.
NGPriest 17:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to make a few points, this is obviously the English Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we should by any means have incorrect spellings in our articles, but it may mean that a word used has a different meaning or context as opposed to in its native language. I do however note that the article on Raja is indeed spelled Raja and lists Rajah as an alternative spelling. I'm not so sure if it has something to do with US/British English, but suggest th best way forward here is to discuss the issue on the Raja talk page. Hopefully this helps. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi NGPriest. I don't know which part of Malaysia you are from, but the overwhelming spelling in use by writers in English, in Sarawak as well outside, is RAJAH and has been since around 1841. The Sarawak Museum, a government body and well-respected by international academics, states on its web-site that "Sarawak Museum was established by Charles Brooke the Second Rajah" (I just checked). Just look at all the books about about Sarawak's history; look on the monuments and historic documents - all (with the notable exception of Gertrude Jacob in her biography in 1876) use Rajah. Surely, it would be far more confusing to change the spelling now? It is not unknown for one word to have two completely different meanings, after all: (and I very much doubt that there was a Malay word for graph in use in 1841...). There is now a note to which you are welcome to expand on your interesting linguistic point, but it is not appropriate to try to rename a Raj (sic) posthumously. Incidentally, is your point that the two spellings must be pronounced differently by a Malay speaker? What about for a speaker of Sarawak Malay though - a distinct dialect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battang (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Battang, as i said before, i'm from Sarawak, i'm approx 1 hour from Sibu.
Malay is widely used in Malaysia, there isn't much difference when travelling around Malaysia.
I assume most people got the rajah, since he was born in India?
Rajah: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rajah = a Hindu prince or ruler in India (which he wasn't)
Raja: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raja#Indonesian (Malay and Indonesian are similar) = A king
Whereas, Rajah (in Malay) means Graph.
NGPriest 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGPriest (talk • contribs)

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.

OPERA neutrino anomaly

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

This is my 5th report to Wiki admins since 21 October 2011. Starting from 10:57, 21 October 2011 group of users (before it were users D.H and 83.89.0.118, now it is also User Ajoykt, Revision 20:46, 21 October 2011) persistently continues to delete my contributions on the OPERA neutrino anomaly page, namely the block: Other researchers pointed out that the Cohen-Glashow arguments are valid only if the Lorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of a preferred frame but they become invalid if instead the symmetry is deformed.[1] The group claims that the reference I provide cites the primary source. But the primary source here is the original OPERA announcement whereas the reference to arXiv:1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. Besides, the group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing their actions. User1344 (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

The attempt to use the Talk Page to change the user 83.89.0.118's opinion was not successful

  • How do you think we can help?

resolve the dispute about the above-mentioned Arxiv paper as a reliable source

User1344 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly discussion

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


Errr, papers are considered kind of primary sources here at wikipedia. Review and meta-review papers are the secondary sources. Also, scholar books that analyze the field, journal articles like Nature News, scientific magazines like New Scientist, then, finally, normal newspapers, which usually distort stuff in order to make it more sensationalistic. New Scientist and other magazines act as a filter, deciding which papers (primary sources) are worth reporting as significant. This filter is necessary because wikipedia is mostly edited by non-experts, who delegate the responsibility of deciding which theories are worth reporting into reliable sources written by experts, sources that look at the papers in the field and decide which papers are significant and why, then wikipedia just reports what those sources say.

The problem is that a paper in arxiv.org is both a) primary and b) self-published, since arxiv.org only has the thinniest of editorial filters. The quality of the paper then should be evaluated only on the quality of its author: from WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" In this context, if the paper was worth reporting, then someone like New Scientist would have reported about it. If the author is notable in the field then his primary source might make it into the article anyways, although giving it much less weight. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you wrote Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. All three authors of that Arxiv paper are renowned experts in the relevant field, each having many peer-reviewed publications. Thus, why cant their paper qualify as a reliable source on its own, again? User1344 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"In this context, if the paper was worth reporting, then someone like New Scientist would have reported about it. " Not necessary, it also depends on how lucky are authors in advertising their work in media. User1344 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, recently their paper has been already cited by another expert. All of these people produce unreliable sources? User1344 (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2011 (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.

Ra One - Response section

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

Ra One movie's response. Reviewers like Yahoo and Rediff have 2 out of 5 and declared it a flop, the users Ashermadan, Ankitbhatt and Shshshsh are vandalising the article by inserting incredible reviewers like Hungama on the top.

Below is the diffs of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&action=historysubmit&diff=457461123&oldid=457460504

Link to Rediff rating: http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/review-raone-abhishek-mande/20111026.htm Other important reviews:

Yahoo - http://in.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-reviews/r-one-review-000920615.html Zee News - http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/review-ra-one-not-your-usual-srk-film_99089.htm

http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/oct/261011-ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-film-review-superhero-film-two-half-stars.htm

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

The above users are trying to promote a product that has failed overall.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to discuss with them on their talk page, but they dont seem to give any importance. They are biased.

  • How do you think we can help?

Please provide your neutral view on what the content should be and request the above users to stop vandalising the article until then.

Guru coolguy (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra One - Response section discussion

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


Ankit - Calm down you emotional rat. Stop sobbing first.

I am not against srk or biased aginst him (why should i bother about a beggar who travels to Chennai every day in the fear of losing all his money in this flop?). My aim is wiki should host only credible information and it should not be vandalised by biased users like you. You need to give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible reviewer. The fact that it has given 4.5 out of 5 and Yahoo gave 2 out of 5 insists some thing is going wrong. If you cant give a proof then get lost from here, i will do what i can do as i have got proof that you arent able to supply a plausible reference to your sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankit - I again request you not to use uncivilized languages in Wiki, or else your account would be barred for abusing. Firstly can you give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible source of reviews / ratings? Yahoo, Rediff and Zee are popular and neutral reviewers. You havent responded to my earlier questions either. When you say you have posted overall response, there are 10 positive, 5 negative and 2 mixed - the ratio is 10:7. How can you then declare it recieved a positive response? About your decision to watch The 7th sense, i am not bothered as there is a phrase that says donkeys only eat garbage even if you keep hygenic food infront of them. Finally, please respond to my questions about bollywood hungama before attacking anyone personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Want to see my response? Just look at what Scieberg said at the bottom. You'll see. And btw, for useless maniacs like you, I think my behavior is surprisingly civil. Regarding the donkeys thing, you are just making it plainer and plainer that you hate srk and are 1000% biased against him. So can't you see that Wikipedia is not for you? Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source, though not as popular as Zee or rediff. As has been stated before positive reviews come first and negative later. See any film article that has both types of reviews (not something like The Last Airbender, which has only negative reviews). You deserve a slap on the face, and believe me, you will get one soon. Good day. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ankit,

Thank you for coming to the discussion. Firstly i would suggest you not to use harsh / uncivilized language or attack any one personally. This shows you might be severly disturbed over the flop of your favourite hero from north.

And my opinion is Rediff and Yahoo's reviews should be put up first and the response setion doesn thave a different section for positive and negative reviews. Infact i have never seen any movie following this style. The reponse section should give information about the overall rating of the movie by credible reviewers. If you do not understand the meaning of credible please refer to any online dictionary. Hungama cant be a credible reviewer while Yahoo and Rediff are accepted across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey loser! The way you said this SO PLAINLY shows your extraordinary bias. I mean, phew! I've seen biased editors, but none as stupid as you who will so openly admit it. By the way, you're southern. I was actually expecting 7am arivu to be pretty good, and wanted to watch it. Seeing people like you, I'm certainly not going to do so. You can keep your lousy mouth out of my life. Believe me, I'm gonna post this entire thing on the Ra.One talk page, and just wait and watch for the roars of laughter you'll be getting at your totally imbecile behavior. Good day. And btw, about response? Loser, you know nobody will change it. So why don't you get a life? Have a nice sleep. You should then wake up and see the real world. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
My God! I'm biased? Are you actually trying to tell me that I'm biased? You, of all people. For one, YOU are putting up the same negative review in the first line itself. You made it sound like Ra.One has been received disastrously from critics - a clear violation of neutrality. Second, you say that the movie has been declared a flop. HA! Please check yourself in a hospital. Ra.One has barely released and you go on telling the film is a flop. It's you who are biased, not us. Frankly, this is a waste of time and Wikipedia. You are a clear vandal and are inexperienced with film articles and Wikipedia policies. In addition, you show extreme bias. I'm sorry to say, if Wikipedia encourages people like you, it will be very very sad. And no matter the outcome of this so-called "dispute", the rediff review shall NOT be put up in the beginning because, as per Film article standards, all positive reviews come first and negative reviews later. Only the overall impression is stated at the beginning. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From Ashermadan: I agree with Ankitbhatt. We already mentioned the reviews. The reviews we counted have 20 positive ones ranging from 5-3 and 5 negative ones. We are correct to say that Ra.One received generally positive reviews. Gurucoolguy keeps on changing it and adding redundant text and talking about other films that aren't even in Hindi. Please ban him from vandalizing our article because we're sick of changing it back because of the edits he makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


While I think bias is inevitable, and not something very uncommon on Wikipedia, "positive to mixed reviews" should be used. At the moment the assortment of reviews is below:
  • 10 positive
  • 2 mixed
  • 5 negative
I've, as one of the active contributors, added both positive and negative reviews to the article. Business of Cinema review is unnotable and should be removed per talk page consensus. I think I'm done with this. By the way, where were those newfangled editors when the article was being constructed from the scratch? They're here only to fight over critical reception and box office figures. Nothing else! Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised I don't see any personal attack warnings on the talk pages of the disputing editors. "Mixed to positive" is a fair compromise, and I agree with Scieberking here. Lynch7 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's hope Ra.One makes a GA or FA soon and that we get rid of such silly disputes, vandals and disruptive editors. I was a part of this dispute resolution discussion, so I've made my final and last edit for an Indian cinema related article. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
GA will not fix the problem. Fighting over reviews will sink the GAN.
I share MikeLynch's surprise that the edit warriors above can use such language and tone and not be warned against personal attacks. Insulting each other cannot continue. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question for all involved, are there any review aggregator sites (like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic) that specialize in Indian films? Neither RT or Metacritic has any score right now. Sites like this can help guide the general tone of the article as it should represent the mainstream view, and they can do a great job of summarizing that view. (Please note the only score RT shows right now is the percent of people that want to see it. Basically, it's an on-line poll and not something to be added to the article). Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there exist no aggregator sites like that. RT lists Indian films, but I think only after a release in the US, and after getting reviews from US local portals. Lynch7 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Binksternet - I meant that once it gets rid of all the problems, the article should make a GA or FA. Also, a consensus has been reached to keep "mixed to positive". Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Review Gang? It currently says critics 6/10 and public 7.5/10 BollyJeff || talk 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ankit, keep yourself calm, I know your work but Wikipedia is all about grout effort[we human being natures are unpredictable, keep that in mind]. At the same time Guru coolguy must have discussed if he had a problem about certain point of view issues. Just went thru few of his edits, which may be right as per yourhis point of view, but Wikipedia is all about neutral point of view. You are right, Rediff.com, Yahoo! are popular reviewer, but when it comes to films, Bollywood Hungama comes ahead[may be after NDTV or The Times of India]. They are expert in Hindi film industry. Be sure next time to discuss ahead at the talk page. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I had discussed this entire matter over in the edits itself. You can check up the revision history to understand. And now, I can see that other editors are putting the entire blame of this matter on me, and are now vindicating my stand. Well, fine. I consider this matter to be closed. You may come to whatever conclusion you want, seeing as it is you are completely swayed by guru's gibberish and accusations. Good evening. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Review Gang has a nice list of reviews. BollyJeff || talk 12:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admins, The user Shshshsh is undoing my changes without giving any reference to his false claim that RaOne was housefull allover India. Infact it was not even a success in north india, while South India has its own quality movie industry. The Seventh Sense or 7am Arivu was the major release in South amidst many other Tamil movies. Now can you think of any one going to this kids movie called Ra.One which has been declared flop by major sites? Please warn this user. Guru coolguy (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert you, it was Ms. Meryam who did it, and when you reverted her, I noticed that she was right, and now I reverted you as well. The sources provided clearly say the movie has had a release all over India. Oh, and please chill. Shahid • Talk2me 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know your conclusion. Btw, the over word of mouth about this movie is "waste of time and money" - Please refer to MouthShut.com which is a number 1 reviewer in India. The overall rating given by its users is 2/5. http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Ra-One-Movie-reviews-925602942 Guru coolguy (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Shahid - There are no sources that it was house full all over india,allthough it might have been released in few multiplexes in South. Please provide valuable ref/proof for your housefull theory before undoing my change.

Hi All - Thank you for coming on this discussion. I agree with Karthik Nadar that Times of india, ndtv are important reviewers compared to some hungama (which is totally biased). If you all agree then i can go in this order about the reviews:

1. Times of India (it gave 2 out of 5)
2. Hindustan Times (2 / 5)
3. Rediff (2/5)
4. yahoo (2/5)
5. Hungama (5/5 crazy!!)
6. Mouthshut.com (2/5)
7. ReviewGang 5/10 or 2.5/5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs)

mouthshut is not a reliable source. Shahid • Talk2me 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note - from what I see, user:Guru coolguy refers to user for support on this thread and on the article. Here you see a diff where he turns to user:Varunn pandya, who, in turn, vandalises the article with false additions. Shahid • Talk2me 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    That would be WP:CANVASsing, an unacceptable practice that might serve to decrease the weight others would give to his position (un-naturally inflated support). The notifications this editor sent to some are neutrally worded ("there is a discussion") whereas others are "please support my position" campaigning. DMacks (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
These users are only disrupting the process when a consensus has been reached already above. What is this "Southies" and "Northies" stuff? That's total nonsense and these near-ethnic slurs much be avoided. Scieberking (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that "mixed to positive" is the right verdict, which only one user out of 5 opposes to. The POV tag is absolutely unnecessary. The fact that the user has canvassed another user into the article, also using such terrible language as "northies", says it all.Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Shahid. The tag should be removed. On the other hand, the current consensus is also being twisted to "positive to mixed", which I think is just not right and must be avoided. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Shahid too. Positive to mixed is what the reviews are. I also got a source from NDTV supporting the sentence. Check it out!. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi BollyJeff - The reviewGang has rated it at 5/10 which translated to 2.5/5. Let me know if this can be considered as the overall rating of the movie.

