Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Seventh Day Adventist

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?

i keep correcting it but editor keeps reverting it back. it is incorrect information which is written on their site especially in the opening paragraph which is what i am correcting. firstly and foremostly it is not a christian denomination. it is a religion that began in the mid 1800's. to be christian denomination one must believe Jesus is God. John chapter one, In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word WAS God. ... and the word became flesh.." In the founders writings Ellen G Wight implicitly states " 'The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God almighty'. Ellen G.White (1903, ms 150, SDA Commentary V.p 1129). The second is they state that Jesus used to be Michael the arch angel. [1]. I dont want my corrections to be refused. It makes Wiki a very poor source of information if it doesn't allow the truth or the facts.

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=Seventh Day Adventist}} --~~~~ 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?

By not changing the changes I make. They are verified with references.

203.31.34.130 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventist discussion

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


Please list above and notify all editors involved in the article talk page discussion, then change the notification status from "Not yet" to "Yes" if you wish to continue with this dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) (as DRN clerk) 03:42, 8 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.

New Amsterdam (TV series)

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 article regards a tv series about an immortal. The section in question (about the events in his immortal life) has undergone some back and forth and tendentious and accusatory discussion on the article talk page. As the focus of the tendentious posts, I am likely going to address that user's (Barsoomian's) conduct via another noticeboard. That leaves the content dispute remaining to be resolved/mediated/refereed/whatever. We are trying to find middle ground on:

  • Whether the section should present as a table of dates and information, or be avoided altogether (as evidenced in other articles about immortal characters or articles about characters of FA quality)
  • Whether some of the information being presented as accompanying information for events within this section are at least partly OR/SYN or have been culled explicitly from the primary source itself.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Barsoomian's behavior has muddied the waters, making more difficult to resolve what should be a fairly straight-forward issue.

  • 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=New Amsterdam (TV series)}} --~~~~ 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 sought to defuse the situation via the talk page, apologizing for any perceived slights and seeking input from the other users. I have initiated discussions on each of the other two user's talk pages (MJBurrage about the initial reverting edits, and Barsoomian about civility and tendentious user conduct).

  • How do you think we can help?

I have initiated an RfC regarding the content, but I am thinking that some more eyes on the dual issues of section format and sourcing issues might make for a more stable discussion. Such would definitely make for a better article.

Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New Amsterdam (TV series) 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.

Iraqi Turkmens

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?

There is currently a dispute regarding the Iraqi Turkmen article. Somebody seems to continuously create new accounts in order to remove my edits. The main issues include:

  • They keep removing the 1957 Iraqi Census
  • They keep removing the detailed introduction
  • They keep removing pretty much anything that says "Turkish" [even though the community themselves have declared it their language]
  • All new material which I contribute is continuously reverted to an old version of the article.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

If you look at archive 1 of the discussion page you will see that this article has previously been disputed. I’m assuming that it is the same individual[s] but with a new user name.

  • 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=Iraqi Turkmens}} --~~~~ 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 previously tried to resolve this issue (see archive 1 of the discussion page) but due to my long absence it never got resolved. Recently, there has been a minor edit war whilst I was trying to improve the article. I have tried to resolve the issue on the talk page but my edits are still being removed and I feel as though I am not being taken seriously by this user. Furthermore, I have used sources which was already in the bibliography [and is still being used by this user] yet they remove my contributions which come from the same source.

  • How do you think we can help?

I need guidance on what I should do as I do not usually report anything. I strongly believe in using a range of academic sources [one can see this through my contributions]; however, this certain individual questions every single reference I use. I just don’t know what to do anymore. I am only really active on Mondays and Tuesdays and therefore feel as though this issue will never get resolved.

Turco85 (Talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmens discussion

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


I will allow the Discussion page to speak for my actions on this page. I am merely trying to prevent incorrect information being inserted - and reliable academic sources deleted - by this user. MamRostam03 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though MamRostam03 has not even read any of the sources, this is evident in the discussion page as they will not accept the fact that the sources say that the community speaks "Turkish". Furthermore, I do not understand why this user has removed the detailed introduction and demographics sections as well as removing the 1957 Iraqi Census.Turco85 (Talk) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Turco85 and MamRostam03, and thanks for posting to this board. I've had a look over the talk page, and it seems there are several issues with sourcing and with possible undue weight. I think this case would be served well by mediation - would you both be willing to open a case at the Mediation Cabal? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, any neutral observer is welcome (remember to keep in your mind that "Turkmen", "Turkish" and "Turkic" are not interchangeable words - although in translation, sometimes they are confused). MamRostam03 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, sure I'm willing to do that.Turco85 (Talk) 09:07, 4 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.

Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers

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 are currently at a standstill in our discussion about the use of the median to summarize statistical data. On the one side, several editors (6+) feel that the use of the median and the resulting graph is well within the guidelines of wikipedia policy and also that it improves the quality of the page by making it easier to read. The other side feels that it constitutes original research and want the median and graph removed or altered. This debate has come up several times throughout the 2+ years that the median has been on the page. Each time there has been a consensus which resulted in keeping the median on the page. But this recent discussion has resulted in a standstill with equal (or close to equal) number of editors on each side.

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=Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers}} --~~~~ 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?

A lengthy discussion has been done, but the editors are split, both in support and opposition to the use of the median.

  • How do you think we can help?

We need a clear outside opinion about wikipedia's policy regarding the use of a median and if it would be considered original research.

Jdm64 (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers discussion

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

Clerk's Comment: I observe that there is a fairly recent (7 days) RFC on the Operating Systems page with a No-Consensus closure. I also observe that there hasn't been any discussion on the web browsers page. While I do note that there is a bunch of text blocks of viewpoint on the OS page, I think it's still too early for people who aren't hip deep in the issue to understand it. I also think that some sort of outside opinion (RFC, 3O, etc.) and discussion needs to occur on the web browser page before it comes here. Hasteur (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I was going to comment here as an outsider, but I've just seen the Clerk's well reasoned comments. I commented at WP:OR where someone is attempting to change policy to legitimate the current state of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several issues I would like to raise according to this observation:
  1. Both pages are brought here as they share a common problem of representation of statistical data.
  2. The RfC on Operating Systems talk page did form two factions that fail to move towards consensus.
To date the discussion didn't raise any indications that the dispute can be solved without external intervention. Page history suggests an ongoing edit war. These points led several participants to the conclusion that the dispute resolution process should be brought to next level.
Briefly, the positions of the aforementioned factions:
  • The Median line contents the statistical operation that is applied to the sources that are not sampling from the same population. This is regarded as violation of WP:OR, as the statistical calculations are in the scope of professional knowledge and no reliable sources provided to support this way of calculation. Furthermore, if such sources existed, the calculation would violate WP:CALC policy and thus can't be included anyway.
  • The statistical data collected in the article from multiple sources needs to be properly summarised, so that the readers who came for the information about the actual usage share of operating systems (or web browsers) would not be forced to calculate it. Furthermore, the lack of such summary is a violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT PAPERS, and thus the articles in questions would need to be deleted. The use of median is considered to be a trivial calculation and the sampling problem is considered unavoidable regardless of summary issue.
P.S.: As I am a member of the latter faction, I may have expressed the former position in a biased manner.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this is clear. Please note that I am in no way involved, just a respondent to the RfC. Could you delete my name from the list of those involved, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I am against the median line in the text, but not against the graphic if the description below it is changed. I think it can be considered as falling under WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". Whatever was done to the figures something reasonably similar would come out just what was done was in essence little more than sticking a finger in the air and shouldn't be cloaked as a routine statistical procedure. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, people. I'm a mediator here at the DRN and hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. Firstly, as has been mentioned, we do need remember that there has been an RfC, which ended in no consensus. The key policy here seems to be WP:OR and specifically WP:CALC - essentially, if the median is a routine calculation, it can be included; if it is not a routine calculation, it should not be included. WP:CALC seems on what a routine calculation is, allowable calculations include "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". It seems to me that a routine calculation simply presents information from the sources, in a slightly different way, in a manner which is uncontroversial (for example, saying that someone born in 1991 is 20 won't be disputed). The problem with any statistics used is that they are not just re-presenting the sources; they are manipulating them. There need to be a clear reason why the median is important enough to be included in the article - why not any other statistical analysis, for example? Thus, it seems to me that any statistical calculations are not routine, so should not be included without support from sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just one little point. A calculation isn't "routine" or not in the abstract, but in context. Here, if I'm correct, the data being medianed has come from different sources and may have been collected in different ways. People speak colloquially of "adding apples and oranges". Addition is a routine calculation par excellence. But there is a difference between "5 apples + 3 apples = 8 apples", routine in every way, and "5 apples + 3 oranges = 8 pieces of fruit". Here perhaps we are closer to "5 apple trees + 3 slivers of orange peel = 8 fruit-related objects". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is fairly evident. The problem here is whether such calculation is appropriate if there is a special notice stating that the result may be inaccurate due to the problems discussed above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the key issue is WP:OR, but it is far from the only issue. I am the editor who brought up these concern in this latest round (at least som of them have been debated before). Some of the issues have been more debate than others. After having debated this on the talk page I believe I can now categorize them a little better:
  • Policy concerns (key issue, if you will):
    • Is the median calculation a routine calculation, which is the only type of calculation allowed under WP:CALC.
    • The median as calculated in the articles in question is calculated over multiple sources, thus probably WP:SYN. The sources are selected by WP editors, and no source supports such a synthesis.
  • Professional concerns:
    • The sources are disparate and do not express a true sampling. Each source may be based on a sound sampling method within its limits, but there are multiple problems with the selection of sources:
      • The sources are themselves statistics with recognized selection biases (demographic, geographical/cultural, sampling periods, usage patterns). Some demographics and cultural regions are not represented. This can be handled for each source by labeling it with its potential bias. But when "summarizing" in a median these biases are ignored.
      • The potential population behind each source's demographic (its weight if you will) is unknown.
    • It is unclear what the medians represent. When displaying them in a line in a table, each OS or browser side by side, comparison is implied. When plotting them in a graph, comparison is explicit. But medians calculated this way are not comparable and it is impossible to get proponents of the median to explain what they actually express, other than "the median". A strong indication that there is a serious violation of professional statistics principles here is in the fact that the medians do not add up to 100%. In the browser usage share article they exceed 100%, in the OS usage share article they fall well short of 100%. Furthermore, when adding the individual Windows version together one arrives at another number than the median of all Windows versions. This raises serious concerns as to the applicability of median, and I really would like a recognized expert to vet this. Anyway, it certainly drives the point home that this is not a routine calculation.
    • The sources do not collect data in the same way. Specifically, some sources do not collect statistics for mobile units. Thus, in those sources the usage shares are distributed on fewer observations (desktop operating systems/browsers), causing them to have a higher relative usage shares for desktops compared to the sources which include mobile unit shares. WP editors have recognized that this may skew the median and has taken it upon themselves to "correct" these numbers, adjusting them by a factor derived from the other sources. One has to remember that those other sources may sample a vastly different population.