Well it was 6/10 when I first looked at it; now its 5.5/10, so 3/5 if it has to be based on 5. I would give it as listed 5.5/10 - However, its not up to me to decide if this can be considered an overall rating. Keep discussing it here. Comments anyone? BollyJeff || talk 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
When looking at review aggregation sites, only look at numbers that include published critics. User ratings are not usable on Wikipedia as they're essentially an on-line poll which does not meet the reliable source standard. Looking at ReviewGang, it separates critic and user reviews, providing a summary for both. A quick search on WP shows it being mentioned in multiple articles. Right now, it's giving the film a 5.5 / 10 rating from the critics. That supports the "mixed to positive" statement. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi BollyJeff - Well, if you see the same link after two dys it will be 4/10 but lets wait :D. Guru coolguy (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All,

I wish to add the neutrality logo to the entire article because the very first section shows wrong information. I also want to add the below reference on the first section which says the movie's story was stolen / inspired from 2010 blockbuster Enthiran or The Robot.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-04/news-interviews/28355718_1_anubhav-sinha-rajnikanth-s-robot-scientist

Also all the below important media sites say Ra1 is a disaster and i am not sure why Wiki is targetted by srk fans to host wrong information. Let them do it on thier own sites but not on Wiki. I wish to add below references on the main section as it should show the acceptance of the movie. [b]Also the editors failed to give any reference that the movie was housefull all over india, it was only released in North India [/b] and We South Indians dont watch hindi movies which are mostly stolen from South (Tamil) movies and then much marketed. For example, the recent hindi movies Body Guard, Singham, Ready and even Amir Khan's Ghajini (2008)are all remakes of hit Southern movies. You might wiki or google to check these facts. So i dont agree that Ra1 was hit across india until it is given credible proofs (which is impossible).

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/diwali-cracker-raone-is-ambitious-but-flawed/196587-47-84.html http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/why-ra/20111026.htm http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/oct/261011-ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-film-review-superhero-film-two-half-stars.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 10:28, October 27, 2011‎

TOI Bangalore gives 3.5/5. Shahid, which TOI were you referring to? Lynch7 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It was not my post, Mike. Guru coolguy did not sign his post. I replied to him. Shahid • Talk2me 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Guru coolguy, please focus on this dispute and leave the regional stuff behind. That's not helpful to resolving this dispute. Wikipedia isn't about personal preferences or views, but reflecting what the majority of reliable sources say. For films, the best way to determine that is to look at aggregator sites. Every film is going to have positive and negative reviews, but we need to reflect the majority viewpoint. Focusing only on aggregator sites, do you know of any besides reviewgang.com that have a summary of critical reviews? Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
@Hey Guru coolguy, firstly you must learn to sign when ever you post anything in other than articles, be it talk page or discussion page, etc. Secondly Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss whether South Indian[even I am an south Indian] watch remade[stolen in your language] or not. Firstly learn what Wikipedia is, or atleast edit with common sense, that what Wikipedia expect from us. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well well well. What did I tell you? See how this editor is so desperately trying to publicize Ra.One as a flop? And your use of northies and southies is plain disgusting. I live in Chennai, and I have never had to deal with anyone like you. Stop your ranting. See this, and then talk about Ra.One being a flop. Ha! Gotcha, didn't I? Your massive negative publicity drive is falling apart very quickly. Please come up with better excuses to explain your failure. And yes, I am sick of hearing you quote the review "Order". Because according to your order, all negative reviews come first. Right? Nobody is dumb here. We can all see what you are trying to lead to, and believe me, you are not going to win your way. There are people with enough common sense to see that you are worthy of a blocking, but I see that some more comments from you must come before anyone takes the step in that direction. Good day. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - Finally i have found a consolidated review from major medias and its in this link http://www.hindustantimes.com/Critics-verdict-RA-One-gets-mixed-reviews/H1-Article1-761773.aspx. I am pasting the summary below.
Overall verdict - RA.One gets mixed reviews
Hindustan Times Rating: 2/5
CNN-IBN Rating: 2.5/5
Indian Express Rating: 2/5
Rediff Rating: 1.5/5 (terrible!!)
bollywoodhungama.com Rating: **** 1/2 (The site says "..being criticised for over-rating")
The Times Of India Raring: 3/5
New York Times - It doesnt give any stars but says "NYT reviewer is far from disappointed with RA.One"
The Hollywood Reporter - It again doesnt rate but says "The film, directed by Anubhav Sinha, is gloriously silly, with stunts, CG animation and music numbers bursting out all over...."
In addition to the majority of above reviews being strongly negative, there are other important reviewers not mentioned in that link (yahoo, MouthShut.com and ReviewGang) who gave negative reviews again.
So the positive reviews are very less cpmpared to negative. The overall response should be changed as mixed to negative reviews if you are considering the above facts and proofs.

I will be also adding the Ra1 story stolen from Robot article from Times of India in the controversy section. Also still there has been no proof supplied that Ra1 was housefull all over india which is a misleading fact. I wish to change it as north india. And i am not against any region here but against people who consider that north india is alone india by neglecting / dominating other parts even in wiki (by posting wrong info on wiki).

Guru coolguy (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Guru coolguy too has agreed to keep "mixed to positive", like all other editors, can we remove the tag now... PLEASE? Scieberking (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He said mixed to negative, but he conveniently failed to mention three 3.5 star ratings in the same article. Also, the BOI link provided above clearly says "across the country". BTW, my opinion, if it matters at all, is the verdict is "mixed", not "mixed to this" or "mixed to that". That doesn't make a lot of sense. Someone keeps saying consensus is reached, but it apparently is not. BollyJeff || talk 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi ScieberKing, My opinion above is - The overall response should be changed as mixed. Kindly go through the link above which gives consolidated reviews. I didnt paste all other minor medias but majority gave less than 3 or 3/5. Guru coolguy (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, right. I also agree with you two. "Mixed" would read more logical. Now, I'm sure some editors will think I'm also being anti-SRK lol, for voting against keeping "to positive". Scieberking (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Guru coolguy, when you're pulling stats like that from a source, please be complete and verify your accuracy. In addition to leaving off several reviews with decent ratings, you got one of the ratings wrong, leaving off a half-star. Bluntly, your POV is showing, and that's a bad thing. If you want your view to be taken seriously, you need to be complete and correct in your posts. Please correct your post to include all of the ratings and make sure they are correct. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Now then, it seems we have 3 votes for "mixed". Other editors chime in please (in a civil manner). BollyJeff || talk 20:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like most, if not everyone can accept the "mixed" description, is that correct? Okay, to move on to another discussion point - the order of the reviews. I've been going through a fair number of FA rated film articles and there's something that I missed in this article - none of them mention the specific score from a review. The only scores listed are from aggregator sites to give a summary of the reviews for the film. After that, the reviews are grouped to discuss specific points about the film. I would suggest that Ra. One have the same treatment. From a broad view point, look for elements of each review that make it distinct from the others. Things like unusual notes about the actors or acting in general, effects, cinematography, sound, directing, etc. Please avoid using the same review over and over unless it's a truly insightful film. If a review is mentioned, note somewhere the general review of the film (liked it, didn't like it, neutral, etc). Remember, summary, using quotes only for key points. Would this approach help with that point of dispute? Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Let us keep this civil

Could all editors involved in this dispute please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Guru Coolguy and Ankitbhatt, some of your comments have been blatantly offensive and unhelpful in resolving this dispute, which has become disruptive. I urge all involved to keep discussion focussed on the content, rather than the editors in question. Accusing or attacking other people is disruptive. It seems that the more recent discussion has been more productive, which is good. However, if the disruptive personal attacks do not stop, I or another mediator will close the discussion. Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - Thank You for agreeing as mixed review. I have got one more concern, some one has added the below line which is incorrect and the references given for that do not prove the sentence.
Major reviewers were of the opinion that the film had brought the level of Indian films at par with Hollywood films. How can you compare this with hollywood movies? If its just for special effects, it cant be even compared with Robot (Tamil movie). And the references never says majority of reviewers have this opinion. I wish to remove this line. Thank You.. (And to those who criticised me should now agree that my concerns were addressed, thanks to the neutrality of the board) Guru coolguy (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Guru coolguy -  Fixed Now, can I take this thread as resolved? Scieberking (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with keeping it "mixed". Most of the reviews I see on the page are positive (now another one from LAT was added). The rating of Rotten Tomatoes (80%) is very high, and generally, the number of positive reviews far exceeds the number of negative ones. This would be being unfair to the article. Shahid • Talk2me 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with Guru coolguy. For one, most reviewers have stated that the technical level of Ra.One is on par with most Hollywood films. Your comment about Robot is a personal opinion not allowed on Wikipedia. Your tactics of picking reviews which show it under harsh light is grossly violating all Wikipedia principles. And moreover, you are modifying the reviews according to your will, which is completely unacceptable. Your drive to show that Ra.One is a failure, badly reviewed and incomparable with Robot is, to say the least, saddening and actually mildly amusing.
I'm sure we can reach to a very nice, simple and hospitable common viewpoint if we keep guru coolguy out of this. Otherwise, I can guarantee that he will drag this matter forever and not give any of us any peace. Other editors are starting to question my way of speaking. Please wait for the time when you start losing patience against blatantly misleading accusations that are not only pathetic but are also an attempt at tarnishing my image, in addition to the article, in a false and terrible manner. I, for one, am not going to budge. The consensus will HAVE TO BE mixed to positive, and the review order will have to be left as such. Others will have to choose - me or him. And I strongly hope that what I have said now does not constitute bad language, personal attacks et al. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what is meant by "positive reviews" and "negative reviews"; "most of the reviews were good", and "most of the reviews were bad", respectively. Would someone please explain the definition of "mixed reviews"? I would logically think it means "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus". If those definitions are correct, then when we say "mixed to positive", we are saying "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus (to) most of the reviews were good". This dosn't make a lot of sense when you put it that way, does it? I would think that if there is not a clear consensus, it should be "mixed". Mixed is mixed. I am not choosing you or him; neither of you own Wikipedia. I am choosing fair logic. BollyJeff || talk 12:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I can see what is going on. Really, am I being forced to call Wikipedia editors as plain cowards? I'm sorry, but NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY, is ready to take this matter on the face of it. All of you are trying to appease Guru coolguy. Is he a Wikipedia lawyer or something? Why is everyone so afraid of him? Nobody is ready to accept the fact that guru coolguy is equivalent of a vandal, a biased editor who is desperate to get his way even if it means using cheap shortcuts and below-the-belt twisting tactics. Unless somebody strongly comes out and says guru coolguy to stop his ways and bar him from editing for a short while, no consensus can be reached. Just wait and see, he will now pull out all sorts of fake reviews from friends as biased as him and post them here as highly regarded reviews. It is so revolting to see the condition of all this. Truly deplorable. And I am now beyond caring about my language. I am most certain that instead of catching the culprit and finding a solution, I am going to be rapped on the knuckles and stopped from editing. Remember, if anything of the sort ever happens, believe me, I will quit Wikipedia forever. And I mean it - I don't make empty threats. I can see all the whiffs of dirty politics and canvassing here. I smell a strong filthy stench, so it will be best for me to avoid this discussion as of now. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Editor reported to WP:WQA. These types of attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and are especially not tolerated here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why you taking everything so seriously? After all, your sig does say LifEnjoy. BollyJeff || talk 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the updated rating from Rotten Tomatoes has been increased to 88%. But then again, it is not something very relevant. Ra.One is primarily a Hindi movie and RT mostly uses American reviews (in the same manner as south indian reviewers, majority of whom have panned the film, are not very relevant). IMO, there are generally three types of verdicts; positive (favorable, hailed), negative (unfavorable; panned) and average (mixed; lukewarm). And "mixed" is being used by almost all major Indian news outlets including Hindustan Times and CNN-IBN. @ Ankit- Calm down buddy. While I agree Guru coolguy's behavior is not very appreciable, Ashermadan too is almost the same. Just my two cents. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Having a look over this thread, it's evident to me that this is primarily an issue with conduct, and quite a few of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Content issues will never be resolved if you are at each others throats. Now, if you will all agree to refrain from personal attacks I will refocus this discussion and we can work on getting the issues here actually sorted out. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the conduct in this thread, by several parties, is unacceptable. Any further personal attacks warrant a block.
However, Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) has declared I have quit Wikipedia. I make no intention to return [1] - so, is there any further need for dispute resolution here?  Chzz  ►  06:21, 29 October 2011 (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.

Minorities in Greece

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

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

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

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Issue talked in my user and article's talk pages. We were unable to find a solution, mostly because (in my opinion) of the behavior of Athanean. Many of his points are centered on me rather than the encyclopedic content. He has added a reference by indicating a wrong page number (Alexandris, p. 120), as he acknowledges, but does not care to correct it. Some of his arguments are self-referenced or not referenced (see for example [2]) He deleted well referenced parts of the article repeatedly ([3], [4]), without giving sufficient explanation in the talk page. My impression is, there is no progress towards a solution.

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

There are minor issues, too, like his deleting of Turkish village names given in brackets next to Greek ones ([5]). I see it only natural that Turkish village names be provided as well as the Greek one when speaking about the Turkish minority. I have not dwelled on these, because the main issue seemed to be more important.

  • How do you think we can help?

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

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

Minorities in Greece discussion

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

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

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

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Here is my opinion on each issue in the dispute with respect to undue weight:
1) Organization of titles (ie, moving the Turkish minority section one level up to make it on the same level with other ethnic minorities): This may not be relevant in respect of undue weight.
2) Official denial of the Turkish minority: Both minority organizations ([6] p.1; [7] p. 1 and 7) and independent sources [8] [9]indicate this is an important issue. Hence it would not be undue weight to mention. This information was present in the article before my edits.
3) Discrimination against the Turkish minority: This paragraph was present before my edits, Athanean deleted it after the dispute started. It mentiones important issues for the minority, in terms of property and Turkish identity.
4) Muslims in Athens needing an official mosque: Sources deleted [10] by Athanean (including BBC news) indicate this is important, I do not think it has undue weight.
5) Attacks to Turkish minority: This one may arguably have undue weight in this article. After Athanean's criticism on the this line, I reduced the size of paragraph by summarizing it in one sentence. The attacks took form of arsoning (generally by molotof cocktails) and stoning of mosques, Turkish associations, consulates, private property and desecration of cemeteries. The remaining one sentence may not have undue weight, esp. considering the frequency of attacks.
Filanca (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1) The reason the Turkish minority is included (together with the Pomaks) under the heading "Muslim minority" rather than among the other ethnic minorities is that because of the Treaty of Lausanne, these minorities enjoy special privileges and status not afforded to other minorities. Also, because as a result the same treaty and its stipulations, most of the literature treats them in similar fashion, i.e. as part of a "Muslim minority" rather than an ethnic Turkish minority. The exception is some Turkish sources, but that is not a reason to re-arrange the headings.
2) Regarding the claims of "Official denial of the Turkish minority", these are wildly distorted and exaggerated, as the Greek government does recognize the Turkish minority, just as part of a larger Muslim minority as stipulated by the Treaty of Lausanne rather than an "ethnic" Turkish minority. This is moreover a rather subtle point, and one I feel is being given undue weight. Regarding sources, www.abttf.org is a self-published advocacy source, with ties to and support from the Turkish government. The source www.usefoundation.org is also self-published and of dubious reliability. I do not think such sources meet the requirements for WP:RS.
3) The paragraph in question was a poorly sourced and implemented cut-and-paste job from another article. I looked into the sources, most are unverifiable, and the one that was verifiable was over 20 years old and contradicted by more recent sources (see [11], page 124). The situation of the minority has changed markedly for the better since 1990, but Filanca simply refuses to acknowledge this.
4) The Muslims of Athens are mostly recent immigrants, hence they are not a minority. Another instance of Filanca refusing to get the point.
5) This is the point on which I disagree completely. All the "attacks" mentioned are relatively minor (broken windows, amateurish arson attacks). Not a single member of the minority has been harmed, these are all minor attacks against property. Many times the claims are exaggerated and the sources misused in intellectually dishonest fashion, for example in the article talkpage Filanca uses the three different sources for the same attack then claims these are three separate attacks! The phrasing he wants to use is also highly inflammatory. Three minor attacks against property in 2011 is not "frequent attacks". Keeping in mind this is a very broad article about minorities in Greece in general, neither the relatively rare frequency of attacks or their nature warrants mention in the article.
On another note, I find it absolutely galling and hypocritical of Filanca to focus and highlight every broken window of Turkish mosques in Greece while glossing over the plight of minorities in Turkey. Compare this [12] with this [13] for crying out loud. While we must not focus on editors, scrutiny of a user's contributions are important for establishing credibility and assuming good faith. I regret to say that based on this user's contributions, I am having difficulty assuming good faith and intellectual honesty. Athenean (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Filanca and Athenean, thank you both very much for your replies. They have given me a much better idea of what this dispute is about. I think we can settle this dispute if we can remember to stick to Wikipedia policy and not get distracted by our personal viewpoints and biases. (We all have biases, after all, and yes, that does include me.) In my opinion, the reason for this dispute is a subtle misunderstanding of policy that hopefully, we can clear up without too much trouble. Now Filanca, you said two or three times in your reply that the sources that back up your edits show that the issues are important. I agree that it shows they are important, to be sure. There is no question that these issues very important to Turkish minorities in Greece. The notion of undue weight in Wikipedia, however, is a slightly different way of judging what is important. To judge what is important in Wikipedia, we use the relative prominence of viewpoints in reliable sources. What this means is that we consider every single reliable source that has been written on the subject, giving special prominence to sources which are considered reliable and comprehensive by the academic community.

Before we go any further, I think we should come to an agreement on what the most reliable sources are. I would like you both to suggest what you think are the the top three most reliable sources on minorities in Greece, as judged by the academic community (not as judged by yourself). Remember, the more comprehensive and the more reliable, the better. Once we have agreed on these sources, I think it will be a lot easier to agree how much weight to give to each aspect of the subject. I've left a space below for you both to reply. If you can't think of three, that's ok - just fill in what you can. Thanks for taking the time to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - if you are not sure which sources are the most respected, it is perfectly fine to have a look at the article or use a Google Books search and make your best guess as to which sources are best. This is not a test of your subject knowledge - it's just a way to get a rough idea of how much weight we should assign to each subtopic in the article. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Referring to Athenean's following comments "I find it absolutely galling and hypocritical of Filanca to focus and highlight every broken window of Turkish mosques in Greece while glossing over the plight of minorities in Turkey (...) scrutiny of a user's contributions are important for establishing credibility and assuming good faith". I think these opinions play an important role in this dispute from the beginning, ie, the perception of my bad intentions. I certainly have prejudices of my own. But I think writing a good encyclopedia is paramount here. I am not (or at least trying not to) "glossing over the plight of minorities" of anywhere since this would not be a correct way to develop Wikipedia. e.g. I do not refrain from completing missing sources about problems of Greek minority in Turkey [14]. Filanca (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Filanca
  • The most reliable source: Human Rights Watch, [15]
  • The 2nd most reliable source: US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor reports, eg. [16] [17] [18]
  • The 3rd most reliable source: Minority Rights Group International [19] [20]

Please note that there are multiple issues in this dispute as mentioned above so I tried to find three resources that cover most.Filanca (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenean
  • The most reliable source: Crossing the Aegean: an appraisal of the 1923 compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Rene Hirschon, Bergahn Books, 2003 [21]. An in-depth, scholarly appraisal of the 1923 Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Each chapter is written by an expert in their field, and the publication focuses on the subject at hand.
  • The 2nd most reliable source: Minroties in Greece, Richard Clogg, Hurst & Company, 2002 [22]. Another in-depth scholarly publication focusing on minorities in Greece written by a well-known, neutral expert on modern Greek history.
  • The 3rd most reliable source: Mediating the nation: news, audiences and the politics of identity, Mirca Madianou, Psychology Press, 2005 [23]. Another in-depth treatment on the minority in Western Thrace, and also fairly recent.
I see that one of the sources Athanean kept deleting from the article during the dispute is his most reliable source, ie, Hirschon, 2003. Does that mean we now agree to keep that part of the article? Filanca (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, it's "Athenean", not Athanean. Second, I am open to conditionally keeping the sentence sourced to Hirschon, but that is just one sentence. Importantly, none of the six sources above speak of "frequent" attacks, and in fact most of them don't even mention them. Why? Because they are not frequent, and are minor. No one has been hurt or killed. No mosques have been burnt to the ground or destroyed. Broken windows and graffiti is minor vandalism. The other main point is that inflammatory, broad-brush statement "Discrimination of the Turks has been criticized by the US and the European Parliament." is also nowhere to be found. Third the sources Filanca produces are partisan advocacy sources (their job is to advocate on behlaf of minorities, it;s like me relying on Greek government sources, which I don't), and none are scholarly. In addition, he completely ignores that all of them mention positive steps taken by the Greek government, and only focuses on the negatives. Athenean (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If we agree to keep the sentence sourced to Hirschon 2003, do we agree to remove the "Discrimination of the Turks" and "Frequent attacks" sentences? The first is too broad-brush and unsupported by any of the sources, the second is worded in POV-fashion, not supported by any of the sources listed here, given undue weight, and sourced to a highly partisan self-published advocacy group (www.abttf.org). Athenean (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Filanca, It's not just the reliability of the source that's at issue here - there are a number of other factors involved as well. Just because a source is authoritative doesn't mean that everything it contains belongs in the article - there's obviously not enough space for that. At this stage we're just trying to find out what weight we should be assigning to different sections, and what things need to be merged together or removed. We can worry about the specific claims later. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello both of you, and thank you for posting your sources! I'm really appreciative of the time you've taken to find them. Athenean, I agree with you that those sources look very good. I think your source number two will be especially useful to us here, as it covers the entire topic area and is still scholarly and detailed. The other two seem like very good sources, and although they appear to be slightly more specialized, we should certainly take them into account when deciding what weight to assign to different parts of the article.

Filanca, I'm afraid I have to take issue with the sources that you have listed. The article in question is "Minorities in Greece", but all three of the sources you have listed are about minority rights, not just minorities. If the article was called "Minority rights in Greece" then I agree that the sources you list would be excellent ones to use. We could, indeed, use your sources to decide how much relative weight to assign different things inside a "minority rights" section. However, as it stands, I'm afraid your sources are too specific to use to determine the weight to assign to different parts of the article as a whole. Sorry to assign more work to you, but would you mind going back and finding some more sources? The best ones will be about the general topic of "minorities in Greece", rather than anything more specific. (By the way, if you agree with Athenean's choices, it is perfectly fine to list the same books as they have.) Let me know if you have any problems. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Stradivarius, sorry for my belated reply. Since the dispute was about minority rights (although the article is about minorities in general) I tried to pick up sources that best document the problematic points. As I see, you are looking for general sources about minorities to see how important these issues are. In that case, you would not like a source like Destroying ethnic identity: the Turks of Greece [24], could you fconfirm that? On the other hand, do you not agree that one of the most important points in this dispute is the organization of titles, and it is not related to weight but to the very nature of the minority? Filanca (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Another source that I would like to hear you opinion: Old and new mosques in Greece: a new debate haunted by history by Athena Skoulariki in Mosques in Europe by Stefano Allievi (ed.) [25] Filanca (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, and let me also apologise for the delay. You are correct on both counts, that the sources you mention above are not the best ones for determining the overall weight to be assigned to different parts of the article. We could certainly use them to help judge what to include in the sections about Turks and Muslims, but not really the overall article, as there are lots of topic areas these sources don't cover.

I agree that the organisation of the section titles is a separate issue from what to cover inside those sections, but again the sources are relevant. In Wikipedia we should follow the sources where we can, so if there is a clear consensus among sources that Turks should be considered a Muslim minority, then that is how we should organise the sections. If there is no clear consensus among the sources that Turks in Greece are a Muslim minority, then we should respect that and list Turks under "ethnic minorities" instead.

I notice that Minorities in Greece lists Turks as a Muslim group, but that Human Rights Watch lists them as an ethnic group; this points to at least some disparity among the sources, but we won't know for sure until we can uncover more evidence. There is one thing which could clinch it quite easily though: are there a significant number of the Turkish minority in Greece who are not Muslim? If this is the case then it would obviously be wrong to list them all as Muslim. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they are all Muslims as far as I know. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be encyclopedic to make such a judgement, based on our estimation of how many of them are muslims? Or even, based on a poll? What would it change if they are 100% muslims, would they cease to be Turkish? Likewise, why don't we consider Jews in Greece as a religious rather than an ethnic minoritity? Why don't we make a search how many of them are religious? The same goes with other minorities (Aromanians, Albanians, Megleno-Romanians, etc.) in that country. I think this is the most important part of this dispute. Since many years (I think since the mid 20th century) the official Greek government policy is to deny the existance of a Turkish minority in Greece. As is documented in the sources in here and in the article (some may be deleted by Athenean), there are even Greek court judgements against using the name "Turkish" for self-identification of the minority there. The current Wikipedia article supports this point of view by the organization of its titles, which contradicts the neutrality principle.Filanca (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You're still not getting it. The literature largely follows the arrangement of the Treaty of Lausanne. Wikipedia follows the literature. It's that simple, really. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows literature that is reliable. International treaties are shaped with political concerns thus they do not make a reliable source for finding out if a certain minority exists or not. We should rather look at neutral scientific sources about minorities. However, there are even political documents related to the Lausanne treaty, the établi documents, which refer to Turks rather than Muslims in Western Thrace. That was what many Greek governments also used / accepted until relatively recently.[26] Filanca (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Chzz

I intend to attempt to resolve this.

I ask all parties to please have patience; I need to read the background.

I remind all parties that we are all here to make this wiki amazing, and therefore suggest that they edit other articles in the meantime.

I will write more here ASAP. Thank you for your patience, consideration, and your work on this project.

No further input is required at this time, and I'd appreciate it if you would hold off for a few days on any edits relating to this matter, so that I can properly assess the issue. I will respond here within the next few days.  Chzz  ►  05:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, and thanks for taking this on. Your help here is really appreciated. This is completely up to you, Athenean and Filanca, but how would you feel about moving this dispute over to the Mediation Cabal? The discussion so far has been more mediation-like than most on this noticeboard, and it is already quite long compared to other threads here. I think if this discussion is going to continue in a similar fashion then the Mediation Cabal might be a better fit, just for practical reasons. We can just start where we left off, of course - there would be no need to discuss things again just because of a venue change. Let me know what you think. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't honestly care where we sort this out. Things move around pages, and that rarely helps; if it were in MedCab, I could similarly step in and try to help. So - it's here; for better or worse, and I can't see a good reason to move it - although I'm always open to ideas, if it'd help.
I'd like to avoid bureaucracy. That does not mean I will avoid anything; if this ultimately needs further fora to resolve it, then so be it. But... I would like to take a stab at fixing it here. If anyone wishes to escalate it, that is of course their prerogative. Otherwise, please hold on and I'll comment further below. Chzz  ► 

Comment: At this time, I am asking the users on their respective talk-pages if this issue could be subdivided into simpler, specific edit requests [27] [28]  Chzz  ►  05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz many thanks for your help. I am responding to you in my talk page.
Stradivarius: I am aware that I was not able to produce the exact kind of sources you asked for, this is related to my recent time constraints, sorry. I am open to any suggestions to resolve this dispute either here or elsewhere. We may proceed with sources Athenean proposed. Meanwhile if I can find other sources of the kind you look for, I will inform you all. Filanca (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Filanca. Don't worry about not being able to find more sources - it is perfectly ok, and I think going ahead with the sources that Athenean proposed will be fine. As for the process we will use, I think it will be best to go through the proposal process that Chzz has started on your talk page. We will definitely be able to use the sources we have found in the discussion at some point, and dispute resolution usually works better when you concentrate on one thing at a time. So let's concentrate on the talk page proposal process for now, and after that has finished we can see whether any further steps are necessary. I will be keeping an eye on your talk page too, so we can continue the discussion there for now. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:21, 30 October 2011 (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.

Operation Trident (1971)

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

Issue relates to the usage of the "casualties1" or "casualties2" field of "template:infobox military conflict". Specifically, Operation Trident was an Indian naval attack on Karachi harbour in Pakistan. After the operation, the Pakistan Air Force retaliated by bombing Okha harbour in India over a day later. While this was a reaction to the operation, the bombing of Okha was not a part of Operation Trident (which was planned and executed by the Indian Navy). user:DBigXray and I assert that "casualties1" and "casualties2" fields of the infobox should be limited to casualties incurred DURING the operation and that the retaliation should be covered in the section on "Aftermath" of the operation. The alternate claim is that casualties should include those that came about in follow-up operations that were separate but in reaction to the operation which is the subject of the article.

Users involved

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

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Operation Trident (1971)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Issue has been discussed on the talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Please provide guidance on whether the proposal to limit the use of "casualties1" and "casualties2" to the casualties of the operation is acceptable. Also, please comment on whether describing the retaliation to the operation in the section on "Aftermath" is satisfactory.