Useerup (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the explanations here, and on the RfC, I think that the median is a synthesis of the "source" data into something that is more readable by the average reader. I think it would probably be appropriate to cease including the median and focus on reporting the graphs to give a rough comparison for the different sampling systems so that users can form viewpoints on the available data. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

These pages are filled with dry statistical data that's hard to read. That's why the use of a graph is important. We currently have 9 sources for the OS stats. Picking any single source would be bias. Making a graph with all the sources isn't any easier to read than just the numbers by themselves, and visually you'll calculate the median any ways. I think that's where the use of the median came in to generate the current graph. Maybe there needs to be some changes, but I don't think the median/graph was ever portraying original research, maybe the wording could be improved. Jdm64 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Article already does a good job of explaining potential bias for the sources. However, the case has not been made that these sources combined are representative for the usage shares, i.e. are they global usage shares? Where's China? Are they western hemisphere usage shares? It is misleading to calculate a median or plot them as single shares in a graph. It is entirely possible to produce a graph which displays all or most of the sources and still illustrate shares (see attached image) without visually calculating median or even implying it. Note that I have not "uncorrected" the numbers which had been corrected by WP editors to account for those sources which do not sample mobile visitors. That the page consists of dry statistical data does not allow us to introduce WP:OR. If the page is only statistical data, perhaps it should be scaled back a little? Useerup (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If the page already does a good job of explaining the bias, why can't the use of a median to create a graph also be explained? I like your image better than the last attempt at showing all stats in one page. I still find it visually cluttered and henceforth not much better than raw data. But if the median can't be used, the image would be a good compromise. Maybe it would be better if the sort order was different -- ordered by the bias. Jdm64 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The median is original research both because it is not a routine calculation and because it is a synthesis over multiple sources. Each of those by itself would make it OR, and we have both. This is a core content policy question and has nothing to do with whether the sources individually have known biases or not. That said, the way the median has been applied here and the way the result is used is professionally questionable. The median - when applied correctly - can neutralize outliers can find a central tendency. But that requires that you have a good idea that such a central tendency exists in the first place. In this case we know that every single one of the samples has some form of bias. There is no central tendency between apple trees and slivers of orange peels, and trying to pass a number for it is a logical fallacy. Going back to how the median is then used it is passed as a "share" of something. That "something" is an elusive beast, because it certainly is not the total operating system usage. At best it is each medians share of the sum of all medians. Quite simply, the median is being used in ways which are not statistically sound. So: median is original research for two separate reasons (not routine calculation, synthesis of multiple sources) and it is professionally questionable, at best. Regarding the graph, I believe that 2 graphs should be used: One for sources which only break out desktop usage shares, another for the sources which break out mobile usage share as well. I have no opinion on the sort order of the sources at this point, but I am sure we can work something out. My point with the horizontal bars was to avoid presenting the sources as something which could be mistaken for a development or timeline Useerup (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That would have been a viable approach if the article was about calculation of the usage shares. But littering it with instruction on how to produce an end result will actually lead to a produced end result, so including such result instead seems to be intact with WP:SENSE and general goal of Wikipedia — to inform readers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to remember that it is not our job to provide accurate statistics; our role is merely to report what others have published. Statistical analysis is just that - analysis of numbers. As with any other subject, an analysis of anything should only be included if it has been made in another source. That is not the case here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I get it You assume that the Median line under these articles constitutes the statistical research of the results of statistic research.
The problem as I see it is that actually the median line is not a statistical research, but instead is a form of representation of statistical research carried out by professional researchers and properly cited in the table. The very line is just a summary that would be naturally concluded by user, so that the inclusion of the Median line is simply the trivial calculation which is implied by readers anyway, so it just saves readers' time for calculating it on per reference basis. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes that is the problem. We are allowed to do something like that in illustrations but the OR policy is definitely against doing it in the main text except for something like an example which is just another form of illustration. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, there is an essay (referenced from WP:OR) that directly dismisses summaries from WP:OR and promotes writing summaries: WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary. While the accuracy of the Median as summary is disputed here, no one (to date) has challenged the fact that it's the best summary possible in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So no one (to date) has challenged the fact that it's the best summary possible in this case? You are in WP:IDHT territory here: In the original debate, during RfC and here on this very noticeboard I have time and time again pointed out that the median is totally inappropriate both in the way it is being used and how the result is being presented. Useerup (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the problem is that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff in his above statement tries to re-label what is obviously a calculation to become a summary, a nice euphemism which could allow him to circumvent the pretty clear intention of WP:CALC. Summaries are intended for lead-ins and should be produced by selecting the article's main points. The prohibition against combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is as applicable to a summary as it is to the main article. The median (apart from being applied unprofessionally) is the assignment of a number to a browser or operating system implying it's usage share in some abstract form. This number is unsupported by any one of the sources and thus is WP:SYN. Useerup (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, please read the others' comments in this discussion and on the talk page. I was stating that the Median line constitutes summary from the very beginning of this thread and early on the talk page, and was even argued that summaries are not allowed. Though it is really calculation flavour of summary, the calculation element is pretty obvious and therefore is permitted under WP:CALC. And as this line doesn't constitute statistical research Your complaints are irrelevant. Anyway, I'm really pleased that You actually noticed my point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop insinuating that I'm not reading the comments. That I refuse to accept your attempts to relabel a calculation into something else does not mean that I didn't read it. Comments like the above is a transparent attempt at luring me into a heated discussion, and I'm not taking that bait. On the topic: The following is what the WP:CALC part of WP:NOR says: This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. If you are adding numbers or converting units cited from a source, then there is only one way to do so and it is unlikely to be challenged. Notice that provision about provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. You have not demonstrated consensus that the median and its application correctly reflect the sources. In fact, no consensus have been demonstrated and thus the calculation is not permitted per the policy. Furthermore, you have focused on the fact that median is relatively simple computation, but you blissfully ignore that its application is anything but simple. Remember that the WP:CALC policy wisely also mentions its application to be considered. The median in this case is being naively applied with disregard for the most basic statistical principles (sampling). A median is not a summary but remains a statistical method. A lead-in text which extracts main points made by the article sections is a summary. Calculating a median is statistical analysis. Useerup (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Statistical research performed on well-sourced statistical research is still statistical research. And Wikipedia does not - as a matter of policy - allow original statistical research, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. Deriving the median is a deceptively straightforward calculation, but knowing when a median is an appropriate statistical method is anything but straightforward. The intention of the WP:NOR policy is exactly to avoid situations where editors believe they perform harmless summary and inferences/deductions, but in reality may be misrepresenting sources and abusing methodology. There is a reason why WP:CALC examples only includes simple unit conversions and adding simple numbers (from the same source): Simple conversions are unlikely to be challenged because there can be little doubt as to their applicability. Kilometers, meters, miles and yards are just alternate representations of the same concept (a distance). I strongly disagree that medians are "naturally concluded by user". Calculating a median involves sorting and sometimes a mean calculation. Nobody looks at a random sequence of percentages and goes "oh - the central tendency is 35.7%!". Furthermore, the articles themselves demonstrates the lack of statistical professionalism which the WP:NOR was created to avoid: They use a statistical method which assumes that the sampling is either representative or complete. The sampling is definitively not complete (the number of stat counters is unknown). The sampling is not representative/random either: The sources have known biases (they do not sample the same population) and they are being selected by WP editors. Furthermore the sampling methodologies used by the sources are different: Some use unique visitors (counting a user's browser/operating system just once) while others use page hits. Even if two sources happened to sample the same population, this would introduce potential errors due to different usage patterns between users. These are serious statistical (professional) issues which should prompt anyone who's about to perform statistics on those data to pause and recognize that they at the very least require rationalization. Of course, if you admit that you also implicitly admit that you are squarely within WP:OR. And now onto the goal of the median, which is yet another demonstration of how statistics is being abused in the articles: Is the goal to produce a single number which represents the usage share of each operating system, which can then be plotted in a graph? I have queried again and again what this number (which is also plotted in the graph) represents. Does it represent an OS/browser usage share of total usage for all OS'es/browsers? No, because then I would be able to add them up to 100% (allowing for rounding errors). But I cannot; and it's not just rounding errors. How come that the Windows median usage share is different when considering Windows all versions as opposed to the sum of each version of Windows? How come that the sum of median usage share is larger than 102% for browsers? Problems with sampling and bias aside, the median is totally inappropriate for what it is being used for here: It does not represent comparable shares, we cannot define what the total is which the medians should represent shares of, and given the different populations the sources sample we cannot even define what the population is supposed to be.Useerup (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't get offended, but the discussion would be much more productive if You read at least some of the replies since the very beginning of the dispute and until now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Since my last post here, the discussion has just been going in circles, with both sides restating the same arguments. Moreover, we are starting to see people attacking the conduct of other users, rather that commenting on the content in questions. This is completely counter-productive, as it shifts the focus off the issue in hand. It seems to me that DRN is not going to resolve this dispute; therefore, I am going to close this discussion. I believe that a more formal approach is needed to this dispute, so I would recommend that a case is opened at the Mediation Cabal. Hopefully the issue can be resolved there. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 13 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.

360networks

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 article was deleted without notice after being posted for nearly 2-years with no reported problems.

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=360networks}} --~~~~ 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 posted to his Talk page but he is unavailable until 11.24

  • How do you think we can help?

Looking for guidance on how I can recover the article and make revisions to resubmit. 360networks was acquired by Zayo and there is some time sensitivity in making the appropriate updates.

Skeoch.s (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

360networks 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.

Jane Beale

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?

I keep editing, with a reference, that Jane Beale has announced she will not be on the EastEnders programme as a permanent character and thus, she will be departing next year. The source says that the door has been left open for her to return but it does NOT say she will be returning next year, it just says she is departing over the next few months. I put this in the introduction but for some reason some people feel it's necessary to revert these changes. Fair enough if you want to change the box that includes her not departing, but the bit in the introduction is perfectly valid and I see no good reason why it should be not be accepted.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I have not been given a good enough reason why it shouldn't be accepted.

  • 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=Jane Beale}} --~~~~ 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?

No.

  • How do you think we can help?

By accepting my changes that are perfectly valid.

JackJackUK (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jane Beale 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.

User:Jimriz

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?

user JimRiz keeps adding a link to a company which isn't the correct registrar for .VC despite having the name NIC.VC

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=User:Jimriz}} --~~~~ 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?

Have reverted, and added comments that NIC.VC is just a registered domain, not the registrar, and this has been removed

  • How do you think we can help?

need a 3rd party

76.77.75.72 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimriz discussion

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


Nic.vc is a authorized registrar in the .vc namespace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.190.24 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing note: There's been no discussion on any talk page about this matter, which is a requirement for a dispute to be listed here. I've looked at it, however, and you are correct, the introduction of links to nic.vc and whois.vc are linkspam. Please be sure to leave a progressive warning about the linkspamming on the spammer's talk page each time it occurs. I've left one and reverted the spamming today. Now that they've been warned, reverting linkspam is an exception to the three-revert rule since it is a form of obvious vandalism (but it's still not a good idea to tempt fate). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 15 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.

Billy Fox (politician)

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?

There is a disagreement over including references in the article. Since 2007 there has been a link to an RTE programme [1]. Last month the link was removed by User:One_Night_In_Hackneyas a broken link [2]. I have tried to reinsert a working link but it has been repeatedly deleted along with a link to a speech by John Bruton which I had also added. The justification given seems to be that there are too many sources, and that John Bruton does not refer to the Provisional IRA. I think that if there really is doubt about who killed Billy Fox then it is even more important to have reputable sources listed and the reader can make their own judgement. John Bruton also refers directly to the Provisional IRA.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Other users have already been informed via their talk page and the article talk page.

  • 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=Billy Fox (politician)}} --~~~~ 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 on Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References

  • How do you think we can help?

Advise on whether to include the 1) RTE link and 2) Bruton link. Thanks.

Flexdream (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Fox (politician) discussion

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


The original link in the first example had invalid formatting [3] so there's no surprise that was removed.

In general, I think the article presents the information quite clearly (in the current version), with circumstances of his death are disputed with various paramilitary groups such as ... + it covers all, with what appear to be appropriate references.

I see that Flexdream thinks that two additional references should be added - shown in this diff.

I don't see much harm in additional references, but nor at the moment do I see any particular benefit; whilst exceptional claims need exceptional sources, I'm unconvinced that it is necessary to have three references to verify the fact that the Provisional IRA are one of the groups which RS's have said were involved. I don't really believe it's "clutter", but I don't see any real benefit; I think it will be helpful if Flexdream could explain here a little more about why the extra refs are of benefit, and also it will be helpful to see why the other parties - in particular RepublicanJacobite - believe they are not.