Skcpublic (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Trident (1971) discussion

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

The citations Skcpublic has given don't say that the ship in question was irreparably damaged, he added that at his own accord. This POV is also disputed by the Pakistani sources which call it exaggeration. The infobox issue is a format issue and not a POV issue about saying weather the retaliation should be put in the casualties and losses section of infobox or just in the body. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

user:hassanh5: You are confusing two separate issues. This dispute resolution request is about whether the damage to fuel tanks on Okha harbour which occured in a PAF retaliation to Operation Trident should be included in the casualties of Operation Trident, which was an Indian Navy operation. If you want to dispute-resolution on the damage to PNS Shah Jahan, please open a new dispute resolution request. Also, please confine your edits to the discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcpublic (talk • contribs)

Did you just remove my comment? You should move it to an appropriate section rather than removing which is very strictly against the rules. WP:TPO. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I cleaned the issue description for clarity. It is your responsibility to read the instructions and "very strictly follow the rules" by making edits to the appropriate section. --Skcpublic (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(PS you interrupted the discussion here leaving a part of my comment unsigned). It is one thing to unknowingly post in the wrong section and quite another to deliberately remove another editor's comment from the page. Read WP:TPO. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There was no indication that your comment was a part of the discussion. It looked like mangling of the description of the issue which I fixed. WP:agf. --Skcpublic (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You can certainly not expect me to assume good faith if you delete my comment, on the other hand you should have assumed good faith on a comment placed on the relevant topic. WP:TPO tells never to edit (not to mention remove) other editors' comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The infobox section isn't a POV issue and I think could have been easily solved on the talk page. I think enough discussion hasn't taken place on the talk. We should go with the format of other military operation articles if they include the losses from immediate retaliations in the infobox. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the talk page with just the folks party to the dispute commenting. You haven't provided any examples as requested of "other military operation articles" that "include the losses from immediate retaliations in the infobox". --Skcpublic (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You should recheck the discussion, I was the one who requested the examples from dbigxray. Also check the same user's comment in citation section of talkpage where he asked me about the neutrality. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you haven't even provided a reference to show that PAF action against Okha was *during* Operation Trident. Nor that it was in *immediate* retaliation to it. You also haven't provided examples that justify inclusion of retaliatory follow-ups as part of the original operation's infobox. --Skcpublic (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed my above comment, refer to it for the example part. As for the reference, I have provided a reference on the article right with the text in question which claims it as an immediate retaliation. Well as you said that was not the issue here, we're commenting on whether to include losses from immediate retaliations and consequences or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well from the comments of lTopGunl i was suspicious that User lTopGunl thinks that retaliations are a part of casualty/losses of Military Operations and hence it should be placed in Infobox though it has already been mentioned in the 'aftermath section' of the article.. I had sensed this and hence i had requested lTopGunl to have a look on other wiki battle pages (its me and not lTopGunl to do so first). Instead of doing that lTopGunl fired back a question and told me to supply the names of such pages. and thereby claiming that lTopGunl is the first person to do so. Well I can say to lTopGunl that the dispute is not about who the first person to ask about other articles is but the dispute is should the retaliations that are a part of the larger War can be included in a casualty and losses page of a battle. Its a fact that Okha was a part of the larger Indo-pak war of 1971 and not a casualty/loss of Operation Trident. It has wrongly been placed in the Infobox and should be removed --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I do think immediate retaliations have some relation to the operations (even if they are not essentially a part of it). You asked me to compare it with other articles and I asked you an example. You gave the argument "i request user lTopGunl (talk) to see any Western battle page" and you can not expect other editors to provide references or articles for your arguments. I think we've made our points and its not a big issue, not even POV, just format.. so lets do whatever input we get, compare, and get over with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
if they have some relation that is why they have not been removed from the aftermath section. You still need to agree to remove the Reference statement about Okha as a Causality/losses of Operation Trident. This is the real dispute as pointed above. As soon as you agree to do so . the dispute is resolved, you can of course discuss if you disagree, but we cannot claim that the dispute is over till then --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Remove the reference? Why would I or even you remove it? Its heavily backed up by other references that the harbour was bombed. If you're talking about comparing it with another article for format, please elaborate on your argument or give an example. Yes it certainly can not be removed from the after math section as it belongs there. But we're discussing about the infobox here. Lets see it like this; the fueling facilities were a part of the team that were in the operation... were they not? They provided fuel to the missile boats that attacked, so they were involved in the operation. That establishes them as a part of operation trident. Now if they are destroyed as a consequence, do they count in the losses due to the operation or not? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Be Aware that this is a Historical article and kindly refrain from any wp:OR. yes i agree that there are valid citations for bombing the Okha harbour. but the matter of the dispute is
  • was Okha a Casualty/loss of Operation Trident? NO its a part of Larger Indo Pak War Of 1971 and not a loss of Operation Trident. It is a known fact that during a LArger war ,every battle has multiple retaliations and that way every battle follows, and the WAR takes its course, but everything cannot and should not be placed in infobox. if the retaliations had occured during Operation Trident then it would have been worthy of placing in infobox. since it was not the case so it does not deserve the infobox.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've not placed any wp:OR. Refer to my above comment. Okha was used in operation trident as a fueling facility so it was a part of it. And the retaliations were a consequence. Lets wait for a neutral comment before prolonging this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you all looked for similar articles to see how they have handled something like this? I'd look for recent naval and air operations with retaliatory strikes afterwards. Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
That was dbigxrays argument on the talk page to which I requested an example to be reviewed for consensus which is pending. I have not come across another similar issue yet, so can't comment on wikipedia's trend. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Operation Trident was the name of operation involving strike by Indian Forces on karachi. As mentioned on the talk page all the reliable citation state the incidents during the event. during the event Pakistan did not cause any damage to the indian Forces, hence the casualty on the indian side was right mentioned as NONE, before it was changed by above user. This fact of NIL indian casualty during Operation Trident has already been backed by various sources. The strikes by PAF at okha was the part of larger Indo Pak War of 1971 and not a part of Operation Trident. Moreover the wiki pages about short battle mention only the losses in that battle. The overall casualties are often added to the Page of the Larger war. Eg Battle of Đồng Hới, New Year's Day Battle of 1968,Operation Union II, Operation Focus during Six-Day War, Action of 1 March 1968,Battle of Haiphong Harbor,Battle of Pusan --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've just finished reading up on the dispute. I don't think we can really stretch Operation Trident to include the bombing of Okha harbour, although I think putting it in the aftermath section is entirely appropriate. Because of this, I don't think we should put the casualty figures from the bombing of Okha harbour in the infobox. However, I do have another solution for you. I had a look, and it appears that there is no separate article about the bombing of Okha harbour - how about creating one? The casualty figures from the bombing could of course go in the new article, and you could link to the article from Operation Trident, and also include the casualty numbers of the bombing in the aftermath section of the Operation Trident article. Let me know what you think of this solution. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:13, 30 October 2011 (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.

Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

The page was created separately for the EPIX special of the Femme Fatale Tour and the DVD/Blu-ray release. However, the article contained little information with only a few sources, so I redirected it to the Femme Fatale Tour page. User:Mirrored Love reverted my edit saying that the article was "about the DVD release." I reverted it again and explained on the edit summary and on his talk page that the article failed notability, and that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page. We engaged in a edit war then because he refused to discuss it; I did not come here earlier because I didn't really want to have a full-fledged discussion for a small page that's going to be recreated anyway when the DVD is released. I reported him in the Edit warring noticeboard for breaking the 3RR; he was not blocked, the page was protected and a user suggested I'd come here.

Users involved

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

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I've explained the situation on his talk page and I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

I hope neutral users will see that this is a simple issue of notability and the page warranted a redirect for the time being.

Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour discussion

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


Why?

What is wrong with having the page up? How does it fail notability? What's not notable about it? All aspects of the article are well sourced except for the tracklist which I was trying to source until it was locked. A lot of articles are made before the release of something. I don't care if you feel the need to put a 'future release' tag at the top of the page; that's fine. But just to say if fails notability is not enough. How is that measured? It's not, the article should stay! And when are you planning on opening it up? Are you waiting for a press release? Why? The information from that can be added when it comes. It should be kept. Mirrored Love (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I suggest again that you read WP:NOTABILITY. It fails to meet the criteria for a stand-alone article, since it's only a small paragraph of information. The article is going to be expanded after the special premieres, when there's going to be reviews of the show, audience numbers and ratings, etc and then it will meet the criteria. Second, four unformatted references does not make the article "well sourced". Also, these references are copy-pasted from the Femme Fatale Tour page. You also say that "A lot of articles are made before the release of something"; that's WP:OTHERCRAP. This is not a personal thing because I do not know you, so stop making it that way. Xwomanizerx (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we will expand the article after the premiere, then I'm happy. I'd be glad to help, if you would want me too? :) Thank you for replying, I understand where you are coming from. And I didn't want to make it a personal thing, I thought you were, but I see now you weren't :) By the way, because of the way you have made other Britney articles, then I have faith in you :) Mirrored Love (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks resolved to me. Do you need our assistance here still? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is not much that needs to be done here. Wikipedia operates on a scale of months and years; the DVD is coming out in three weeks' time. I don't see any great harm in leaving the article up for three weeks until the DVD comes out and the reviews start coming in. If there are no further objections, I will go ahead and close this thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to see a dispute resolved quickly, easily and without people getting angry - thanks to the both of you for doing that. I'll close this discussion now. I would suggest that next time, before an edit war ensues, the article is taken to WP:AfD, where the community can determine whether or not the article is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (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.

Monogamy

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

SypmatycznyFacet has removed a whole passage referring to published sources in Cambridge University Press and Ignatius Press, saying it was "Clearly Ideology-based fragments". You can view it here. Apparently he has his own criteria of discernement which sources are ideologically based. But the criteria are not clear to me and they do not match the Wikipedia standards of neutrality policy to show a subject from every possible points of view.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

SypmatycznyFacet has had some periods of being blocked in Polish Wikipedia.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I have had with SypmatycznyFacet nearly one month long editorial conflict in Monogamia article in Polish Wikipedia recently. The Polish administrators have asked him to stop editing the way he did and blocked the page for a moment, see here. The administrators have proposed a new schema of the article. For further details you may contact Loraine, she is fluent in English. SypmatycznyFacet, while he cannot freely act in Polish version, has started his dubious edits in the English one, (see link above).

  • How do you think we can help?

Please check if his edit is an abuse to Wikipedia neutrality. If you think it is, remind him about the neutrality of Wikipedia and how it has to be understood.

Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Monogamy discussion

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

Hi there Quodvultdeus, and thanks for posting here. My first reaction is that this really needs to be discussed more on the talk page. I see you have asked a general question there about the passage in question, but there isn't any reply yet from Sympatycznyfacet. If you don't agree with their edits, then I suggest reverting them, then following through with more discussion on the talk page. A good model for this is outlined at bold, revert, discuss. It would also be a good idea to say precisely which parts of their edits that you do not agree with. Until there has been some substantial discussion of the issues on the talk page, it is really too early for dispute resolution. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:42, 31 October 2011 (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.

Dr. Blofield mass creation

Closed 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.


This is a disscussion from AN. BeebleRox informed me to take the disscussion here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Dr. Blofeld is mass creating pages without proper approvals/consensus/etc, and likely using his account via a bot to do so. I have attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page, but have gotten very terse and rude reponses. I also mentioned this on the notability notice board before I was able to discover the mass creation policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a page in the archives I think which should dismiss these accusations and an explanation of what is happening is given on my user page as to their purpose and cleanup intended is mentioned to User talk:Fram. Nothing more I can say. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any problem here, we can create as many articles as we like if they are notable enough. Jaguar (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, how exactly did you manage to create over 100 articles in about 20 minutes? I realize literally no work went into any of them, but still... Resolute 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Me? Don't want to be part of the discussion but I've done over 100 in six minutes on Serbia and Hebei, China. Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is something to be proud of. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe so but I'm just saying that Dr. B can't be using a bot script if I don't to create those articles. Jaguar (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems to obviously be a semi-automated script, at least. I was just curious. that said, I agree with Karanacs. I realize that some do believe the creation of sub-stubs is a good thing. I don't myself, but if they are going to be created, think about the reader and have the article say something. Copy the infobox over from the foreign language projects at least so that a reader is actually given some useful information. Resolute 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly doable - having a fast browser helps. I've managed a rate similar to this, though not recently. As to the why...I've been involved in that debate before, and I've always held that seeding the encyclopedia with stubs, while not ideal, does encourage some expansion via translation. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, if it is manual, its pretty impressive! (Not that I approve (obviously)) but impressive none the less. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As has been mentioned elsewhere, nobody really likes sub-stub mass creation. However there is also no rule prohibiting it that I am aware of and named rivers are generally condired to be automatically notable encyclopedic topics. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, think that there should be a "rule prohibiting it". Has there ever been a centralized discussion of the matter? Deor (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't know, but its probably worth discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As a new pages patroller, I have noticed the amount of articles DR. Blofield creates and I have to say, I am suspicious on the number of them he can make. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
How about you start assuming good faith and trust me when I saw I do not run a script or bot. Hell if I did do you not think I'd be creating 10 times the amount of content at 10 times the rate?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a fools game to guess whether another editor is using a bot or script. I deleted over forty pages in the span of a few minutes earlier today without the benefit of any such tools. I lined them all up in tabs, opened the deletion interface on each one, and went down the line deleting them in rapid succession. (they were all related, uncontroversial deletions of course). Besides, if the articles are ok, who cares how they are made? I believe that is what should be being discussed in a general manner as opposed to trying to catch a user using a script or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
We should NOT be bothering Blofeld about this. Editors who are working on creating content should not be stopped or bothered with. It is your responsibility to show that he's being disruptive or generating bad content; speed is not in itself any evidence that he's doing anything wrong. That's the whole point of WP:AGF and WP:BOLD. If you have found something wrong with his creations, insofar as you think that the articles, ignoring how quickly they were created, should have been so obviously deleted, then we can discuss the problems Blofeld is creating. But quickly creating good content is no more disruptive than slowly creating good content. If you have nothing wrong with the articles themselves, then there is nothing to discuss here.--Jayron32 13:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have an issue if he was actually creating content. All he is doing is turning a red link blue by putting barely enough info into the page to pass CSD A3. I get, and accept, why he is doing this, but I'd rather see him create 50 articles per 20 minute span, including a fleshed out infobox than 100 articles in a 20 minute span that tells the reader virtually nothing. Resolute 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been in disputes with Dr. Blofeld before about his enormous creation of articles of less than ideal quality. But I have to say that it is basically a valid choice to put quantity over quality - and he is one of the only editors who is undertaking real efforts to counter the systemic bias. If some of the articles are deleteable I say delete them, but let him do his thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with it, really. I doubt he's using a script, probably all "magic words" - something like
{{Infobox blah
|param1 = {{subst:PAGENAME}}
|param2 = 
|param3 = {{subst:PAGENAME}}, Sweden
}}
'''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a [[river]] in Sweden.

{{Sweden-geo-stub}}

I'd probably think it's just a redlink elimination attempt, or just another mass creation. HurricaneFan25 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem when we have articles of dubious notability or otherwise lacking a demonstration of why they should exist. Substubs about obviously-notable topics with interwikis and "translate" tags are vastly different and not at all a problem. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Though it would be common decency at point of creation to add {{unreferenced |date=October 2011}}. There may be editors who like to go around adding references to river articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Its sort of a drive to try to do something towards systematic bias by trying to start to bridge the gap with other wikipedias. The translate templates are crucial in this aspect. Basically its a way of saying this content exists you can google translate link in the template and access it even not a perfect translation and hopefully they can add to it and transfer it and even expand it further using reliable sources. I agree its a tall order but I would never start a stub which I didn't believe couldn't be fully expanded. In my opinion ransacking categories on notable topics from other wikipedias and trying to get the same level of coverage in english is exactly what needs to be done on here if we are to build a truly comprehensive english wikipedia. I agree at face value initially they are rendered "useless" but we can't ignore 700 rivers in one state of Germany for instance. They are too important to the physical landscape of the real world.. And why wouldn't we want articles like this in english? While I would like to magically create every article at GA level I simply do not have the time to write everyone as fully as I'd like. And when there is a sheer amount missing quality tends to be at bare minimum. Any one though could be instantly expanded in minutes by anybody unhappy with the current lack of content and information given. An explanation on my views on this are given on my user page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the Wikipedia that most seem to want, so as long as people brag about how many articles we have as a selling point at fundraiser time, Dr. Blofeld's stub-a-palooza will be viewed as a valued contribution to the project. if you want to change that, then change the culture that alues quantity over quality. Otherwise, this is pointless griping. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
When the stub count per category is reasonable rather than in the hundreds it is fine to add length and basin area and photo like Peršėkė... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, everything should be ok if it wouldn't be erorrs at these articles. User:Dr. Blofeld takes only one district ignoring that most rivers passes more than one district or even country. Also, I think it's very imporant to write at least with what bigger river it joins. If these things would be fixed I think such articles can be created. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not so easily done by a script, so the answer is {{sofixit}}. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps start with list-of-area articles: Although it is great to have stubs to capture every notable river, valley or town, those stubs alone will risk the danger of "Can't see the forest for the trees" as too many tiny articles which fail to describe the whole region. This is covered in new essay "WP:Aggregate data into lists rather than stubs".
    There are list-of-area articles which can be translated, first, such as from German WP. This is the concept of "List of tiny stuff" where not all items in a list have separate articles. For example, the valley in Germany, noted above (article "de:Zschonergrundbach"), is a small part of a list of 147(?) river valleys in Saxony (German: Sachsen), as one list for the 16 Bundesländer (federal states) in Germany:
Before creating hundreds of stubs for valleys, start with the 16 list articles (for 16 states in Germany), with tables of valleys showing the location and area (in ha/acres) for each entry. Even in the German WP, a list of 147 valleys has red-links for dozens of valleys (no articles yet), and perhaps some valleys are so minor that there are no sources which focus on a tiny valley as separately notable in "continued coverage". Let's avoid stubs for every tiny thing listed in a book of geographic areas.
Remember that WP's current 2,000+ asteroid-list articles began at Harvard (Boston) as 37 large data-files, listing thousands of asteroid names in each of the 37 lists. A notable, yet obscure, asteroid number can redirect into a list of related "minor planets" where we figured 200 lists of numbered asteroids was "efficient" and 2,000 lists were perhaps too small.
Similarly, using lists of rivers in each county (parish), or district, is a much easier way to cross-check the length, flow, depth, etc. of many rivers in a list of 100 small rivers, rather than using 100 stubs needing to be edited to describe each river and set the river-size data. WP's unfortunate hatred of lists, in earlier years, thwarted the reality that lists are the way of the future. So, we can consider the initial genius concept behind Harvard's 37 lists of numbered asteroids, with similar lists of hundreds of smaller items (+data columns) and redirect titles into those lists, rather than start with 999,000 stubs to be updated with specific data in the next decade. Always consider WP:LISTSTUFF, rather than creating thousands of hollow stubs. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this user. I warned him not to create articles with errores but that was simply reverted [29]. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to affirm this work as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. To be useful, however, stubs need to have enough information to allow other editors to identify which topic the page is about and locate sources. I recently started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_templates_and_non-Latin_names about a related problem—where stubs are being nominated for deletion by non-native speakers because stubs are missing the topic name in some or all of the languages in which sources are likely to be found. Bearing this in mind, where-ever possible these kinds of stubs need to have the name of the topic in as many languages and scripts as possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality vs quantity is a false dichotomy.The creation of these articles has no negative effects on anyone who wants to write a few high quality articles, whether in that field or any other. It's like arguing whether we should concentrate on biographical or geographical articles; one does not exclude the other. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC) .

All encyclopedias have entries for distinct geographical entities such as rivers. I looked thru Dr. B.'s recent Lithuanian river creations - they do all have articles in the LT Wikipedia. I don't think incompleteness - such as missing the info that a river that flows mostly thru LT but probably rises in Latvia - is a sufficient reason to inhibit this process. (It's different from biographies of living people; no one is hurt by an omission or error or even passing vandalism.) On the LT WP, most of them are ref'd to extremely expensive books, so I can't personally verify most of them immediately. But I think it's safe to say at this point that they are very unlikely to be hoaxes, copyvios, promotional, or any other of the things that call for speedy deletion. I appreciate these articles' existence and I think future generations will too. Novickas (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass creation of articles is one thing, mass creation of unsourced articles is another. The only verification done before creating e.g. Vabala is the check that it exists in another unreliable source, Wikipedia. The article there[30] has no sources at all. Can we at least put a stop to the creation of unsourced (or wiki-sourced) articles in such a manner? I have also asked Dr. Blofeld in the past to start articles on rivers with "The X is a river" instead of "X is a river", but I notice that this simple change isn't implemented.

The mass creation also contains errors, e.g. the article Weser (Ourthe) already existed as Vesdre for some years here. There also need to be checks on translations, e.g. do we want Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Bastia or Saint-Jean-Baptiste Church, Bastia (and there are quite a few of these church articles created already)? What with the names of rivers that run through different countries? Now, the first country Dr. Blofeld tackles gets priority, even though that may not be the best name for it? The Wisznia runs for 15 km in Poland, and for some 85 km in Ukraine. But our article uses the Polish name for it.

I think it would be better if these articles were created by a bot (run by Dr. Blofeld) with some control and some agreements, e.g. the need to have at least one reliable source, and the need for a better starting layout (it is a bit ridiculous that someone is going to correct all disambiguated articles like Bieke (Bigge) to remove the disambiguated part from the body of the article and the infobox). By having prior agreement before a run starts, things like the naming of French church articles can be handled before these are created. Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What difference would it make it a bot started creating hundreds of articles? I think I know; a human user would get in trouble for it at AN(I) and the bot wouldn't. Also the user could spot any errors in creating articles and fix them quickly, so having a user to do it might be better off. Jaguar (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point Fram and I had forgotten about the The thing, not that I ignored you. Although any article which says river of lithuania is still not erroneous as it is true but in a minority of cases may be cross border. Overall I'd say the benefits outweigh the negative. The Ukraineian name for the river you mentioned google translates as Cherry which is too literal. When I started the articles as Eglise I was using the current system used for many churches in Paris. We have tens of articles as Eglise in the same way we have them with Gare de for railway stations. Overall the positives outweigh the negatives I think especially if we view wikipedia as a project which will be around for future generations. What I want, and this was proposed at WP:INTERTRANSWIKI long ago, is to create an Interntranswiki bot which ransacks categories on other wikipedias and creates a missing directory where there are no en: links and attempts then to create them extracting some basic facts. I am clueless about coding though, if I was I'd have been running a bot for years and we'd probably have 10 million articles by now and most of the stubs of decent quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again! More geo articles have popped up from DR Blofield. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I second the idea referenced above about making a list page "List of rivers in germany", that could be full of red links. If someone wants to flesh out one of those they can. Im not an admin, am I allowed to comment here?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? We have List of rivers of Hesse etc by state and a general List of rivers of Germany. Given that the vast majority could be written into full length articles how exactly would this be productive? @Shakinglord, and you're surprised? People just please stop moaning and let us get on with developing wikipedia s a website. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my position that your stubs (as currently being created) are providing no value beyond what is in the list. If someone actually wants to make the full article then that is fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Most wikipedia articles, especially in the early days began as "providing little or no value". Do you think we have developed to what we are today in size by everyone article being generated fully as you see it today? You are missing what building an encyclopedia collaboratively actually means and what wiki technology entails and that as a resource we are still in our infancy. If you start to view wikipedia as a long term project which will be around for generations and we are to truly achieve wonders you will see the eventual purpose of what I'm doing. If we want a "complete" encyclopedia NOW then unless this site grossly changes its way of editing and purely focuses on quality then I am not willing to bow down on a whim to those who don't like it. As I say on my user page if we were a seriously scholarly encyclopedia we would build wikipedia GA quality article at a time and only permit that level of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, look at this almost useless article about a clearly notable subject that has since been converted into a GA. Or this two-line page with a speedy deletion tag that's currently Today's Featured Article. I'm not a fan of tiny stubs on notable topics either, but the way to get rid of them is expansion, not sanctions for the creators. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It is disruptive to create thousands of completely unreferenced articles. If Dr. Blofeld wants to create an article, or 1,000,000 articles about rivers, hills, creeks, films made in Elbonia, or whatever possibly notable subjects ha has found in a database or a Big Book with directory listings, he should provide at least the database or book from which he learned that said subject exists. That eliminates the need for an "unreferenced" tag, and satisfies at least verifiability, if not Notability. It would not take the bot or the semi-automated script that much longer, since the pattern has been to find some list of hundreds of things and create a hundred cookie-cutter stubs which say something like "X is a Y in Z" all from the same source. As long as the "Xs" fall within the guidelines for notability, this is an activity which improves the encyclopedia and is meritorious. The bot or script could also add a reference section, rather than just an external link, to make it more convenient for follow-up editors to add more references, but that is less of a requirement. Edison (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I either provide a reference or include a intertranswiki link for verification. If you disagree that a decent article on another wikipedia directly linked is not enough to verify it then that's your problem. There would be no point in referencing a one line stub just for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia (in any language) is not a reliable source, and that is your problem if you're creating articles which only cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. If the articles you're citing are referenced, just take the references from there (after checking them of course) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nyttend - I think the human centipede article comparison is very constructive. Someone individually chose to write that article, even as a stub. That implies a level of interest in that particular article that will give a greater likelihood of future expansion. Blofelds articles do not have that level of editorial filtering going on. If he was walking by a river and said "gee id like to start a stub about this river", then that initial level of interest is there. Of course stubs can grow into full GA/FA. But those articles that are interesting enough to become FA/GA would get created even if the stub wasn't there. Whoever put the effort into the first "non-stub" article likely had that level of interest anyway. What % of these stubs will ever be edited again, or in many cases even looked at! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was all Magic 8-Ball when the project started. Many articles are still being created by translating from other wikis, there’s a presumption - not proof, but strong presumption - of existence and verifiability there. You can't know when any new stub will be edited again or how much. And Dr. B did choose which to create. To demonstrate the uncertainty, I'll add a sentence about drainage basins and a reference to all of Dr. B's new LT river articles over the next week, making them 2-sentence referenced stubs. There is a very comprehensive LT Ministry of Environment page for this [31]. I imagine there are similar pages for other countries and maybe other country project editors will contribute similarly. (An announcement at country project pages would be nice, Dr. B, since probably not everyone reads Alex's New Article Bot entries.) Creating unreferenced stubs on encyclopedic topics using other language WPS, with context, like ‘x is a river in Lithuania’, is not explicitly deprecated AFAIK. If it is, let me know. I don’t see it in Wikipedia:Stub. Novickas (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't know when any new stub will be edited again or how much - actually you CAN if you're willing to go out there and get some data. I got a small sample (via clicking Random Article and taking down info on stubs I come across) at this point of about 40 but on average, an article that is a stub TODAY, was created almost THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO with none or only a single subsequent meaningful edit (i.e. not counting bots or automated (and apparently quite frequent) re-categorizations etc.) since. So yeah, for the most part, stubs stay stubs. And so will these. Volunteer Marek  22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like this eh?. And please stop shouting in capital letters, we hear you...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of an "average"? I think Wikipedia might have an article on it. Sure, you can find some stub (and almost all articles start as stubs) which winds up as an FA. But that is not the TYPICAL (I'm sorry, but the use of capital letters to emphasize something predates the internet, it is not shouting and it is perfectly valid) "history" of a stub. You can always find you a high school drop out who makes billions, but most high school dropouts are going to be in the lower end of the income distribution. I can find you a smoker who lived to be 100 years old, but most smoker's life expectancy is well below that of non-smokers. Same thing here. Volunteer Marek  22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
nobody is contesting the fact that some stubs can become good pages. We are just saying that it is statistically unlikely, especially for mass created pages, and those stubs that are turned into good pages likely would have been created as good pages even had the stub not existed. Please stop making straw men arguments, and doing personal insults. (not this comment but one previous). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give two hoots what you or anybody else thinks Gaijin. This is my last post here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Although your obvious stubborness and comtempt for other people may convince SOME people in this world to believe you are right. However, here we can obviously see you are simply blowing hot air, and your action both in mass creation and towards other users should be called into serious question. I cordially invite you to calm down and assume good faith. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you noticed that no admins have as yet seen fit to intervene in this situation? That's because this board is not part of the dispute resolution framework. There is no clear-cut policy violation in what Blofeld is doing, so there is not really anything for an admin to do about, whether they want to or not. Take it to DR or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Merovingian mass creation

This is a disscussion from AN. BeebleRox informed me to take the disscussion here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Merovingian continues to make articles about astrology, sometimes a single minute apart, likely a an automated bot. This may be a violation similar to DR. Blofield's mass creation incident's. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. Astronomy, not astrology.
  2. Please see previous discussions on my and other users' talk pages as to the developments regarding minor planet articles. Precedent has been to keep these articles.
  3. I am not a bot. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to increase the information in the first sentence of the lede, to make it more intelligible? Something like: (37852) 1998 DG32 is a main-belt minor planet, an asteroid not visible to the naked eye. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I can mention the absolute magnitude... and anyway, as far as I can tell, minor planet is preferred over asteroid. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 06:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not upfront against the articles you created -I am a 'space fan' so, I like them - but I note the existence of: wp:MASSCREATION - Nabla (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt that within astronomy circles minor planet is preferred over asteroid, but the proportion of readers who know what a minor planet is is very low. To quote WP:AUDIENCE Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am of the same opinion here as above. If you have a problem with the content (rather than the method or speed) of what he is creating, we can make that a matter of dicussion. Making good content really fast is still making good content, and we should not, in any way, ever discourage people from creating good content at Wikipedia. If it is bad content, it should not be created at any speed, but I have not, as yet, seen any evidence that this content should not exist. Ergo, leave him the eff alone and let him create Wikipedia content. --Jayron32 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with the content. With very little effort the stubs being created could be made much more intelligible to non-astronomers, as per my comment above. While normally the fix it with editing rule of thumb applies, with the mass-creation of so many stubs it makes sense to put some effort into the text being put on every stub beforehand. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Had the articles been created as more than a stub, would they have been deleted? That is, is there anything about the subject of the article that makes it an inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article? If not, there's no need to stop someone from creating them. If you think they need more content, then no one is going to stop you from adding it. --Jayron32 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The mass creation of trivial minor planet stubs initiated a lengthy discussion at WikiProject Astronomy. The result of this long discussion was to create a notability criteria for astronomical objects. After much back and forth, language was agreed on and a draft article for notability criteria was produced. As the main co-author of the draft, I will be putting it up to a RfC this week. Astronomy editors at the project have already weighed in on this issue, and the vast majority of these stubs will not likely survive scrutiny under the proposed criteria. Merovingian, and others here, are welcome to make a comment about the notability draft here. Perhaps the mass creation of these stubs should be placed on hold until adoption of the notability draft. AstroCog (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"This may be a violation similar to DR. Blofield's mass creation incident's.". "Violation". LMAO. Who is this guy? Why don't you actually do something for wikipedia Olaf instead of, well, hanging around here like an annoying little git.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I sense some hostilities from Dr. Blofield? Surely an expirienced editor such as he is knows to avoid personal attack. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(Copying from above as this is essentially the same issue) Have you noticed that no admins have as yet seen fit to intervene in this situation? That's because this board is not part of the dispute resolution framework. There is no clear-cut policy violation in what Merovingian is doing, so there is not really anything for an admin to do about, whether they want to or not. Take it to DR or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2011 (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.