I have one additional possible suggestion to RepublicanJacobite: if there is no great harm in adding the other ref/refs except for having two or three [n] tags, then how do you feel about adding both or all three in a single numbered footnote with <br /> so that the refs are just one footnote-number, but several refs are shown within it?

And a suggestion to Flexdream - in your further response, it would be helpful if you could assign your own preference/importance value on the two links - perhaps you'd be content if just one more were added?  Chzz  ►  06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This hasn't really been discused Talk:Billy Fox (politician)#References. The discussion has instead been completely sidetracked by Flexdream's apparently inability to read a reference properly. I don't see any need for multiple footnotes when one does the job just as well, especially when it's not a controversial statement being referenced. 2 lines of K303 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. Thanks for that. Combining 3 references into one in the footnotes is a good answer to any problems of clutter, but I don't know how to do that. I think the RTE link, which had been in since 2007, is probably more informative than the Bruton link. As for criticism of me not being able to follow where a link points to, judge for yourself. Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References, links really should point to the reference. Then I, and any reader, could check what the source states. I think claims that Fox was not killed by the PIRA are controversial, because PIRA members were convicted. --Flexdream (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Foo.<ref> Some book <br /> Another book </ref> [4] - can some compromise be found, using this idea?  Chzz  ►  11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. One reference with 3 links? I think the RTE link is the most useful, then the Bruton, then the CAIN. --Flexdream (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That could work. Maybe poke the other users that you listed above and see what they think? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I posted a note on the user talk pages [5] and [6]. One Night in Hackney has deleted the post and told me " don't post on my talk page ever again" [7] and has not responded to the proposed compromise. RepublicanJacobite has been active on Wikipedia [8] but has not responded. I've therefore put the compromise edit in the article. Thanks.--Flexdream (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
RepublicanJacobite has undone my revision within a few hours [9]. Is the next step to get mediation as it doesn't seem likely there will be any engagement here to help resolve the dispute?--Flexdream (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've commented on the references issue on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've commented there also. --Flexdream (talk) 21:01, 11 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.

Kamala Lopez

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 dispute had originally been addressed on Oct 10, 2011 through dispute resolution. The argument is about the appropriate venue for an opinion about a film made by Lopez that webberkenny wishes to pound into the article. The back and forth on talk pages for Mr. Stradivarius and Drmies is enlightening about the very personal stance he/she has taken. The bottom line: Mr. Stradivarius made it very clear after our first Dispute Resolution go round that...

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

Webberkenney refuses to abide by that decision. I believe he/she should be admonished for vandalism as he/she was in Nov 2008 and blocked from editing this article.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I believe the most telling statement about webberkenny's state of mind is from the Mr. Stradivarius talk page on which he/she (Webberkenny - ed) states:

"Simpson is and has been an artist on the national and international levels working in the peace movement, very notably since 9/11. You are trying to elevate Lopez (probably yourself) to Simpson's level, and the level of thousands (if not millions) of legitimate, hard working activist. Ask Cindy Sheehan or S. Brian Willson or Mimi Kennedy or Frank Dorrel or any of a host of other relevant peace activists today, and they will know and applaud Simpson's work and refute any claims you (Lopez) have of meaningful activism. Lopez (you) have a long and sordid history of alienating people including Ben Affleck, a well-respected political activist who has revealed Lopez's (your) narcissistic, phony tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberkenny (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)"
  • 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=Kamala Lopez}} --~~~~ 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?

Several administrator talk pages and a previous Dispute Resolution ruling has not resolved this issue.

  • How do you think we can help?

Block webberkenny from editing this page.

JHScribe (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez discussion

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

For those interested, here are the talk pages this dispute has been carried out on:

— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how my advocacy and support for Simpson is any more virulent than is JHScribe's in support of Lopez. I'm certainly not creating a resume/fan site for Simpson as s/he is for Lopez. I have made the case, after Simpson mentioned the film in a very recent Huffington Post two-part interview, that of genuine significance are the failure of the film after such a successful run of the play on which it's based, and the disappointment of the author and star of the film. I think it's disingenuous and very clearly biased to continually try to paint a picture of Lopez as #1 the creator of the project and #2 the director of a wildly successful and important film, none of which are close to true.Webberkenny (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your "support" or fanaticism for yourself is fine. You have your fan page and film page and all the outlets for your rants you could possibly want. However, a decision was rendered and editing has culled this page to simple facts. The film page is a fine place to put your "mainstream" critic info. I doubt many if any critics saw the film. I'm sure they would have commented on the acting if they had.
As for the truth about the film, which seems to escape you, Lopez IS the director of the film but credit for creating it is given to you. Also, it was awarded by a nationally and internationally recognized group.
My final question - what has Lopez done to make you this bitter? At least make it clear how you have been wronged personally rather than dragging Ben Affleck into this...
Ben Affleck? Really?
JHScribe (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You continue to reveal your self as a Lopez sock puppet. If you are convinced that I am the subject of a page on which I am and have been contributing for a long time, why not report it and let a legitimate investigation by Wikipedia administrators be instigated and carried out?Webberkenny (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Enough with the sockpuppet stuff. Investigation open and closed. I will await the ruling on the dispute and abide by that decision. I hope you will also. JHScribe (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's note: The requested relief, blocking or a topic ban, is not within the power or scope of this noticeboard. If that is actually the only relief desired, a request ought to be made at WP:ANI (please leave a note here so this discussion can be closed, if you do so), but — and I do not mean to imply anything by this, but just to make you aware of the issue — please be careful about WP:BOOMERANG should you care to go forward with that suggestion. Is there some other manner in which we might help? — TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I will investigate the remedies you have mentioned. However, I would appreciate your opinion about this debacle. Not necessarily a "you're right, he/she's wrong" but rather your viewpoint as an experienced Wikipedian. An opinion/recommendation for the appropriate placement of the content in question was rendered by Mr. Stradivarius. I accepted that as a guideline that should be followed. Because my counterpart does not, I feel the content has become irrelevant but the enforcement of a standard should be imposed even if it results in a bad outcome for me.
I'm sorry that this ongoing disagreement has necessitated your involvement. I'm sure there are many many more important things you could be doing. JHScribe (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm basically going to defer to my respected colleague's opinion on this matter and, at the risk of biting, instead make these comments to both editors: A great deal of the problem that he, Drmies, I, and most other experienced Wikipedians have with this dispute is that it is being fought out on arguments which have very little to do with the way in which Wikipedia goes about doing business. You both need to realize that those of us who are here for the long haul have one central interest: what's best for Wikipedia. Not what's best for any topic, subject, person, or editor, but what's best for Wikipedia. That's not just a roll-your-own concept or it-means-whatever-you-think-it-means concept, either; it's well defined and refined though the Five Pillars, Wikipedia policy, and everyday convention. If what's best for Wikipedia in general is not your first and most important interest and goal in being here, that does not mean that you are not welcome here — within limits. But so long as you choose to limit your editing to articles about which you have a passionate interest then you're constantly going to be a square peg in a round hole and never really "get" why and how things happen here. It's also going to cause you to feel a sense of urgency about your favored articles which experienced Wikipedians do not feel since there is no deadline. So you wanted my opinion, here it is: both of you should stop editing the articles in question and spend a couple of thousand edits and two or three months doing several of the gazillion other things you can do at Wikipedia and then, if you still think it's needed, come back to these pages prepared to argue the issues on the basis of Wikipedia policy and what's best for the encyclopedia, not on the basis of the arguments made so far. If your reaction to that is "No thanks, I'm only interested in this" or "this is too important to wait for that" or "I need to defend x, y, or z" (which are all different ways of saying the same thing) then you might want to rethink why you are here at all as most folks who take that position and don't "get into" Wikipedia as a whole generally do not get what they want and become frustrated or bitter because Wikipedia's goals are different from their own. I'd recommend that at the very least that you both read my advice to new users page and follow and read all the links, especially (but not only) the one to my Wikipedia, Bicycles, and Wagons essay. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Will do.Webberkenny (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the 50,000 foot view and find it consistent with my understanding of the policies but...the issue of a fair and balanced page versus a fan page or inappropriate location for certain information remains and your position means that the last edit is the final word. I will not reverse it although, again, it would be in agreement with my understanding of Mr. Stradivarius' original recommendation. The mission is also to offer feedback to new contributors and give them specific examples, isn't it? I do not believe any amount of time away from the subject will result in a change of my position as stated on the article's Talk Page. That is - what constitutes a balanced article? I don't feel that any of the critic opinions meet a criteria as "mainstream" (excepting the quote from Joe Morgenstern of the WSJ or Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Patricia Foulkrod, Producer/Director of The Ground Truth)[10] and so feel the SOURCE not the opinion is the issue.
I visited an ANI discussion and it seems that Wikipedia is a place where individuals (including the two of us) can battle and edit war without end while the merits of the argument are kicked around and policies are subverted to avoid any decisions. As I see it, awaiting the decision only benefits one of us.
My recommendation - edit the section yourself and I will not change it. webberkenny, would you agree to that? No matter what, I will not darken your virtual door again after this. I will, however, begin editing elsewhere and hope to find consensus instead of conflict.
As for my conduct on Wikipedia, I already realize that I came charging in, guns blazing. This experience has changed my approach and dramatically improved my knowledge of standards and policies so I guess that's a plus.
Ciao JHScribe (talk) 18:58, 16 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.

Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi

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 issue is: what is the proper spelling for the title of the article? Should it be the spelling of Maharshi (with one ‘i’) (which is said to be the Sanskrit origin) or should it be spelled Maharishi (two 'i's) which is “recognizable to readers” and “consistent with English-language sources” as specified in WP:TITLE and used exclusively in 15 English dictionaries, 3 encyclopedias and misc. other books? See complete list of sources 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=Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi}} --~~~~ 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?

On November 9th I created a fully sourced, article for the mainstream term: Maharishi. Five hours later Will Beback, removed all of the content of the article and merged it with an unsourced article, headed by an “Unreferenced” clean up tag. Rather than revert this disruptive edit and begin a possible edit war, I opened a thread on the talk page of the merged article and suggested that the title of Maharshi (one 'i') be changed to the mainstream spelling of Maharishi (with 2 ‘i’s). I cited WP:TITLE which says:

  • "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
  • "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"
  • "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable."

Despite my citing of more than a dozen English dictionaries, encyclopedias and books which use that spelling exclusively, Will Beback refuses to concede that it is the mainstream spelling and will not provided any sources to justify his opposition. Instead Will Beback seems to want to continue to disrupt Wikiepedia process by making comments that assume bad faith and personalize the issue rather than sticking to discussion of content. I would like to have input from uninvolved editors in the community.

Sources that spell Maharishi with two "i"s

    • Dictionaries
  • Webster's Online Dictionary says: "Maharshi is a common misspelling or typo for: maharishi." "Maharshi (Sanskrit महर्षि maharṣi, from महा mahā "great" + ऋषि ṛṣi "seer"; also anglicized Maharishi"
  • Webster's Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2009) Retrieved November 9 2011, No listing for Maharshi
  • World English Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Cambridge Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Online Etymological Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Collins English Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Merriam-Webster's Collegiate(R) Dictionary (2004) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi
  • Collins German Dictionary (2007) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi
  • Oxford Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English No listing for Maharshi
  • Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend (2002) Thames & Hudson, Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi
  • Dictionary.com the Free Dictionary No listing for Maharshi
  • Oxford Learners Dictionary, Oxford University Press No listing for Maharshi
  • Chambers Biographical Dictionary (2007) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi
  • Drury, Nevill (2002) Watkins Publishing, The dictionary of the esoteric: 3000 entries on the mystical and occult, page 200, No listing for Maharshi
  • Dictionary.com says: "Origin: Sanskrit maharṣi"
    • Encyclopedias
  • Encyclopedia of American religious history: Volume 3 - Page 602, No listing for Maharshi
  • Britannica Encyclopedia No listing for Maharshi
  • The American desk encyclopedia, Luck, Steve (1998) publisher: George Philip Ltd, page 499, No listing for Maharshi
    • Books
  • American Veda, by Philip Goldberg, page 362
  • Responses to one hundred one questions on Hinduism - Page 145
  • Essence of Maharishi Patanjali's Ashtang Yoga By J.M.Mehta
  • Data Dayal Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal Verman By Muḥammad Anṣārullāh, Sahitya Akademi
  • Raman Maharishi (Mystics Saints of India) by BK Chaturvedi
    • People
  • Maharishi Bhrigu
  • Maharishi Dayanand University
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
  • Maharishi Valmiki Glimpses of Indian Culture By Dinkar Joshi
  • Even Ramana Maharshi’s name is sometimes spelled Maharishi:
    • Dalit's inheritance in Hindu religion By Mahendra Singh page 187
    • Philosophy of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi
    • The serpent of paradise: the story of an Indian pilgrimage page by Miguel Serrano page 202


  • How do you think we can help?

By allowing uninvolved editors to comment on the content issue and any relevant behavioral issues.

— Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi discussion

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


Basically, this is simply an article naming issue, I'm not sure why Keithbob is not treating it as such and is bringing this here. However there is a heightened burden on Keithbob due to his conflict of interest regarding one of the names. I think it is incumbent upon him, if he is going to be editing in this topic, to be fully neutral in his editing and not seek to promote one version over another.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The comment above, is an example of Will Beback's chronic use of unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest on a talk page or noticeboard, designed to poison the well and caste doubt on an editor who disagrees with him on content. This is a violation of WP:COIN which states "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.". An overview of this disruptive behavior (with diffs) can be found here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you like me to substantiate it? Do I have your permission to disclose the relevant facts?   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
How can supporting a spelling that differs by one letter from another by any logical standard be used to try and corner another editor with a COI claim. This is not only a staggering reach in attempts to harm another editor, but is bad faith and railroads this discussion. You say this is a a simple content discussion yet you drag in this COI accusation with clear attempts to threaten and intimate another editor. Poorly done Will. Very poor.(olive (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
As I wrote above, I'm not sure why a simple page title issue has come to this noticeboard, rather than being resolved by a simple page move proposal. But since we're here, let's talk about the underlying issue. Editors with conflicts of interest are called upon to take particular care to edit neutrally. In this case, Keithbob is not reviewing both sides and making a neutral determination. Instead he is promoting only one side, the side where he has an interest. All I'm asking is that he edit neutrally rather than promoting one particular POV.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We are here because 1) per this page: "This noticeboard is for resolving Wikipedia content disputes". 2) Will Beback has egregiously obstructed the progress of a reliably sourced article both in his removal of that newly created article and by refusing to recognize the overwhelming list of objective sources on the talk page 3) When asked: do you have any sources? (to support your actions) he replies:"I haven't looked". 4) He continues to assume bad faith, criticize and politicize a comprehensive list of two dozen mainstream sources and usuges on the talk page 5) He assumes bad faith and makes false claims such as above: ["Keithbob is not reviewing both sides and making a neutral determination. Instead he is promoting only one side, the side where he has an interest"] in attempts to intimidate me and gain the upper hand in a content dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk Question: The complaint is over the spelling of the article title and the redirect limbo as to which one gets the name and which one gets the redirect? Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. It is my assertion that Maharishi (two 'i's) should be the main article and the alternate spelling can either have it's own article or could have a subsection in the Maharishi (two 'i's) article. At present Maharishi (two 'i's) is redirected to Maharshi (one 'i') but all of the sources cited in the article are for the spelling Maharishi (with two 'i's). This creates an article that is incoherent, misleading and a dis-service to Wikipedia readership since they are in most cases not aware of the single 'i' spelling since it is the Sanskrit origin of the word Maharishi and is almost never used or even referred to in English dictionaries, reference books, newspapers etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The two spellings are just variants, comparable to "czar" and "tsar". Keithbonb has not offered any explanation for why he decided that they are separate terms requiring separate articles.
Keithbob has a conflict of interest regarding companies with "maharishi" in the title. It is my belief that it is not optimal for someone in that position to be pushing one over another. OTOH, there would be no problem with him repsenting a full overview of both sides, and seeking neutral input on which is prefereable.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have never heard anything so ridiculous. Kbob has a conflict of interest with anything with the word Maharishi in it... and lets see anything, with the word bob in it too, like bob sled, and what colour is his car? Will, this assumption of bad faith is a violation of the TM arbitration, and you are deliberately poisoning the well here. I'd suggest you take this allegation to the COI Notice board but I'd hate to waste anyone's time with this although maybe they could use a good laugh over there.Your comments, all levity aside do not befit a Wikipedia administrator.(olive (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
Keithbob has not replied to my question of whether he is willing to have his conflict of interest disclosed and discussed. Until we get a response, hyperbolic remarks like that posted above are unhelpful.
I don't see anyone here proposing that "maharshi" and "maharishi" are actually separate words, so it's not clear why the second article was created instead of simply adding to the existing article. As for the best name for the comprehensive article, that's a simple naming issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Take it to the COI Notice Board and do not continue to poison the well and derail this discussion. This discussion does not depend on answers to your interrogations of an editor, and that have nothing to do with this issue. Your behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive.(olive (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
Keithbob said that he wants people to comment on the behavioral issues, so I assumed he was including his own behavior. If he does not want to a discussion of behavior then he shouldn't invite it.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Take note everyone, this is how experienced Administrator, Will Beback, behaves when his bias against a topic is so strong that he cannot bear to bring himself to accept the obvious reality that "maharishi" is a commonly used term in Western culture as verified by two dozen dictionaries and encyclopedias and comments from uninvolved parties. By his own admission he has not researched the subject and yet he continues to deny, oppose, obstruct, and then in desperation, attack the people who participate in this objective community process for expanding and improving the reader friendliness of the encyclopedia. Absolutely shameful behavior. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never commented on the best title, one way or the other. I simply said I think that it is incumbent on you to do a thorough review, not just promote one spelling. I've done nothing to "deny, oppose, obstruct" except to urge him to be more responsible. All this drama here is unnecessary.
I never heard back from you on why you thought that the two spellings are different words requiring separate articles, or how you want to proceed with the conflict of interest issue.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as content goes: Please note the Google searches linked in Fladrif's comments below, are all default searches for Maharishi (two 'i's. ) See the note on the search page that he provides which says: "Showing results for maharishi mahesh"--- even though he entered the search term as: Maharshi Mahesh. The bottom line is that "Maharshi" (one 'i') yields 368 Google search results and "Maharishi" (two 'i's) yields 4,280 Google search results. There is no reason to politicize this content issue towards Mahesh as there are several Indian gurus with the name Maharishi ie Ramana Maharishi (see source list above), Maharishi Bhrigu, Maharishi Dayanand, Maharishi Patanjali, Maharishi Valmiki etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the points raised by TransporterMan below and support the direction to title the article "Maharishi". --BwB (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments please, by editors not involved in this dispute

Maharshi is the correct spelling, not Maharishi, which is one of the idiosyncratic misspellings of Hindu terms commonly employed by MMY and the TMO, apparently so as to be able to trademark them. The alternate spelling "Maharishi" is associated almost exclusively with MMY. See Websters, eg. [11] Apart from the common use of Maharshi rather than Maharishi for other persons who have used that honorific, his own title is frequently spelled Maharshi, not Maharishi, particularly in Indian sources who know how the words are supposed to be spelled.

In 1955, his first book on TM used "Maharshi Bal Bramachari Mahesh" not "Maharisi". Beacon Light of the Himalayas, and that spelling continued to be used as he came to be called Maharshi Mahesh Yogi by 1957 [15] as did ads published in the US as late as the mid 70's [16]

I should think that Maharshi should be the preferred spelling for this particular article, with the alternate idiosyncratic spelling confined to the MMY-related articles only. Fladrif (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Welcome back Flad. Since you have a long history of interactions with the TM articles you may want to reposition your statement in the above thread above. I also have a history with the TM articles but no involvement in this dispute, but did post above. Your choice of course.(olive (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
Qualifying information from the page top per this link, Webster's, cited above [17] , "Maharshi" is a common misspelling or typo for maharishi."(olive (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
  • My personal feelings on the matter are simple: Maharishi is what I would look up. This is an English encyclopaedia and it is a modern encyclopaedia. I wouldn't know what to look for if I had to search for Bee by it's Latin (and arguably correct) name; I would expect to find its Latin name in the article named Bee. Call me lazy or uneducated if you will but I really feel that the commonest denominator is the most appropriate (however accurate it may be). The article should be named Maharishi (two i's) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Then explanations can be written into the article about the alternative spellings. fg 19:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a neutral mediator here at DRN. It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it. The number of dictionaries which do not even list the one-i version is quite compelling as to what the average member of the public would look for when they come here. A note should probably be made in the article about the variation in spelling, but I find the argument that the widespread use of the name came virtually exclusively from its use by MMY and the TM movement to be somewhat weak when I can do a publication-date-limited search at Google Books and find 60 books published between 1800 and MMY's birth in 1917 that use the 2-i version. If I take what was said above as gospel and that MMH did not begin using the 2-i version before 1955 the count increases to 374 books. (In both cases there could be some duplicates or other false hits.) By comparison the single-i version gets 2,180 and 3,990 publications, so the single-i version was far more common during that early period but the 2-i version was not by any means unheard-of. If you then repeat those searches for the period 1955-2011, the two-i version has about 55,000 publications with the single-i having about 40,000; if you limit it to 2000-2011 it's 24,000 2-i to 16,000 1-i. At the end of the day, though, the argument which bears the most weight with me is that I've never been interested in the subject before — which is not to say that I've never had contact with it — but nonetheless, I wouldn't even think of looking up the single-i version. Indeed before reading this listing, I didn't even know that the single-i version even existed. I might have been uncomfortable basing a wiki-decision on my personal experience were it not for so many dictionaries including the two-i version and excluding the one-i version. At the article talk page Will Beback says that he's sure that there are as many sources supporting the one-i version as the two, but does not list them. At this point he might convince me to change my mind if he were to present them, but he has not chosen to do so. In short, the two-i version may have been popularized, either intentionally or unintentionally, by MMY and TM but if that's the case then they've been sufficiently successful at it that it's the more common form. Finally, about the procedural point raised by Will Beback, if the listing editor had come here requesting the page move, I (at least, I can't speak for the other mediators here) would have bounced this to the requested move page, but the listing editor only requested neutral comments and that is an appropriate use of this noticeboard. If consensus cannot be achieved, then it can still go to WP:RM. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan wrote: "At the article talk page Will Beback says that he's sure that there are as many sources supporting the one-i version as the two, but does not list them."
FYI, I never said that. The closest I said was "I'm sure there's no lack of sources" for the other spelling. My complaint was that Keithbob had apparently made no effort to find them, and that he seemed to think it was not his job to be try to find any.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to echo TransporterMan and say that Maharishi should be the main article spelling with Maharshi the redirect. This an English encyclopedia and commonly used English spellings are preferred. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with TransporterMan and Binksternet. If there is any other evidence for Maharshi being more common then I'm open to persuasion, but looking at the evidence above it seems that Maharishi should be the name of the article and Maharshi should redirect to it. No comment on the possible conflict of interest, other than we should take conflicts of interest seriously. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
On the basis of common use in dictionaries, I would be inclined to agree. On the other hand,if you search for Books with 'Hinduism' in the title and either 'Maharshi' or 'Maharishi', you get 1070 results for Maharshi to 570 for Maharishi. Maharishi is the better spelling for an article referring to the concept of 'Maharishi- an exotic title that won't get you confused with Yogi Bear'. Maharshi is best for the actual concept within Hinduism that the article describes (despite the list of MMY-organization links from a certain POV fork that Will merged into the article in an attempt to avoid just this sort of conflict). Nevard (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no further comments, I will summarize the feedback we have received from editors not involved in the general topic of Maharishi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM. (Note: While his participation in this forum is apprecoiated I am not including User:Fladrif in my summary of uninvolved editors since he/she has extensive experience editing the MMY and TM articles and the TM ArbCom of 2010.) Therefore I summarize as follows:

  • Userfg: "The article should be named Maharishi (two i's) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it."
  • User TransporterMan: "It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it."
  • User Binksternet: "I'm going to echo TransporterMan and say that Maharishi should be the main article spelling with Maharshi the redirect."
  • User Stradavarius: "looking at the evidence above it seems that Maharishi should be the name of the article and Maharshi should redirect to it"
  • User Nevard: "On the basis of common use in dictionaries, I would be inclined to agree." "Maharishi is the better spelling for an article referring to the concept of 'Maharishi" "Maharshi is best for the actual concept within Hinduism that the article describes"

So it appears that 4 uninvolved users feel that the article title should be Maharishi and that Maharshi (one i) should redirect to Maharishi (two i). One editor agrees that Maharishi (two i) is the commonly used spelling per dictionaries but also feels that Maharshi (one i) should have its own article since it is a prevalent spelling within the concept of Hinduism. Therefore there seems to be a clear consensus amongst the uninvolved members of the community that the main article should be called Maharishi (two i) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Thank you to all those that participated in this community forum.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Resolved is a wonderful word  fg 17:44, 18 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.