Protect IP Act

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

An editor is acting against the consensus of other editors, using citations that don't say what the editor claims they say, claiming sources are not reputable, removing appropriate tags, editing other users posts on the talk page, and generally being very pedantic about every single edit by any other editor. In response to this editor's constant reversion of my edits I have explained very clearly and concisely why I am making the edits I do, but they just keep reverting them.

Users involved

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I have requested an rfc but have received no input from any other editors.

  • How do you think we can help?

We have arrived at an impasse and need the input of other editors.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Protect IP Act discussion

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

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.

Eugene Sternberg

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

Though I can not find the source, I suspect the recent largescale additions to the article are a copyright violation, added by an account with a history of copyright issues.

Users involved

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I've contacted the user and requested a listing of sources, then followed up to ask whether the content was copied from a published source. There's been no response, and the user has continued working on the article.

  • How do you think we can help?

A thorough check of the content for copyright violations, reversion of content if need be, and possible administrative action, if deemed necessary, with respect to the user.

76.248.149.98 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Sternberg discussion

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


I think it may be useful to specify where you think the copyright violations are, rather than asking for a general investigation. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Never posted on this board before, but wanted to let people know that this is now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. As this is more a copyright concern than a content dispute I suggest letting that process deal with it and closing this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (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.

WWE RAW

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

A Wikipedia user is continuously making an edit which is not sourced. I reverted the edit numerous times although it has not made a difference.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?


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

Yes, I wrote back on their talk page.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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


Resolving the dispute

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

I wrote on the user's talk page about the un-sourced edit and the fact that it needs a reliable source.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


  • How do you think we can help?

By providing advice on how to resolve the dispute.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


WWE RAW discussion

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


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.

Alprazolam/Xanax

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

We contest a sentence near the beginning of the article: "The potential for abuse is low and is similar to that of other benzodiazepine, (BZD) drugs." We have presented extensive evidence, from psychopharmacology textbooks and other well-recognized authorities, indicating that this sentence is false. Doc James says that this sentence pertains only to *therapeutic* use of the drug (i.e. use strictly within medically prescribed parameters). But this caveat needs to be conveyed by the sentence itself, if the sentence is not to be seriously and dangerously misleading. Part of the disagreement here regards Wikipedia readers’ likely interpretation of the word “abuse,” and we ask that the reviewer(s) of this covnersation include an evaluation of that issue. We note as well that the disputed sentence is contradicted by information contained not only in other Wikipedia articles, including those on “Benzodiazepine” and Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome,” but also in the alprazolam/Xanax entry itself.

Users involved

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

Yes

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

Resolving the dispute

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

We have been discussing this issue at length on the alprazolam/Xanax talk page since the beginning of September. About a week ago, we requested a third opinion, but were advised instead to make a request to this dispute resolution noticeboard.

  • How do you think we can help?

In order to move the dialogue on this matter forward to resolution, we request a careful reading and review of the discussion on the talk page. We ask that a neutral person (or several) – someone who does not know Doc James and has not worked with him in the past on any Wikipedia project -- give us an independent evaluation of the issues involved in this disagreement.

Rbarglow (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam/Xanax discussion

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

  • I'm reading over the discussions now and will give my thoughts shortly. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay. Having read over the discussions, it appears that there has been a discussion over this for quite some time, with a consensus seeming to have formed here. The most important thing to note In this case is the use of up to date references, which is covered here. In short, we try to use sources that are up to five years old. While you indeed have provided references to back up your viewpoint, some of them are a bit old, and have been refuted either by a more up to date source or a more reliable one. The issue on giving appropriate weight to majority viewpoints comes into play, if most reliable sources say X is true, while only a few say that Y is true, it'd be wrong to present that Y is true, or that most people say Y is true. That would be giving the viewpoint undue weight. It may be appropriate to state somewhere in the article, noting it's a minority viewpoint, but that should be discussed on the article talk page. If you wish to do so, I would recommend you acquire recent reliable sources that back up your viewpoints, taking care to read the relevant policies I linked to you, and keep comments concise. Often on Wikipedia walls of text will be ignored, simply because it takes too long to read. I also saw on your user page you note the account is shared. Wikipedia accounts are only to be used by one individual, see our accounts policy and doing so can get you blocked. Feel free to raise any questions about the points I made on my user talk page, but first read over the links I provided and think it all over. All the best, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:36, 2 November 2011 (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.

Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

The page is proposed for deletion . One of the reasons for deleting it is said to be lack of references . I want to add references to the article for preventing it from deletion . User Orartu ‎thinks all of the references can't be used in the page because the references are not related . In the article Kurds in Azerbaijan , Orartu deletes my disambiguation template because she thinks the existence of the page Azarbaijani Kurds is wrong , and the disambiguation is then have to be deleted.

Users involved

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

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

[32]

  • How do you think we can help?

Please explain to this user that I'm not her enemy and we may have conversation .

Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan discussion

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

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.

Elizabeth Rauscher

Closed 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.

Dispute overview

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

Apparently, User:Dreadstar thinks it is okay to revert nearly every edit I've made to this article as I try to get it to conform to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. I cross-listed this to WP:FTN because of the content issues, but I think that essentially this editor is claiming ownership of the article. I think the best thing to do at this point is simply revert him until he goes away because he makes no coherent arguments on the talk page yet insists that there needs to be a discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure what more can be done here, but would welcome some help.

Users involved

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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


  • How do you think we can help?


76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher discussion

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

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.

Yadav

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

Complete highjack of Yadav page.The article is manipulated and talks only about negatives of Yadavs.So many evidences have een overlooked.Negative Citations from same references are used and positive citations from same are not considered. Most of the people in India disagree to what is mentioned in the article(as is evident from the latest discussions) but the same has been overlooked as user Sitush and User Fowler&fowler have something against Yadavs and being veteran editors have considerable support of wiki administrators.Anyone trying to correct the article is either banned or blocked.This is clear misuse of Wiki admin powers.Please go through the latest discussions throughly and find out yourself that only user Sitush and Fowler&fowler have problems with correct facts and with support of few wiki admins they have completely hijacked the page

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?


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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, we tried to resolve it through discussions on Yadav page.Despite citing references and raising issues over biased and dubious nature of the artcle, no action was taken by admins and they continued their support for User:Sitush and user:Fowler&fowler

  • How do you think we can help?

Please remove protection from the article and Wiki admins should e unbiased.Or else we will raise a request with government to ban Wikipedia in India because enough is enough

122.174.23.252 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadav discussion

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

Is that a legal threat in the originating notice above? - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush,you are again finding ways to get people banned.There is no legal threat but a genuine concern from the people of India and to highlight the wrongs that have been going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you are speaking on behalf of 1 billion people. Quite a mandate, that. In any event, you need to be more specific in the points that you are raising. Some examples might help. And I would still like to know what it is you are considering in the event that this process does not reach an outcome which is agreeable to you. What do you expect the government of India would do about it? BTW, I've never proposed or supported the banning of anyone from Wikipedia, although I did support the topic ban for one person - I think that you are confusing blocks with bans. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You did not notify all of the people named in your report, but did notify some who were not named and share your views. I've notified the remainder of the contributors listed for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Before we start another baseless argument i would request a "Neutral" admin to please go through the latest discussions and find out himself how few people have been manipulating the citations and articles to demean a caste in India.This has been a traditional practice by so called "high-caste" people in India to demean other castes and these few editors are supposedly from those so called "high-castes".They give no logic but play with words and Wiki policies to manipulate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I am pleased that you included the word "supposedly". One should not believe everything that is said on Facebook, Orkut, Wordpress blogs etc. Nor, for that matter, everything that is stated in Wikipedia articles (!) Like it or not, among the the fundamental positions of Wikipedia is verifiability using reliable sources. That is not necessarily the same as "truth". This upsets people, and I do understand that. It is an issue that can be related to matters Indian, and is perhaps being exacerbated by the WMF "push" for more contributors from that area, which has a tradition of oral history and an under-representation in English language academic publications, not to forget problems of literacy & internet access. I doubt that anyone here contests that systemic bias exists, but we have to play by the rules otherwise it will be anarchic. What may appear to be a "hijack" may in fact be a valid application of Wikipedia's community-wide consensus. In some ways I hate to say this but, basically, there are other outlets for viewpoints which cannot conform to the community consensus. Ours is not a perfect world. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User 122.174.23.252, I hardly noticed any negativity in the article. Well, Shudra, yes, but that does not equate to Asprushya and according to some brahmins, all non-brahmins are shudra. This is a bone of contention in many caste articles. Please don't waste too much time fighting over that issue. You should instead spend your efforts on improving the section on post-independence history of the Yadav. What I find missing in the article is any mention of Lalu Prasad and Mulayamsingh Yadav or discussion on their rise to power. Basically the last sixty years are wrapped up in one small paragraph.