See Also list

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?

There is discussion on the talk page about reducing or removing the See Also list.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I have created a See Also list with all related article names. In my opinion it meets the criteria for WP:ALSO which says "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." However, I am open to feedback from the community.

  • Should the See Also list be removed?
  • Reduced? If so,then what is the objective criteria that should be used to reduce it?
  • Or should it be kept the way it is?
  • 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=See Also list}} --~~~~ 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, Talk page discussion

  • How do you think we can help?

By providing comments from uninvolved editors (ie those who did not participate in the 2010 TM ArbCom and have no past history on the TM article topics).

— Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Also list discussion

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


Only the links to Maha, Maharaj, and Rishi are even remotely appropriate. This isn't even a question of whether the School article should link to every school with 'School' in its name- how many of the links in the See Also section of the Maharishi fork were even to articles on people who have been described as 'Maharshi's? One? I'm sure there is already a list of 'every organization founded by MMY followers' somewhere- it doesn't need to be duplicated in this article. Nevard (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you think should be done. Which items should remain on the See Also list? Or do you feel the entire section should be removed? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not in favour of a long list of links in the See Also section. Perhaps we can have a link to Maha, Maharaj, Maharishi Bhrigu and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would be enough. But I am also happy if there is NO See Also section, with the difference in spelling being explained in the body of the article. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed all of the entries on the list except Maha, Maharaj, Maharishi Bhrigu and Rishi. Per the comments above. I did not include MMY as he is already wiki linked in the article text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 18 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.

DC Nation Shorts

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?

Cartoon Network has a new block of programming coming in 2012 called DC Nation that will broadcast Young Justice, Green Lantern: The Animated Series, and mostly animated shorts. A month ago, several news sites were given some information on it and a Wikipedia article was written on it. Friday night, a preview of the content was shown during the premier of the Green Lantern animated series including two of the animated shorts (Aardman Animations Batman and Teen Titans). Clips of upcoming content was also shown including the previously released Blue Beetle trailer/pilot, Lego Batman, and Gotham City Impostors. I added these new reveals to the article and the editor in dispute has removed them twice under claims the additions are unsourced. The first revert I explained the source despite citing it already in the article. The second time, I added the preview on YouTube to the talk page such that the editor can see it for his/herself. And, again, it was reverted. He/she also removed the section for Teen Titans which was confirmed previously in the article's references.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

The other editor in dispute added the comment "DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER SHORTS, WITHOUT A SOURCE!!" to the page.

  • 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=DC Nation Shorts}} --~~~~ 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?

Explained source and showed the source on the talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Determine if a nationally broadcast preview of content is source enough material.

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DC Nation Shorts discussion

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


The only reason why I put up the note was because users were adding things saying "Lego Batman", "Teen Titans" and "Gotham Impostors" are going to be shorts. I highly do not think this is true. Teen Titans might be a number of shorts, but Lego Batman and Gotham Impostors..... Gotham Impostors is meant for a higher age audience while Lego Batman just doesn't seem to fit. There is no sources to back this information up. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just watched a video on the article's talk page. The video could have been added as a source for these shorts.--WikiEditor44 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi you two, and thanks for posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard! I see that you are very focused on your particular dispute, but I think it that in this case it would help for you to look at the bigger picture here. When I took a brief look at the article, my first thought was, is this topic actually notable? Now, I don't edit very much in this topic area, so I might be wrong, but all of the references listed look like either blogs or fansites. Is this topic mentioned in sources that pass Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources? Because if not, then the quickest way to resolve this whole thing might be to take the article to AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:55, 17 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.

Spirulina (dietary supplement)

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?

I am trying to justify an improvement to the page and am frankly convinced I am offering a NPOV version but am being reverted with no proper justification. I need outside POVs to merge the existing version and my suggestion into a proper version while losing the minimum of info.

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=Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)}} --~~~~ 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 discussing it but met with a revert edit by another party.

  • How do you think we can help?

Commenting on the respective merits of both versions of the incriminated paragraphs and hopefully reaching a compromise.

Rdavout (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Initial versions in dispute

Version 1:

Spirulina is not considered to be a reliable source of Vitamin B12. The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12.[2] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B12, which is biologically inactive in humans.[3] Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations. The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12.[4] The medical literature similarly advises that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12.[3][5]
Collapsing oudated comment by User:Rdavout

Version 2:

Some controversy exists concerning the Vitamin B12 content of Spirulina.
The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to contain mostly inactive compounds of vitamin B12 though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion.[6] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B12, which is biologically inactive in humans.[3] Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, a view which is supported by a new 2010 peer-reviewed study which confirms the existence of 35.5~38.7 μg methylcobalamin per 100 g of dry biomass - roughly 15% of RDA for adults per gram of spirulina-, by means of two different assays [7].
These more recent claims have yet to gain traction among independent scientific organizations. In their 2003 position paper on vegetarian diets, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada stated that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12.[8] Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12 on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues[3][9] although this doubt has never been investigated on any B12 analogue food source, including synthetic B12 sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs)

Spirulina (dietary supplement) discussion

Collapsing the initial stages of discussion
  • Hi there, I'm a mediator at the DRN and hope we can bring this issue to a consensus. I'm not an expert on this topic, but it seems that the issue is over a new opinion about the dietary supplement. I would suggest that the most useful policies/guidelines here is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE which say that we should not give undue coverage to minority viewpoints and fringe theories. We thus need to determine whether the new theory is a fringe theory/minority viewpoint or a valid alternative view. We should, therefore, take a look at the sources. If the new theory comes from a reputable and reliable scientific source (preferably a peer-reviewed academic journal, or something similar), then we can accept it as a valid scientific viewpoint. If not, then it is a minority source and probably does not belong in Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing long and mostly oudated comment by User:Rdavout
  • Thanks for chiming in, ItsZippy. The dispute isn't only about the addition of this new reference, which indeed comes from a major peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry) but also the presentation of the facts stated in the other studies. No one ever denied that spirulina contains B12 and the present version doesn't reflect that at all (quote: «spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12». IMHO, its is pure NPOV to add RDAs and the extra reference to clear things up on that point.
There is a true point of controversy however, concerning the reliability of spirulina as a B12 source. This is something else altogether and the policy pages you indicated directly concern this specific issue. The leading scientist to have worked on the issue of B12 notes in his most recent reference that "van den Berg et al. (68) demonstrated that a spirulina-supplemented diet does not induce severe vitamin B12 deficiency in rats, implying that the feeding of spirulina may not interfere with the vitamin B12 metabolism. **Further studies are needed to clarify bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans.**" (my highlight). Maybe we could end the paragraph with that exact quote or in any case that idea, while maintaining a strongly skeptic POV.
How about -->
« Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12 on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues. A normal profile of contribution of spirulina to vitamin B12 metabolism has been demonstrated in rats though bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans has yet to be clarified, prompting a call for caution among people at risk of B12-deficiency, notably vegetarians.»
Rdavout (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the material in question involves medical assertions and the medical literature, the relevant sourcing guideline seems to me to be WP:MEDRS. That guideline is crystal clear that we need to respect secondary sources (e.g. statements from expert bodies), and likewise crystal clear that we should not cherry-pick primary sources (individual studies) and arrange them to editorially "rebut" expert opinion.

    In this case, expert opinion is clear, in the form of statements from the American Dietetic Association and Canadian Dieticians organization. We need to accurately convey that expert opinion to the reader, rather than trying to insinuate that the experts are wrong, as version #2 does. If there is in fact accumulating evidence that spirulina is a good source of B12, then expert bodies will alter their opinions, and we'll follow. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as best I can tell, and this seems pretty clear-cut to me. MastCell Talk 01:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing long and mostly oudated comment by User:Rdavout
The view that "If there is in fact accumulating evidence that spirulina is a good source of B12, then expert bodies will alter their opinions, and we'll follow." is very reasonable but then *something should be nevertheless written noting that there is a trend towards new information on the subject*. Even as simply as that.
In any case "Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations." is* absolutely unfair given the existing data* and does not convey verifiable reality. I did not cherry pick a study, I completed an outdated statement stating that spirulina companies couldn't refer to any peer-reviewed evidence. If you feel that this is cherry-picking individual sources, just remove the whole sentence in V1 as it *doesn't reflect best-available verifiable truth thus amputated*. Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the issue of expert authority: MEDRS notes that "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization." The American Dietetic Association is not included in the list (note that in any case a name change has to be included as it is now the "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics") and possibly for a reason: according to their Wikipedia entry, there is a strong controversy linked to food industry funding. Cherry-picking some unpleasant statement: "Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of The Center for Media and Democracy (an independent, non-profit, non-partisan media and consumer watchdog group) claim the ADA "has learned not to bite the hand that feeds it"" & "The Weston A. Price Foundation avers that, “Registered Dietitians generally get a bad rap in the alternative medical and nutrition communities.”[6] They suggest that dietitians are trained to promote and dispense processed foods, many of which are unhealthy.". I am not calling to eliminate the ADA source but just calling for balance here - the ADA has financing incentives to support fortified foods rather that simple non-agroindustry alternatives.
Also quite critically, the 2011 position paper by the ADA [18] removes the 2003 reference to spirulina. It replaces the text "Unless fortified, no plant food contains significant amounts of active vitamin B-12. Foods such as sea vegetables and spirulina may contain vitamin B-12 analogs; neither these nor fermented soy products can be counted on as reliable sources of active vitamin B-12." by the amputated "No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12. Fermented soy products cannot be considered a reliable source of active B-12." Clearly, the ADA decided that they would not decide on the issue and chose not to single out spirulina anymore, though they did keep committed to singling out tempeh for instance. A fair quote suddenly becomes: "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association) states that "No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12."" We unfortunately can only infer that spirulina's B12 was at least not dangerous. At a personal level, I also conclude that the ADA is a pitiful secondary source on the subject given a big mistake concerning B12 content of eggs a paragraph above.
Which brings me back to the reason why I started picking on this issue of B12 in spirulina: B12 in eggs. ADA states that eggs are a good source, probably because of a funding issue ;) It is generally accepted that absorption of corrinoid compounds in spirulina is about 10%, that there is a paucity of B12 in them, etc. The mysteriously biased Watanabe article on the subject of B12 sources states in the full text of the article [[19]] that the nutritional impact of eggs on vitamin B12 status is extremely low given the paucity of vitamin B12 but the conclusions mention it among animal sources as excellent sources of B12. A back-of-the-envelope calculation from the exact data in the study seem to indicate that one would need to eat more than 7 eggs to achieve the WHO absolute minimum allowance of 0,48 µg. Somehow, by a sleight of hand, the same article dedices that eggs are a way better source than source of B12 than spirulina while also affirming that bioavailable B12 is respectively 0.13 µg (eggs) and 36 µg per 100 g (spirulina). Literally speaking, it seems that 1.33 g of spirulina will cover the daily minimal allowance posted by the WHO whereas 370 g of eggs... 7 eggs . Of course, this is a just a well-informed *personal* opinion. Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we need to determine whether or not the controversy around spirulina is a notable controversy. Essentially - is the alternative view a notable and widely-regarded view; and is the controversy itself noted by experts? If any sources could be provided here, that would be very helpful. We really need a secondary sources which notes the controversy between the two views, I think. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell here. We need to respect WP:MEDRS, which says we should not usually use individual studies. If there is a review study or a textbook that mentions the controversy, then we can cover it, but otherwise I think it is probably too early to soften the wording in the article. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing long comment by User:Rdavout
As per above, not so much individual study as completing an exhaustive citation of the scientific corpus on the issue. If we want to avoid double standards here, all other citations must be removed. Why?
"The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12." → Absolutely partial and incomplete information as regards the source. In contradiction with both the source and the 2010 peer-reviewed study I included in V2.
"The medical literature similarly advises that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12.[2][4]" → *The*? In a way that's cherrypicking Watanabe's work out of the rest of the corpus... For sure he's the only one with a vocal opinion on the subject. Other studies just state facts (% of bioavailable spirulina, impact on rats, etc). But I'll prove my point on that specific sentence by finding secondary sources (hopefully).Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rationale and suggestion for a version 3

Back from my search for sources. My final conclusion is that there is only one secondary source concerning B12 food sources, "Vitamin B12 Sources and Bioavailability" [20]. This was cited as a source but not to its full value as the only secondary source available to us.
Interestingly I also found zounds of opinionated stances both in full favour of spirulina as a B12 source and in disfavour in *tertiary* sources, which should probably be a sufficient basis for noting that there is a controversy, at least in the public understanding of facts relating to spirulina. The use of the word controversy seems to displease some of us who apply it to the more restrictive meaning of controversy stated as such in a scientific review paper. Either is fine by my book and I now see the point in qualifying the word "controversy" to avoid blurring that distinction.
We learn in Wikipedia:MEDSCI#Summarize_scientific_consensus that "Finally, make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy." That solves the issue in this case IMHO. No need to apply the C-word. The secondary source does not state out loud that there is a controversy but does explore the different issues of uncertainty which should therefore be put forward in the final version.

Regarding the existence of a secondary source...

  • Consequence 1: It is the only secondary source among the previous references and, if I understood WP policy well, and correctly identified this source as secondary, should therefore be given precedence over the previous references and superceding in its principle any recourse to either tertiary or primary sources
  • Consequence 2: IMHO for the sake of intellectual rigour, a fleeting reference to post-2007 studies should be mentioned while (1) being either exhaustive or quoting nothing (to avoid cherrypicking), (2) stating their inferior source value, (3) removing them after a few years if no new secondary source picks them up (MEDREV#Respect_secondary_sources). Do note however that after giving long though to it I do not mark a strong support to the inclusion of any post-2007 reference in the full text after all. The peer-reviewed primary reference I mentioned has great data but I do feel however that this point should be reminded in the talk page associated to the original article with a further invitation to reference new primary studies on the subject on the talk page rather than the main page.

Now for the extraction of the relevant information from the available secondary source (quoted in full):

  • In the abstract:
"Some plant foods, dried green and purple lavers (nori) contain substantial amounts of vitamin B12, although other edible algae contained none or only traces of vitamin B12. Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominately contain pseudovitamin B12, which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B12 sources, especially in vegans."
    • Consequence 1: the ADA reference paper (edit[superceded tertiary source], cf. supra) discounting all vegetable sources of B12 is in conflict with this secondary source and therefore clearly unreferencable concerning B12, both for its 2003 position paper (due to precedence) and its 2011 (due to absence of a more recent review article) edit[the reference to spirulina has indeed be removed in the 2011 version of the ADA paper]
    • Consequence 2: as per WP policy, the opinion of the abstract supercedes the exact full text in primary sources, with no particular mention regarding secondary sources ("Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge.") - it should be therefore used as a guide to the use of the full text of the study, but not exclusively.
  • In the full text:
"Some species of the cyanobacteria, including Spirulina, Aphanizomenon, and Nostoc, are produced at annual rates of 500–3000 tons for food and pharmaceutical industries worldwide (61). Tablets containing Spirulina sp. are sold as a health food fad, since it is known to contain a large amount of vitamin B12 (62). We found that commercially available spirulina tablets contained 127–244 μg vitamin B12 per 100 g weight (63). When two corrinoid compounds were characterized from the spirulina tablets, the major (83%) and minor (17%) compounds were identified as pseudovitamin B12 (adeninly cobamide) and vitamin B12, respectively (Fig. 2⇓). Several groups of investigators indicated that pseudovitamin B12 is hardly absorbed in mammalian intestine with a low affinity to IF (64, 65). Furthermore, researchers showed that spirulina vitamin B12 may not be bioavailable in mammals (63, 66). Herbert (67) reported that an extract of spirulina contains two vitamin B12 compounds that can block the metabolism of vitamin B12. And van den Berg et al. (68) demonstrated that a spirulina-supplemented diet does not induce severe vitamin B12 deficiency in rats, implying that the feeding of spirulina may not interfere with the vitamin B12 metabolism. Further studies are needed to clarify bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans."
(My emphasis) Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Consequence 1: There are zero doubts/conflicting evidence on the issue of presence of B12 in spirulina (contrary to what is stated in V1).
  • Consequence 2: There are doubts/conflicting evidence on the issue of spirulina B12 metabolism: (63,66) *may not be bioavailable* (in vivo, animals), (67) presence of doubtful compounds (in vitro), (68) *may have its B12 metabolism proceed without interference* (ie.: -/-/?/+), which should be reflected as such: conflicting evidence, general conclusion expressing non-reliability of source in the absence of further research. Again V1 is generally lacking on this point, stating the unreliability of spirulina as an acquired fact and not a dynamic process. Spirulina is *deemed* unreliable due to the absence of human in vivo studies not due to negative results in human in vivo studies. This is a very important difference which is *not* reflected in V1.

To finish, my proposal for a V3: V3b (2ndary source only but more expansive)

A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12. The mostly (83%) biologically inactive compounds of vitamin B12 in Spirulina are not bioavailable to humans but though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion, there is conflicting evidence concerning its metabolism edit [and it may be anything from a good source of vitamin B12, a source of antinutrients blocking vitamin B12 absorption or simply an unmetabolized source of vitamin B12]. edit[Although the vitamin B12 content is sometimes percieved as controversial, it in in fact well accepted (and furthermore confirmed by 6 different assays in a 2010 peer-reviewed study) - the doubts on the issue concern the metabolism of this vitamin B12, ie. its absorption in human beings of all conditions and the absence of interference of its analogs with the absorption of vitamin B12 from other sources.] (extended)
Collapsing other suggested versions (long comment) by User:Rdavout

V3a (minimalist)

A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12.
Basic and nearly OK IMHO but not strictly in line with the WP policy stating that doubts and controversies expressed in secondary sources should be well expressed. The main problem is that although readers will get the gist of the issue, they most likely won't be able to understand the compatibility of having bioavailability considerations and presence of true B12. Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

V3c (the same, updated with the 2010 study's *abstract* -as per policy- and mentioning the existence of a controversy in the mind of the public)

A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite of a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12. The mostly (83%) biologically inactive compounds of vitamin B12 in Spirulina are not bioavailable to humans but though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion, there is conflicting evidence concerning its metabolism. Although the vitamin B12 content is sometimes percieved as controversial, it in in fact well accepted (and furthermore confirmed by 6 different assays in a 2010 peer-reviewed study) - the doubts on the issue concern the metabolism of this vitamin B12, ie. its absorption in human beings of all conditions and the absence of interference of its analogs with the absorption of vitamin B12 from other sources.
A bit more expansive both on the well-established true B12 content and the doubts relating to its metabolism. Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've collapsed the two very long comments by Rdavout above. At the top of this page it says "Please keep discussions on this page civilized, present the issues in a concise and calm manner, and try to present a neutral view of the issues at hand." Being concise is important here, as neutral editors coming in to comment on this dispute will be put off by extremely long replies, and long replies also disrupt discussion between the editors who are already involved. I have some more comments about the application of WP:MEDRS to this article - please hold on while I write them up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Having another look through the dispute, I think the main problem is that, as far as I can see, none of the sources presented so far show that there is a controversy involved here. The source that was given to support the statement in Rdavout's version two doesn't appear to say anything about spirulina's absorption into the body, but only about its chemical properties, judging from its abstract. Using this to back up claims of B12 bioavailability by the spirulina companies appears to be a synthesis of sources, and isn't allowed under Wikipedia policy.

Also, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada are the major professional associations relevant to this article in those countries, and whatever the "truth" may be, they reflect the establishment view on the subject. Claims that these organizations are biased won't get you very far, I'm afraid. (For more on how this kind of thing works in Wikipedia, I recommend reading our page on fringe theories.) I will reiterate my comment above - if there is a respectable secondary source that mentions that there is a controversy here, or that claims spirulina is a good source of B12, then we can think about including it. Until then, it is really too early to change the point of view expressed in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of concision. Last time promise! The only important comment is the second one. Please take the time to read it fully. My V1 suggestion is completely outdated as I indeed did not really understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. I am switching your collapses to reflect my present position. Rdavout (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still think that your proposed version is based on a misreading of WP:MEDRS. We really do need a secondary medical source to say that there is controversy about B12 in spirulina, or to say that spirulina is a good source of B12, before we can change a medical claim on the issue. I'm afraid that no amount of new versions will change this fact. If no new reliable secondary sources are forthcoming, then I just don't see that there could be grounds to soften the claim. If you really want to pursue this further, then the next logical step is to file an RfC at Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement), but if the version you propose doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS then I doubt other editors will rush to support it. Sorry, but that's just the way the rules work. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess my lack of concision drowned my present position in the mass of text. Do you agree that there is only *one* secondary source on the subject? I am not at all supporting either talking about a controversy nor saying that spirulina is a good source of B12 *anymore*. I've read WP:MEDRS very closely and understood that my initial position was not conform to policy and that the logic between WP:MEDRS was very solid. My present position is to apply the rule closely and remove all non-secondary sources and to match the only available secondary source as closely as possible. Could you please deconstruct how I get this wrong is if I do? I understand the general inclination towards skepticism but that isn't house policy either. House policy is using secondary sources over both primary and tertiary and not cherrypicking either, with more reason when they predate the existing secondary sources. Rdavout (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
When I said that your version is changing a medical claim, I was particularly reacting to the part that said "the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion", which seems to me to be giving undue weight to the possibility of it being metabolized, when it looks like the source, overall, is saying that spirulina cannot be relied upon as a source for B12. That said, I am no expert on medical matters, so the best thing to do may be to politely and concisely take up this specific point on the article talk page.