User, 122.174.23.252, you claim that some of the editors involved in editing the Yadav page may be high caste people who hate Yadavs. Why do you have such a narrow view ? Have you considered that not only they may not be high caste, they may not even be Hindu or Indian In fact, they could be from any corner of the world. Please don't assume that only Indians have interest in articles on castes.Jonathansammy (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan,we tried adding pics and details of Yadav Leaders but the same was reverted by Sitush and Fowler saying that there is no proof that these leaders are actually Yadav.The removed pics of Leaders of Yadav Mahasabha but have put pics from flickr which actually is not a verifiable source.Similarly, References from MS Rao and JNS Yadav were taken where any negativity was mentioned but any positive citation from the same references was rejected saying that these are not reliable resources.
References of Yadava's of Lunar and Krishnaut Lineage have been mentioned in this article where there is any negativity, but for positives they have created a separate page page for Yadavas.This heights of double standards and what hurts more is they have blind support of administrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to Sitush's question about the legal threat, it initially looked like one to me, though apparently is more just disruptive but not a threat. Comments like these are unhelpful to the dispute resolution process. If all of you are willing to approach this in a calm, civilized manner, I suggest taking this back to the talk page. If DR is still needed after that, we will be here to assist. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Note from uninvolved admin - that IP did not make a legal threat. — Joseph Fox 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note from uninvolved editor — it would be useful if specifics could be given as examples of negative comments. It may be that there are words that seem innocuous but have negative implications in this specific context; not all editors may be aware of these special meanings. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note from yet another uninvolved admin- Steve, while the IP did not make a legal threat as Joseph Fox rightly notes, it does show an unwillingness to play by the rules or participate in DR for the IP to demand unlocking of the article. The response suggesting that it was a legal threat was equally bad as it was either made in Bad Faith or it shows a misunderstanding of the rule. The IP's comment is more of a "political threat" which is meaningless rhetoric but makes any resolution unlikely with that user. I believe this matter has been previously resolved, I would simply ignore the IP because it's being disruptive and if it continues to disrupt, consider blocking.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Doug, How I am being disruptive ? for raising a concern here ? and I should be blocked for that? Right?Steve, that is exactly what has been happening on the talk page and that's why issue has been raised here.So many facts have been overlooked.The dubiety tags were removed by User: Fowler without even discussing that on talk page though relevant discussion was started there.Others get blocked if they attempt anything like that.I am not making any legal or political threat but only requesting unbiased wiki admins to please look into this and suggest a solution.The article should be neutral and should present both the views to the readers which is not the case currently.--122.164.146.68 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Stuart, consider the following points:
  • When discussion was started to correct the lead as it lays more emphasis on historical data, User Sitush reverted by saying it won't be a good news for Yadavs as they are only connected with Naxalism and corruption.These were racist remarks as all castes and communities in India are equally involved in corruption and Naxalism.
  • The leads starts by mentioning Yadavs as "Non-elites" whereas there are thousands of references (MSA Rao/JNS Yadav etc) that clearly mention that Yadavs were rulers in ancient India.The 4 citations given for Yadavs being non-elite are incorrect.1- Mentions only Ahirs being non-elite and Ahir is a small su group of Yadav so entire Yadav population can not be called non-elite.2-talks about non-labouring gentry groups and not Yadavs in particular.3-says Yadavs are OBCs(Other Backward Class) which is already mentioned in the lead.Being OBC doesn't make you non-elite as there are branhmin sub-groups also (like Goswamis etc) who are declared OBC in some states.OBC status is given depending on the economical backwardness of a community in a particular state of India.4- too nowhere mentions that Yadavs are non-elite.These citations are used selectively to manipulate the article.
  • Only negative text has been selectively hand picked from Jaffrelot Christophe,Mandelbaum,Swartzberg Leon whereas the same authors talk about the connections between Lunar race, Krinauts etc in the later half of the book.We haven't been allowed to add any of these things from the same book and flawed logic that Yadavas are not same as Yadavs was given for that.But for all demeaning remarks Yadavs and Yadavas remain the same and same references are taken.
I can carry on and give 1000 other examples.Request Wiki admins to please go through the page and see how User:Sitush and few others have been spamming on the talk page and have refuted all concerns with highly illogical arguments.--122.164.146.68 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Just some beginning notes: I am currently reviewing MS Rao (which I stated on the talk page before this DRN was opened), which some of the IPs and others have advanced as an important RS that we are currently missing; my preliminary feeling is that yes, it may include information that belongs in the article. This is tied up in the Yadava/Yadav distinction; after looking at some sources recently (especially, comparing Jaffrelot and Rao), it looks like we may be being too strict in separating the two. It's a complicated issue; the problem is that we know that some groups intentionally changed their names in the last several hundred years "into" Yadav (at least, that's what I recall), and we know that the claims of descent from the Lunar dynasty are obviously myth, and it's clear that Yadava and Yadav are not identical groups, but teasing out exactly how to represent these complex connections (which, of course, our sources don't agree on) is quite complex. This is going to take quite a bit more talking; the problem is that when IP after IP comes in and tells us we're prejudiced or biased or from one caste or another (as Jonathansammy pointed out, some of us, like myself, don't have even a tiny bit of Indian/Hindu/Aryan/etc. heritage), and then they give us a bunch of sources that we've already said many times before are not RS (like ancient religious texts, or anything published by Gyan Publishing), then it really makes people like me simply not want to help. Plus, not only has this article been the subjective of an off-wiki campaign, several editors have been very directly attacked off wiki for their participation. A lot of the IPs have recommended reverting back to the article from about a year ago, which is an absolute non-starter (as that version was unsourced, poorly sourced puffery). So if we could all try to be polite, and stop threatening to report us to the Indian gov't, then maybe something positive can be accomplished. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, Really appreciate your efforts that your taking the pain of going through MSA Rao and other books. But if even you agree that segregation between Yadava and Yadav is so complicated why don't we consider building a comprehensive article which covers everything.For eg,the article should clearly mention that term Yadav in Modern India is used for following different sects - Yadavas,Krinauts,Ahirs,Yaduvanshi Ahir,Konars Gawlis etc and then can go on and describe all sects in details.I am a Yaduvanshi Ahir and my family has been using surname Yadav and there are millions like us.It is a common practice by all these sects in India to use Yadav surname and hence the current article becomes flawed and this confusion is bound to happen.The present article also includes lots of mix match with stuff about Yadavas,Krisnauts,Ahirs and all(all presented in negative sense though).It would be a nice idea if we give readers a complete and comprehensive detail instead of segregating things as per our whims and fancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.146.68 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There has recently been a merge discussion regarding just this - it closed with no consensus to merge. To be honest, it would be one heck of a big article, since the claims of affinity extend from Abhira tribe, through Yadava, Ahirs and then to Yadav. Some of the connections are complex and disputed or, at least, inconclusive and/or contradictory. What we need are people who are willing to converse rationally and calmly, and with rather less repetition if at all possible. I, too, am at present re-reading the excerpts from Rao: his is a work that is extremely easy to cherry-pick and so the context is all-important. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
When the merge discussion got over ? in your dreams ? It wont be that complex.If we can write a comprehensive article on India(which is a land of diversity),writing one for Yadav is not that difficult job.The current article itself is disputed so don't worry about the comprehensive article.If we all give neutral views with citations and references without any manipulation, the detailed article would help a lot more.--Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Yadava#Proposal_to_merge_articles_Yadav_.2C_Ahir_and_Yadava. The fact that writing the article is a "difficult job" is self-evident from the talk pages of the individual articles, and it will be more so if we merge them because of issues such as weight for each community etc. For examples, Ahirs could easily swamp such an article. However, this is probably the wrong place for another merge discussion. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestions from a non-involved editor. The phrase non-elite seems to be part of the problem. It is qualified as traditional I feel if might be better qualified as historical. It might also be better to reword the Post-Independence section not to use the word elite. I believe the article would be more intelligible if term Sanskritisation were used / defined earlier. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The discussion on Talk:Yadav, has certainly gone far below the desired level, and does require attention, especially the comments from Fowler. Fowler, definitely has shown contempt for the subject on various occasions and has deliberately tried to mislead people through many of his comments and contributions. Some of the samples are. --"their entire past before that (and much since) is now something to be ashamed of"[33]. I am in hurry but ppl. must have tools to scan thru his work on Yadav article, especially comment section, where he declares, He prefers Kurmi to Yadav. You should not make such type of comments, about any community on the talk pages. These are samples only, if you go through his contributions you would be astonished if he is on w/p or on some porn site, and GOI do block porn sites. I may come back again with some more comments plz don't close the thread in hurry.Ikon No-Blast 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had a scan of the talk page but am unclear at present as to where the current issue is being discussed there. If someone could direct me to the current discussion on the talk page, I will weigh in there and try and help resolve it at the talk page. I echo Qwrxyian's thoughts, we need to keep discussion focused and civilized, going round in circles makes discussion harder. Let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It isn't being discussed in any specific thread. The initial report is very broadly worded and stems, I think, from the outcome of numerous threads which have already fizzled out. Things might pick up now that Diwali is over. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • User Fowler&fowler's recent comment: "You guys really want me to inundate you with citations to the Yadav's non-elite status. "Non-elite," btw, as you might have guessed is a modern anthropological euphemism. The terms usually used for them are a lot worse"[34].This is really sad that person has been attacking a particular community with such demeaning remarks and no one is doing anything about it.He is openly abusing the entire community on a public forum like Wiki.I am hurt and so are millions of Yadavs across India.I can just hope that neutral moderators will assume good faith here and block Fowler from writing anything on Yadav page.With this type of shameful remarks and attacks on a community, Wiki will surely lose its credibility. As Iconoblast righly said, looks like he is writing stuff on a pornsite--Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You miss the point, I think. What F&f is saying is that using the phrase "non-elite" avoids having to use phrases which would most likely cause even more offence, eg: shudra, servant or whatever. Wikipedia is not censored but Fowler&fowler is actually trying to spare people's blushes by self-censoring some of the sources. Me? I would call a spade a spade, and not worry too much about trying to spare people's blushes - I've had a death threat already, so there is only one thing worse that someone could do.
  • So perhaps people should be grateful that F&f is actually tempering the presentation of the article. It is when people who are obviously from the community begin to debate in a non-policy compliant way, and promote or pick up their cause from Facebook communities/Orkut etc, that the patience of other people starts to become a little stretched. F&f may be at that point right now, but there is good reason for it. I have posted something below the reply from Fowler that you link to above: please read it, and please note the tone of some of the responses from "your side" below it. Then tell me who is being intemperate. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sitush, : Ohh.."your side" and "my side"..so we already have two sides here.With this type of narrow thinking i am sure what justice you are doing to the article.Kudoz to you that you even attempted to justify Flower's remark(failed miserably though).And this is not the first time you and Fowler have teamed up.you support each other's reverts,each others illogical comments,arguments etc and that's how you have hijacked the article.And by protecting the article,the moderators have given you complete dominance of writing any shit that you want to.Your interest and edits in articles of castes like Yadavs,Jats etc and your demeaning remarks on them leave no doubt that you belong to one of those castes that made life of other caste members miserable for hundreds of years and you continue to do it even now.I pity you for using terms like servants and all for some community.you can continue to waste your time on this article with your stupid inputs but it wont make any difference to the caste.Just type Yadav on google and you will find 100s of sites with their glorified history.May god bless you with some sanity and may this negativity go out of your mind.Rockstar1984 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rockstar, you have the right to dispute other editors opinion but you have no right whatsoever to throw out insults such as you have above. This isn't the first time I've seen Yadav at this board, indeed I myself closed the last DRN thread. From my understanding, the main dispute is that the article mainly portrays the modern aspects of Yadav's, as opposed to the historical context. Historical documents, such as the ones that have been referred to by several editors, are considered primary sources and as such, are not on par with secondary sources. It would be inaccurate to say in the article that Yadav's are kings, because modern references do not state this. We likewise do not say that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the centre of the universe, because modern viewpoints say otherwise. The same applies here. It may be appropriate to state such information in say, a history section or something, but this really should be discussed on the talk page. And discussed civilly. Accusing people of having a hidden agenda is unhelpful to discussion, and really needs to stop. Wikipedians edit from across the globe, and for different reasons. So my suggestion here is for everyone here to go back to the talk page, read over the applicable policies (being WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY) and continue discussion, in a succinct and civilized manner. I will watch over the talk page and chip in where I can. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Steven,you keep seeing Yadav on this board because you guys never really solve the problem.This time again you are closing it without actually understanding the real issue.So many concerns were raised here(with examples) and you think its just about difference in historical and modern aspect.Be it historical or modern, nowhere correct things are mentioned.Article is completely manipulated and presents only Situshs and Fowlers line of thinking.You are warning me for my comments which was only a reaction to even more insulting comments by Sitush and Fowler, but no, Wiki admins will never warn them because they contribute on articles as well.Anyways, you guys write whatever you want to write, will hardly make any difference.With these kinda article wiki only will lose its creditability.I am out of it,do not have enough time to waste talking only about caste and creed, have better things in life!n yeah, you can ban me if you want to coz i too don't believe in wiki anymore!.Rockstar1984 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Rockstar, I think the issue is that Wikipedia articles should include all non-fringe viewpoints, not just positive viewpoints. This is one of the basic founding principles of Wikipedia, and it's no surprise that experienced users are not willing to ignore it. Have a look at this video, which includes an explanation of the policy, and see the main policy page for more details. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Stradivarius,Exactly...but then articles shouldn't be all negatives also!Editors have ensured that they manipulate facts in such a way that only negative things are published here.Both positive and negative things should be published.We are not stopping them from writing negative then why we are not allowed to write positives ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (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.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Closed 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.


Dispute overview

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

infobox and sources for the article are in question. 1. loss and casualty section of infobox. 2 use of non neutral sources as Source. Please guide us about the 1 Information in the casualty section of the Infobox. at present the other user is trying to place those information in the Infobox which are normally not included by wp:TREND . as they are mentioned in article , mentioning all of them will make the infobox unduly large. 2 also comment on the use of PAF official website as source for IAF losses in the 1971 war.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

1A lot of damage can be mentioned in infobox of both the Indian and pakistani sides, that does not mean we have to add it. these are extra information that cannot and should not be added in infobox. also there has already one dispute above in dispute on "Operation Trident (1971)" . 2 PAF official website does not Give the Value for PAF aircraft losses (while it can accurately give it) for obvious reasons but no the PAF Website gives IAF losses. The user is trying to use another site which has mirrored this info as a neutral source for this change.

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

yes

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

tried on talk pages , no uses user reverts me and complains on Antivandal for getting me blocked.

  • How do you think we can help?

please guide us on 2 points.

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

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

1. Military Conflict Infobox

the Description on the heading above is enough, i would only include few examples for showing the wiki trend . Iran–Iraq_War, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Red Army invasion of Georgia, Kosovo War, Battle of Nanshan. Many more can be included but i think this is sufficient. This Dispute has arisen because there had been an attempt to misuse the Infobox Casualty and loss section to highlight] the damage that Pakistani forces did on Indian harbours airfields etc. The Edits on infobox completely disregard the format of the infobox, the user instead of making an attempt to understand what needs to be placed in the infobox and what not, [[includes needless extra information , which (after noticing) i tried to remove with reasoning, but the other editor assuming bad faith took an offence and reverted it saying vandalism (without discussing) and at once appealed for my blocking at wp:AIV (which was promptly rejected later). In order to prevent a furthur edit war, i have left the article in the incorrect state and i have brought the matter here. I request opinion of other editors on this issue.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The AIV request for above editor was not rejected it was referred to dispute resolution. Secondly, the editor is trying to bias any potential neutral editors. Appropriate discussion has taken place on the talk page which can be reviewed. As for format, in the articles being used for example include ground losses. All ground and territorial losses are added to the infobox, see the example of Indo-Pak War of 1965 where even the captured territories are added in this section. I think this is a valid addition. Even if the format was an issue, the notability of the runway damages is so much that it deserves an infobox inclusion. These runway damages are mentioned in both Pakistani and Indian sources (as well explained on the article talk page) most notably by then Indian Air force chief in his book, "My days with IAF". --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
such damages are a part of each and every war. these things go in the article not in the 'Casualty and losses' section of infobox , one need to understand the difference between damage vs casualty and losses. the above user is desperately trying to include whatever info he likes to include in the infobox, with a clear disregards to the Wikipedia's trends in editing a war conflict infobox. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There's little to support runway or harbor/fuel facility damages in a military conflict infobox of this nature. Such damages are not normally listed and they are very small in comparison to people, vessels and territory lost. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Binksternet the content in question can now be removed from infobox in coherence with wiki policies. Also i would like to inform the editors that the damage on the airfields was promptly repaired (often within few hrs and used for counter strike) and the fuel facilities of the small okha port was damaged. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If the notability is significant (as the Indian airchief stated they had to fly from the taxi ways for days) the damage does deserve the info box. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Just because an editor feels that damage to a port and runway is enough to be included as Casulaty/loss in war article infobox does not mean it can be placed violating the wiki trends. We at wiki have some rules to follow. one cannot go around placing whatever he wants to place. What is more saddening is you are still not ready to follow what others are rightly suggesting. we have 2 response on the dispute, this dispute is resolved from my side at least. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The factor of notability is just as important as 'trend' which itself is not so far away from it. Seems like the dispute was always resolved from yours side as far as what you want is done. I'm sure that if there are editors telling you that this placement is right, you'd then be arguing about the reliability of the sources or something. This loss was of significance and cited by both Indian and Pakistani sources. If your issue is of POV, you should check out my comment in the below subsection. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Firstly this was not a Loss .the runways were never lost, just damaged due to bombing by planes and promptly repaired for counter strikes. also i think we should limit our discussions to the to the point above , u can fill up the page with comments like , if this happened then you will do this and that and stuff like that. If you have an argument for the dispute u are welcome to say needless arguments and attempts to mislead will hurt your case. we have a 3:1 majority in this dispute, its already on way to its logical conclusion. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
3:1? I don't think a 4th editor commented here. Anyway, damages are mentioned in many infoboxes... I remember you including the damage of shahjahan ship in an infobox. That is not against trend. Not to mention, this was not just a damage but a notable one that affected the Indian airforce's flights. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
we already have 4 opinion. Binksternet,Ðℬig, Mr. Stradivarius for removal and one lTopGunl against. u can do your maths. like i said above it was promptly repaired and was not a loss, you are the only one considering this runway and port damage as losses of 1971 war --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Stradivarius has not said to remove the content but to give proper citations to everything. Also, I've mentioned it is not wrong to add major damages to the infobox as per your own actions. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
which is your own understanding. Mr Stra in his 3rd point states that we follow wiki guidelines for such cases. we do not decide by wp:OR that this event of bombing a runway is a major Loss of 1971 war for India (the event is already mentioned in the article as it is cited), theres absolutely no point in repeating it in infobox. Infobox only contains some specific information and not all the damages that one country inflicts on the other. you have been trying to add a strike damage of day1 as a Loss and casualty of A major War(such damages are obvious and frequent in almost every battle and is already included in the article). Including them in infobox based on your interest is simply wrong and futile. if in doubt about wiki trends you can refer some example pages Iran–Iraq_War, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Red Army invasion of Georgia, Kosovo War, Battle of Nanshan. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Citation for lost Indian aircraft