Also, a part of your new version that is obviously problematic is your removal of the positions of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. The positions of these organizations obviously qualify as "medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations", which in turn qualify them as secondary sources per WP:MEDRS#Definitions. (This also means that there is more than one secondary source on the matter.) Again, per WP:MEDRS, these statements absolutely do belong in the article. These organizations show the mainstream medical opinion on this matter, and the mainstream medical opinion is exactly what we should be showing on Wikipedia. I think that if you can understand and accept this, then the best thing to do is to take this discussion back to the article talk page and try to work things out with the other editors there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the extra detail.
- I understand your point 1 though I disagree given that the rest of the sentence explicity states that there is a metabolization issue. The fact that there *is* B12 is a very important part of the secondary reference. The present version is unambiguously false in the sense that it attracts the attention to a lack of B12 (a false statement) instead of uncertain metabolization - a very different issue altogether with very different consequences (no B12 = that's it ; possibly unmetabolized B12 = possibly a good source of B12, possibly a B12 absorption blocker, possibly nothing at all - three possibilities which have barely been investigated but which are of course so contradictory that caution is warranted). I've slightly adjusted my main proposal to reflect that point in the clearest of ways.
- As for point 2, the 2011 paper [21] doesn't mention spirulina (or any algae) anymore although it continues to single out fermented soy products. It should supercede the 2003 version shouldn't it? I am not favoring the removal of the reference just because its a tertiary source but primarily because it's a superceded tertiary source.
I'll try getting MastCell back in the discussion because going back to the talk page without him discussing the issue will basically mean that my position will be simply archived and forgotten. Rdavout (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The current edition of the ADA guidelines explicitly states that "no unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B12". That's as clear and unambiguous as you can get. They haven't changed their position on spirulina; they've broadened it to include all plant foods. It's sort of disingenuous to imply that the ADA has changed its position on spirulina; obviously, they continue to believe that it contains no active B12. I'm again left wondering why there's a problem conveying this information clearly to the reader. MastCell Talk 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This may be sunken cost bias on my part but I am not ready to leave the present version as such given the many approximations to be found in the present version. Point taken on ADA, then clearly "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12.[10]" *is* obsolete and has to be replaced by "The American Dietetic Association states in its position paper on vegetarian diets that state that "no unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B12". Same as previously but without singling out anything - I call that a pretty big difference (they're *not* saying it has anti-B12 for instance), plus contrary to other points made in the main secondary source (on chlorella for instance). Same goes for the other points: all primary sources should be removed, punto basta - no double standards here please! The information is not clearly conveyed to the reader contrary to what you say. Present versions says: no B12. Verifiable reality is: B12, uncertain status on assimilation on B12 (anti-B12? zero-effect-B12? true-B12?) thus not recommended source. VERY different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the need for the changes you're suggesting. Expert opinion is quite clear here: plant foods, including spirulina, do not contain any significant amount of active B12 and thus cannot be relied upon as a source of B12. Surely we can convey this honestly and clearly to the reader, without making up stuff about "anti-B12"?

Also, we don't need to remove all primary sources - we just need to make sure that we, as editors, are not trying to arrange primary sources to "rebut" established expert opinion, like that of the ADA. There is no blanket prohibition against primary sources - only against misusing primary sources. This is spelled out in WP:MEDRS. I think your edits misused primary sources, citing them selectively in an effort to undermine expert opinion from the ADA. MastCell Talk 22:02, 16 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.

Soccer in Australia

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 use of the word "football" when referring to Association Football (or Soccer) is a touchy subject in Australia. Those who follow other codes of football such as Rugby league or Australian rules football, do not like the term "football" being associated with Assoc. Football (Soccer). As such where other countries national teams are called England national football team, the Australian page is Australia national association football team. There is an accompanying article for football in all countries that disusses the particulars of the sport in each country, so for England it is Football in England. However the Australian page is titled Soccer in Australia. The simple request, is to bring it into alignment with all of the other articles for other countries and if "Football in Australia" cannot be used, then use the same naming convention as AGREED to for the national team; Association football in Australia. As you can see, this name redirects to the page in question, however the request is that the page be moved to aligh with the same naming convention as the national teams' page.

It is also worth mentioning that both this page and the national teams' page do not adhere to the (inactive) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), which stated that Association Football should be referred to as Football (soccer).I suggest this needs to be revisited once and for all. As you will see, all the talk pages on the issue are rather long, heated and lack direction. For mine, Football is Football and should be called as such. Similarly "table tennis" is table tennis. Tennis fans don't ask for it to be called "ping pong" because it is a different kind of real tennis...

There was a requested move discussion, which ultimately was overrun by supporters of Rugby League and Australian Rules Football. It is my opinion that one discussion on a topic at a time where a vote can be decided on how many football/non-football fans are online at a given moment is flawed. A proper discussion needs to be had and a decision needs to be made once and for all. Nearly every page to do with football in Australia ends in some petty football v soccer debate. We need to have consistency across all football articles - this is supposed to be an INTERNATIONAL encyclopedia, not an Australian Encyclopedia, thus any Australian football articles should be named as per the standard for the sport.

The number of codes that refer to themselves as being a code of football should not come into it. Using the England example again. England participates in Association Football, Rugby League Football and Rugby Union Football as mainstream sports. Ireland participates in Association Football, Rugby League Football, Gaelic Football and Rugby Union Football as mainstream sports. Yet they all share one common thing - the name of theie national association football page is England national football team and Ireland national football team

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Wikipedia is supposed to be all about "good faith". Good faith is not argueing a point because the name doesn't sit well with you personally. All I am looking for is a stardarised naming convention that can be applied to all football articles if not regardess of what country they are referring to, at least for a specific country where a ambiguity exists.

  • 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=Soccer in Australia}} --~~~~ 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 ad nauseum on a vast, vast number of talk pages.

  • How do you think we can help?

The issue needs a concrete definition/standard as the constant debate is very tiresome.

Ck786 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Soccer in Australia discussion

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

User:Ck786 asks editors to show good faith, but in attempting(?) to present an overview has simply present the case for his point of view. It may have been unintentional, but to begin by saying "Those who follow other codes of football....", meaning the ones he's not interested in, is a bit Freudian. I find these exercises very frustrating since, as User:Ck786 says, there was a formal discussion on a request to move. Clearly User:Ck786 doesn't like the result. Surely we don't have to present all the arguments again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Where is the dispute? I just quickly scanned Talk:Soccer in Australia and see no dispute (in the last six weeks, only two short comments have been added, both today). While I am in no position to offer an opinion on the naming issue, instinct tells me that the clear statements by HiLo48 on that page provide extremely good reasons to leave Soccer in Australia at that title. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) link given above is "inactive and is retained for historical reference", and its last substantive edit was in 2006. If there is any evidence that what HiLo48 said on the article talk page is incorrect, please produce it. If not, there is no dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I did also mean to say myself that there really was no active dispute, but forgot. What we actually have is a single editor who has just discovered a result of a move request that he doesn't like. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In my opinion (I have participated in the previous discussion and do mainly edit Australian rules football-related articles), this is quite simple: per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". And, per, WP:ENGVAR, "[t]he title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation". As these are both Australia-related topics, it would seem that there are two "common names" possible: "Football in Australia" and "Soccer in Australia". "Football in Australia" is unacceptable, as it is ambiguous. Therefore, in my opinion, "Soccer in Australia" is the best possible article title. I would suggest that the national team's article be moved to "Australia national soccer team" – it seems logical to have the Socceroos playing soccer, rather than association football. I♦A 07:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm the admin who closed Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move as a move to the current title (see my full closing rationale for details). The page move request (which was left open for twelve days, nearly twice as long as the specified RM period, and linked to from WikiProject Football) was not "overrun by supporters of Rugby League and Australian Rules Football", and even if it were that's no argument at all for invalidating it: what sports a given editor supports is irrelevant next to the weight of their arguments, and considering I'm one of the most active admins involved in association football on Wikipedia I'd be just as "partisan" as them were that to be considered. So basically, this was fully discussed, but User:Ck786 disliked the result and has thus dismissed it. I don't believe that constitutes an intractible dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, looking over the previous discussion, it appears Ck786 did not even participate in the prior discussion, so I'm not sure this is the time or place to re-open this, especially considering it followed the correct procedure. I♦A 08:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing comments

Closing - this isn't the right place for this dispute, for two reasons. First, disputes need to be discussed on a talk page before they can be listed here, and there hasn't been any significant recent discussion about this issue on the article's talk page. Second, issues with article naming are usually better served by requested move discussions than dispute resolution, and there was a broad consensus for the current name at the requested move discussion back in July. To move the page again, there would need to be another requested move discussion with a consensus to move back to the previous name, and this doesn't seem realistic just four months after the previous discussion. You might be right that there is still inconsistency in the naming of articles on football/soccer in Australia, but this would be better served by more talk page discussion than dispute resolution, in my opinion. If any related disputes emerge for which consensus isn't clear, then feel free to bring them back here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being somewhat obtuse at worst and missing the point at best Silent Billy (talk) 11:28, 22 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.

Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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 disagree on which form/order of the lead is neutral, and discussion between us two seems to get nowhere. I proposed a third option, but that was not acceptable to the other user either.

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=Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} --~~~~ 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 tried discussing the edits, but have not come to an agreement on the lead to date.

  • How do you think we can help?

More voices discussing the changes would be appreciated, as it seems it's mainly myself and the other user. It's necessary to get outside opinions, and I have also posted a request here, but I'm not sure how else to generate a discussion.

~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 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. I'm a mediator here at the DRN, I hope we can resolve this issue. I have looked at the issue and the debate and it seems to me that both parties should read WP:LEAD before continuing. A large part of this dispute is that there has been a misunderstanding of this policy. A lead section should cover an article concisely in a way that would allow it to stand alone as an article. It needs to interest the reader, not be over detailed and should be complete in its coverage. I have found that using the sections in the article as a rough guide for paragraphs is really helpful, as it means you will cover every aspect of the article in the summary. Thus, I would advise presenting information in the order that the are presented in the rest of the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I just finished reading WP:LEAD (wasn't aware of it, thanks). By rearranging the intro to Viramag's version, I believe it focuses strongly on the idea that the LDS Church taught that it was a mental disease. The source used is dubious, is not an authoritative document or official doctrine, and worse yet, is really not very helpful to a reader trying to find out the church's relationship with homosexuality, instead trying to draw a controversy into the historical labels that the church may have used. Instead, I feel that mentioning that homosexual activity is not allowed is far more helpful to the worldwide audience as an intro.
It does make sense that the lead would more or less follow the sections in the article. As such, I think it would be helpful to have "Current theology and policy" moved above history. Part of the difficulty is the need to separate the potential historical labels (illness, tendency) from the actual policy. Per the article's sources (historical arguments from Quinn excepted, which are explicitly mentioned in the article), the policy has been more or less consistent throughout the history of the church (i.e. homosexual behavior is not acceptable), while the progression of labels has more or less been the natural societal labels.
All this being said, I also find the current lead to have some details that are not relevant and perhaps may be interpreted as POV. That is why I propose this version instead, which could probably be condensed a bit more. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I would echo the comments by ItsZippy. The lead should summarize and using the articles sections as a guide for summarizing is a good method.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree...and I believe that the current version and my condensed version, linked above, both follow the order (belief, history, politics), whereas the other version does not. What changes would you propose? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The current order of the article is history, then belief, then politics: that is how the sections are arranged. As such, that is the order the lead should take in summarising the issues, with the historical view before the current belief. If you think the lead should be in a different order, then you would have to change the order of the article. However, as this is already a contentious issue, you would need to seek consensus before making the change. Unless and until such consensus exists, the lead should follow the order of the article, with history before current beliefs. If you think it should be different, then I recommend you make suggestions on the talk page to change the order of the entire article, to try and establish consensus. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If you look in the actual content of the "history" section, it talks about belief before history...(i.e. "The LDS Church teaches that the Bible forbids homosexuality")? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The order of the sections puts history first, though. The current belief is not discussed in detail until further on in the article. As I said before, if you want the current belief to come first in the lead, you should find consensus for/against changing the structure of the whole article first. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:47, 20 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.

User:PinoyFilAmPride, User:Glock17Gen4, User:Cyberpower

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?