Enough discussion for the issue has not taken on talk in the first place. Instead the user chose to editwar every time changing the pretext of removing cited material from article. First he objected on reliability of the sources provided for the damages to the airfields, then he started with trend when he could not get it removed. The fact is that those damages did take place and have been placed as such in other articles. Another point is that he only removed the damages from only the Indian side under the pretext of making the infobox short (while that too was not needed). Secondly, dbigxray is trying to wrongly frame the issue. The downed Indian aircrafts are not only cited by the PAF site but also another defense website which dbigxray has been eagerly quoting on different issues [35] in the very previous section of the same talkpage. Now when the same site is giving the information which he doesn't like, he is calling it a mirror site just on the basis that the text is similar even though it has been well placed on the site in context to other content. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

the edits in question are this
the above statement is his own and it clearly seems to me. clear case of double standards . Enough discussion has not taken place because the user lTopGunl (talk) believes in going to Antivandal rather thank discussing on the talk page. Hence i was forced to come here and notify the matter . About the Information and claims of mirror. the editors can check the EXAct Copied statement from both the sites. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That is the reason there is a neutral source backing it up so as to verify its neutrality not letting the Pakistani source be the only one. Its not a mirror. You are trying to mislead other than the fact that you've been quoting the same site as mentioned above. I'd call that double standards. About WP:AIV, when you remove cited information and label it POV on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are to be reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well you have reported already, thanks for that, we can wait for the result at AIV. the facts speak for themselves. for the benefit of the neutral editors i am pasting both the citations below.
  • At war’s end IAF had lost 130 aircraft in all. The three-to-one kill ratio that Pakistan scored, however, could not prevent the tragic fall of Dhaka. The trauma of separation of East Pakistan and a preventable military catastrophe affected all Pakistanis deeply and lingered long afterwards. However a stoic recovery was brisk. PAF soon reorganised and reequipped assimilating the new threat environment on the sub-continent.
source is http://www.paf.gov.pk/history.html
  • At war's end IAF had lost 130 aircraft in all. The three-to-one kill ratio that Pakistan scored, however, could not prevent the tragic fall of Dhaka. The trauma of separation of East Pakistan and a preventable military catastrophe affected all Pakistanis deeply and lingered long afterwards. However a stoic recovery was brisk. PAF soon reorganised and reequipped assimilating the new threat environment on the sub-continent.
taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm
We can clearly see the difference between the two above and also it is clear from where this information has originated (paf.gov.pk). i dont think there is any need to mislead the neutral editors on this issue --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You;ve just pasted it out of context (can be reviewed from site). It is not a mirror. The same information has been published at this source. You can not give a source as your argument at one point and call it a mirror site at another. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
mirror here means the information is copy pasted from the source paf.gov.pk you cannot deny this fact, The content is clear above , for the context i have also placed the links so that it can be checked. obviously i will not spam here by copypasting the whole page. And inspite of my raising this issue of source paf.gov.pk i was being reported to AIV for this edit. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Mirror sites do not copy paste selective materials. They completely copy the texts/articles. When something is published on more than one sources, it only becomes more verifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Its clear from the content of the above two citations check the resemblance , it is obvious which one of them is the real source. It also obvious who is trying to make a fool out of others and falsely using misleading statements and trying to block other users. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You are the one here removing cited content. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
we still need and explanation on the double standards when the user lTopGunl stated here [[36]] that There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa. . do you mean it is perfectly correct to Use PAF website to use as a source for claiming Kills on IAF as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 well if you think that then you are backtracking your own statement above, . lets not argue without any logic.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That only reiterates your usage of the global security site which you are now labeling as a 'mirror' when it has come against your own arguments. My edit was well sourced. You on other hand simply removed it labeling it as biased. That only amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thats what you think why dont we wait for a neutral comment on the above statements, things would be more clear then .--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole dispute is part of the ongoing friction between pro-Pakistan and pro-Indian editors. A pro-Pakistan bias should not be allowed to creep into the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet, thanks for taking out the time to read our comments and providing a valuable neutral suggestion to both the above points of the dispute. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And I'll add the word 'vice-versa' here. The content I added was cited (and backed up by a neutral source) while the editor dbigxray has been contending it without any citation. In addition, see Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 as a reference. All significant claims are cited in infobox under headings, which might be an appropriate solution. In other war articles claims act as ranges like 100[citation by one party]-130[citation by another party].
I'll like to add a comment to Binksternet's statement that the reason I was reverted was not the reason of length of infobox that dbigxray was giving on the article talk page but was because of his own pov as quoted by an editor:
"If this is really an issue about neutrality and excessive content you'd have removed the content for both sides and not just that inflicted by Pakistan. I would have reverted your edit as well on that basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>"
--lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(the above comment by lTopGunl) is yet another attempt to divert editors from the matter of the dispute and flood this discussion section using irrelevant text. the truth can be checked from the [| talk page]( the above user is only interested in adding the damage done to Indian Side though he is a Pro-Pakistani editor (that too referenced from Pak Sources [POV]), the rest is self understood. ). The content about IAF casualty given by PAF must be removed because it is blatantly copied line from the Pak Air force website wp:POV and not a neutral one (as you wrongly claim). To make the matter clear i have stated both comparison above. I think thats sufficient enough to end the dispute. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again you two - I must say I didn't expect to see you back at this noticeboard so soon! I have a few points to make about the discussion that I have seen here:

  1. There's nothing to stop us linking to a mirror of a source, if we are sure that it is a faithful copy of the source, with no added commentary, and nothing taken away. In this case we can simply cite the original source and link to the mirror.
  2. The source originally published at paf.gov.pk does not magically become a reliable source just because it was re-published at globalsecurity.org. It is still the same source, written by the same people, with the same bias. In this case it seems to be a primary source, and should only be used with the caveats listed at WP:PRIMARY, if at all.
  3. For the infobox, we go with what the sources say, and with what Wikipedia guidelines say. For casualty and damage counts, we should not be in the business of tallying up figures and doing research by ourselves, we should be using what reliable sources say the counts are. If sources disagree, then there ways of getting round that, but judging for ourselves what events were and were not part of the war, and tallying up casualty figures to suit our own purposes is not one of them.
  4. Talking about sources, this entire article needs an extensive rewrite. Looking at the list of references, the vast majority of them are news reports. Reliability of a source depends on context, and using news reports to source an encyclopaedia article about a war simply isn't good enough. You might have heard the cliché that "the first casualty of war is truth" - this should give you a good idea of why using news reports from 1971 is not good practice here. Anything remotely controversial in this article needs to be cited to reliable, third-party, academic sources. Try this Google Books search for a good starting point.

I am of half a mind to tell you both to scrap the article and to start again from scratch. In fact, a good way of doing things might be for both of you to create a special page in your userspace and write the whole thing again section-by-section using quality sources, comparing notes as you go. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

AgreedThanks Mr. Stra again for your patient listening and opinion. An Unfortunate turn up of events (failed attempt to get me blocked at wp:AIV etc) and lack of assuming good faith brought us here. But coming here again seems to have helped in resolving our dispute. We already have 2 neutral opinions about the removal of the above 2 contents in question. The dispute seems to be resolved from my side atleast. about the novel suggestion on rewriting the article on userspace, i would like to inform that earlier while i was checking article content and the various citations from sources google books etc for the edits on this page, i had come across various facts that i have included in the articles related to 1971 war. but rewriting the whole article seems to be too tedious a job, nevertheless will give it a try. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
One way that could be less labour-intensive than re-writing the whole thing could be to simply re-cite the whole thing - removing citations to news sources and replacing them with scholarly citations. The catch is that with this way it is easy to make the mistake of keeping in material that was in the news articles but is not backed up completely by the academic sources. So you should take extra care if you choose to do it this way. Or you could use a combination approach, with a combination of re-writing and updating citations depending on the section. It's largely up to you how you want to do it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Dbigxray, if you would discuss the matter on article talk rather than editwarring and repeatedly (and apparently fruitlessly) linking my valid reports to WP:FORUMSHOP, we would have resolved this issue without using DRN. If you want, we can give it another try using Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 as an example since that is pretty stable in this regard. Whether the Pakistani claim is neutral or not, it is reliable official claim from Pakistani side. So why not just make headings like the 65 war article and list all claims by both and neutral parties under those. This would be the fastest step towards a resolution. I'll even suggest for a table to be made to be put in the body of the article for the losses and claims by parties.
Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for your input, it helps alot. I am already in for properly citing the article rather than fighting on the lamest of the issues. But the editor here either takes offense of my suggestions/WP:BOLD edits or blames me with POV even when the sources I give are Indian. Trying to get the issue resolved for now. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
firstly it was lTopGunl not me who went to wp:AIV instead of responding to my comments on the talk page of article and doing edit war on the article yourself also. so kindly dont attempt to sermon when you yourself dont apply your own preaching to your editings. secondly you stated on [[Talk:Operation_Chengiz_Khan][ that "There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa (i.e if Pakistani sources claims about kills on india(IAF)). - --<User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl> ". and now on this dispute you make a complete U-turn and you are now advocating the use of Pakistani Sources for claims on Indian Losses.yet another example of you preaching something else and applying the exact opposite in your edits. (this edit of urs is clearly POV as all the above editors have already said this , and who in their good sense are perfectly correct even if you refuse to listen to them). Lets refrain from introduce POV in history articles.we have a 3:1 standing agreeing for removalat the moment, hoping for a logical ending here --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Just as I said, repeated linking of report will get you no favours in a dispute discussion. That is the go-to place when some one removes cited text repeatedly and thats what I did. Coming to the dispute, I backed up my claim with another source which the star describes as not being wrong just because it contains a copy of that information. I'll rather say when the same content is published on different sources, it gets peer reviewed and hence more verifiable. I don't know how you got to the 3:1 ratio. It is not a POV but a cited content. You are repeatedly dragging the issue when I'm willing to resolve. The most important thing some one will note before assuming good faith will be your willingness to resolve the dispute and you are being inflexible on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. If you have a citation at all that disagrees with my citation then list it. You simply can not challenge cited content, without a citation of your own. Lets not forget that you've not given a single citation to contest it yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The topic of the discussion is "can PAF official website be used as source for IAF losses in the 1971 war."we have 3 people saying no it cannot as it amounts to Pak's POV and bias on a wiki history article that should be neutral (actually 4 if i also include your own preaching statement quoted above as a support, but i am not doing that) vs you saying yes it can be used. (so total 4 persons and 1 preaching ) . We are not here to find out the number of IAF losses, kindly dont deviate yourself and others from the topic of the dispute. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The topic of discussion, as started and framed by you, is wrongly representing the issue. You have to contest a citation with another and not just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's what the other editors have said too. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
it seems somehow you missed the comments (4 points) of Mr Stra above, i think you need to have a look at it again. i dont need to state the issue again, if you have a supporting arguement you can say. its no use flooding this (already large) thread with useless allegations and wiki pages again and again. i have already replied to your redundant allegations (with links) more than once. Everyone here knows this is clearly not the case of wp:IDONTLIKEIT even then you have repeated that link 4 times above, i hope u dont assume the editors are blind here that they need it again in capitals. hope other editors will see the attempts of flooding the thread.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing here baselessly, misquoting other editors. Adding links towards wiki policies is not flooding. Where are you citations??? If you cite other claims of these losses or losses sustained by Pakistan, we can add them under their respective heading as done in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Work towards a resolution. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
we have one more allegation above (counter ticking yet again), adding the same allegation and idontlike link with capitals and different words is flooding of course. I am in support for a neutral and reliable assessment of damages. giving essential data and figures on imp history article based on ones POV is not the way to go ahead. we would need a neutral and reliable figure from wp:RS before we claim losses for IAF or PAF kills, so far it is not available hence the section was blank so far. that does not mean one can put in biased figures. the Biased figure needs to be removed as others have also suggested so. as soon as you are ready the dispute is resolved. searching for the neutral figures may take time, it could be done later also,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. As this doesn't look like it is getting resolved here, would you both be willing to take this to the Mediation Cabal? I think mediation would be the logical next step if you are still not agreeing over the content here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All the editors (except the other party) above have expressed their opinion, by saying these contents in question needs to be removed. Even the other party to the dispute agrees to it (in principle by his preachings) but seems he is backtracking now. all the Suggestions have clearly been ignored and the thread has been flooded with allegations/useless wiki links and what not (shows us the real intentions). Till now there has been no Valid arguement from the other party that opposes the removal. I think its better to go with majority 3 to 1 in favour of removal of questionable content and end the dispute. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, but which "questionable content"? It's not at all clear from my vantage point. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The user Dbigxray wants to remove the mention of 130 Indian aircraft lost in the war on the basis that the citation is Pakistani (and neglecting the neutral reference which has republished the same). I am willing to resolve the solution in the way of mentioning the war losses in the similar way as Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 in which each party's claim has been given a heading (since the claims vary too much, it seems appropriate), but the user here has no citation of his own to bring in hence he just wants the already cited content removed. I think this can be solved without further mediation. The mentioned 1965 war article is pretty stable in this regard. Also, if he would bring a reference that would contest it, it would be better to cite an Indian claim instead of uselessly questioning reliability of content where the whole article needs a lot of improvement. Also, the user mistook your points about properly citing the whole article as a comment to remove the specific loss that I mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
the "questionable content" here are the
  1. damages that are wrongly placed in the Casualty/loss section of infobox and
  2. Loss count 130 for IAF taken from the PAF website
stop repeatedly calling the source neutral, you are trying to fool editors. its already said above that republishing a para does not make the source neutral, the source will not become neutral even if one goes on shouting the same for 50 times in this thread. the figure about aircraft losses can only be placed if wp:RS backing it, or else its better not to put on wrong/biased/POV values, why doesnt the PAF website give its own (PAF's) losses in the war (clear biased nature and POV) . random guesses or POV cannot be included as a figure for losses. besides it has already been discussed that the damages are not listed in the Casualty section.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:28, 7 November 2011 (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.
  1. ^ G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman, L. Smolin, OPERA neutrinos and relativity, arXiv:1110.0521.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11&oldid=1138442855"