I am requesting for more editors to look at the current evidence provided and determine a final conclusion, especially since Cyberpower may have not verified his source as compared to the sources I have provided. I am trying to deal with this in a civil manner and would not try to make any personal attacks towards editors nor try to threaten to sue Wikipedia, joke or not. However, I am questioning the source of information regarding Cung Le's Nationality given by both the user Glock and even Cyberpower, who said he was handling the matter. As Wikipedia requires, a source of information needs to be verified. The source for his nationality given by Cyberpower apparently is a user on Facebook that claims to work for Cung Le and knows specifically which citizenships/passports that he holds. I am asking directly for more administrators to step in and view and verify this source to be legit, as compared to all the sources I have provided including direct tweets and quotes from Cung Le himself and his website. I further ask for the admins to tell Glock to stay away from my Talkpage and other ways of communicating because I find his comments absolutely ridiculous, outrageous, and disruptive, while I am trying to deal with this in a civil, respectful, and reasonable manner. All I ask if for everything to be verified, just like Wikipedia requires. I find the co-worker who claims to be Cung Le's co-worker rather suspicious, and evidence must be shown on how he knows the information that is being seeked. If this can not be provided, I ask that Cung Le's Nationality be reverted back to an American of the U.S.A. Please clarify if you can. This is the Facebook user in question who claims to be working for Cung Le and knows exactly which citizenship he holds: redacted This is Cung Le's facebook page (redacted) where a user claims to represent Wikipedia (Cyberpower?) directly posted on Cung Le's wall and received a response from the user who claims to know specifically what type of citizenship and passport that Cung Le holds. However, he has yet to provide enough evidence that 1) He actually works for Cung Le 2) That he specifically knows that he has a Vietnam passport. To me it is highly suspicious, if this can be proven otherwise and that his claims are legit, I will stop from dispute and no longer further try to research this issue. But again, all I ask is for more admins to take a look at this. No disrespect to you Cyberpower, but I just find the current source from a Facebook user that claims to work for Cung as not enough proof

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=User:PinoyFilAmPride, User:Glock17Gen4, User:Cyberpower}} --~~~~ 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, I have provided all the sources to conclude that Cung Le is an American citizen of the U.S.A. The dispute is over if he his a Vietnamese National or an American National. I have provided many sources to prove that Cung Le is in fact an American citizen of the U.S. One editor,Cyberpower, came in to handle the situation. He initially concluded that I had provided enough source material, until he apparently talked to someone who claimed to work for Cung Le. I did some of my own research and found that the discussion took place on Cung Le's Facebook wall page. I found the user who claimed to work for Cung Le rather suspicious, as he did not prove that he worked for Cung Le and two) how would he know specifically that Cung Le holds USA or Vietnamese citizenship. I believe that simply talking to someone, that is not the person that is directly being researched (Cung Le), could also provide inaccuracy of information.


  • How do you think we can help?

I am formally requesting that more editors view the sources provided and finally conclude which are the most reliable of sources. The only two sources provided so far to try and prove that Cung Le is in fact just a Vietnamese National was a "tale of the tape" from a UFC broadcast of 139 that merely showed where he was born. Furthermore, the second on his UFC.com profile only says "Saigon,Vietnam" is where he is from. I have provided significant information to dispute this, as Nationalities/Citizenships can change and place of birth isn't the only way someone can get citizenship. Furthermore, his UFC.com profile includes his twitter where he tweeted he was in fact only a U.S. citizen. That he is an American Wushu athlete, and he has competed for Team USA. My argument is that Vietnamese is merely his heritage/ethnicity and not his current Nationality. Cung Le has also been featured on the Vietnamese-Americans wikipedia for a while. I am asking for more editors to view this and to make a collective decision and finally end it but with reliable and legit sources. I felt that Cyberpower, as helpful as he was, did not verify his source of a Facebook user claiming to work for Cung Le. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:PinoyFilAmPride, User:Glock17Gen4, User:Cyberpower 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.

Flag of Italy

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?

Can't seem to make any headway on this. I had presumed this matter resolved and forgotten all about it, but apparently the user Chrisieboy * has taken up some stance against my edits. He apparently wants me to reinitialize a discussion from nine months ago, which after a few edits by me and then a lot of edits by him resulted in the article having the information I am trying to revert back to at this time (as some anon messed it up five months ago). Obviously you should read the discussion to semi-fully understand the matter, but to summarize:

  1. The Italian government decided to in 2003 formally codify their flag's colors, and the colors they chose pissed a lot of people off.
  2. In something resembling a compromise, the colors were re-codified in 2006, and the colors they chose pissed a lot of people off.
  3. Chrisieboy is reverting two tangible changes of mine, at least one of which (#2 here) he has previously allowed:
    1. The removal of a (now defunct) link to a(n unofficial, but we need not get into that) document referencing the 2003 law's colors, which the article text in question does not address (it explicitly addresses the 2006 law's colors alone).
    2. The accurate representation of the official 2006 law's colors in CMYK form (despite the RGB and HTML values being correct) [the HSV values I saw no point in, I have not checked if they are accurate equivalents].

As I said I had forgotten about this, but reacquainting myself with the aforementioned tedious month long discussion I had with this user last time, I doubt the two of us alone will be able to resolve this in any timely manner. TIA for your time.

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=Flag of Italy}} --~~~~ 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?

Requests to respond logically in edit summaries. Clear refutation at his talk page of claims he made. As mentioned there was a discussion, but it resulted in having the content now attempting to be reverted back to, so it doesn't exactly apply.

  • How do you think we can help?

Appeal to Chrisieboy to be reasonable? Refer me to somewhere where he can potentially be forced to be?

Reisio (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Italy discussion

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

He seems to have abandoned his stance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Italy&action=historysubmit&diff=462456830&oldid=462246335 ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:17, 25 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.

Mansoor Ijaz

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?

In relation to allegations of him being a conservative media commentator and a strong advocate of an war with Saddam Hussien, as well allegation, he asked the Pakistan Embassy in 1996 to give him $15 million dollars, and a recent report in SANA where by he asked for $100 million in exchange for acting as a private off the record messenger for President Zardari and the Unite States govt as well as the person religious faith,ahmediyya all these facts about the individuals are removed, and an edit war has started, despite the fact the majority of editors do not object to the allegations being in the Article

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I have tried to discuss the issue in the discussion section but not got any feed back. I have also tried to explain whilst there are chances the allegation may be false, if they are made by the embassy then that is part of the story

I do not want an edit war, so I will no longer edit that article, I leave it up to the moderators to decide how to edit the article further

  • 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=Mansoor Ijaz}} --~~~~ 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?


Timeone (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz discussion

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

Hi Timeone, and thanks for your post. There are a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that come into play here. Rather than going through all of them, I'll just list the most important one in this case, which I think is the policy on biographies of living people. Here's a quote from the policy: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. It seems to me that including claims like these ones fall foul of the policy, especially when the sources used to back them up rely on a "secret source" (in the case of sananews.com), are obviously pro-PPP (thenews.com.pk) or are absent altogether (lib.virginia.edu). At the moment this just seems to be spreading gossip about Ijaz, and really shouldn't go in the article. To qualify for inclusion, the claims being made should be much more conservative, much better sourced, and of course, neutral. Sorry to be strict about this, but that's just the way things work in Wikipedia. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section on recent events myself. I think having a section on them is fine, but not with the sourcing that was there. The source was a primary source, and we need multiple reliable secondary sources to include something controversial like this. I've also removed some of the recent external links per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:26, 22 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.

Template:Ancient Mesopotamia

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?

I have recently updated the template. This has apparently attracted the attention of an anon user (editing from 2 different IP addresses so far, see list) who now wants the entry Urartu changed into Ararat and wants Proto-Armenian language added to the template. While I have no real problem with adding the language, changing Urartu to Ararat is unacceptable since Urartu is the accepted scholarly, and by far most well-known and most-used name for that specific cultural/political entity.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

User has not responded to my suggestions to take discussion to relevant talk page. Also, I think the user's edits have to do with Armenian nationalism, given his insistence on adding Proto-Armenian language to it as well, and given the fact that the only other edits that IP 75.51.171.39 made was to ask another editor to revert changes made to Armenia-related pages (link to user contributions).

  • 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=Template:Ancient Mesopotamia}} --~~~~ 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 suggested to take the discussion to talk page and I have asked the editor on his two talk pages to explain the reasons behind his insistence to change Urartu into Ararat.

  • How do you think we can help?

That is why I am here; I have never had a discussion with an anon who does not respond to my questions. Page protection would be my first guess, though.

Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Mesopotamia 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.

Kars

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?

There is POV pushing by erasing the different versions of the name of the city of Kars in other languages, especially of particular countries and ethnicities that ruled the city and/or settled there. The erasing of the city’s name in the other languages does constitute as vandalism for several reasons regarding the article of Kars: The discussion(s) in the talk page between Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists does not settle the "dispute" of the city’s history and its names in different languages at all, because the discussion from both sides (which is still ongoing for years) has nationalist overtones and is an attempt to ignore and overide or alltogether erase the periods of the city’s history each side sees as "incovenient". And despite the near identical pronounciation of the city's name by the certain ethnicities who ruled and/or settled in this city in the past and/or who presently live is relevant. The issue here is not about which ethnicity ruled the longest or had the most impact.

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=Kars}} --~~~~ 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 tried talking about the issue with user MarshallBagramyan ‎who erased the etymologies of the city. His explanation is that that the etymologies are almost identical and by citing which ethnicity ruled the longest or had the most impact, which neither justifies this erasing nor addresses the issue, but is an attempt to ignore and suppress them. I have also given the example of Istanbul and Names of Istanbul for comparison because many versions of that city's etymology is used in many languages (also by by nations which never ruled it, unlike in the issue of Kars which is only about the nations that ruled and/or settled ther whic are delibaretly erased), to this user for the second time. This user has not yet responded. I have also written to user Kansas Bear, who also reverted and has suggested using the talk page. This user has not yet responded. Unfortunately as I stated before this issue has not been dealt in the talk page of the city’s article which is still ongoing for years, because of the nationalistic disputes of Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists.

  • How do you think we can help?

Administrators should give their neutral opinions for resolving this dispute and prevent the erasing of the etymologies and periods of the history section of Kars, and exert whatever discipline is possible on anyone erasing them.

Noraton (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Kars discussion

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

I already posted my explanation on Noraton's talk page and I reproduce it here. The problem is that it's impossible to draw the line on what languages to then exclude. Armenian and Turkish are included for obvious reasons but it becomes a little more difficult to justify the inclusion of other languages just because it was ruled by this or that empire for a period of time or at one time had or has members of a certain ethnic group. The only reason Azeri is being added, for example, is because there's a new community that was established there after the USSR fell. But there's really nothing to point to, say, a specific cultural or social contribution that they have made to the city. It would be the equivalent of adding the Armenian spelling to Glendale, California or Fresno or the Russian and Ukrainian alphabets to Brighton Beach. The names in the lede should reflect a real historical and tangible presence of a certain country, and Russian is far more justifiable than is Azeri or Kurdish or even Georgian in the case of Kars. A meaningful conversation took place and a large number of participating editors agreed to this compromise. Similarly, other editors were asked to provide sources to bolster the case for adding the alphabets but none were forthcoming and, in one instance, one editor even refused to do so. There has been no attempt to suppress the etymology of the name (which sources now indicate to be Armenian), and all the other alphabets essentially reproduce the Armenian pronunciation of the city.

It should be noted that in his revert of my edit, Norton (apparently blindly) removed additional information that I had added in the main body of the article, including verifiable sources and grammar tweaks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any attempt by user:Noraton to use the talk page to discuss the changes he/she has made to the article. The addition of other names of the city would appear to be a diversion, with no mention of the changes made to referenced information within the article. If Noraton has a true concern over the names of the city, why is there no attempt by user:Noraton to discuss this on the talk page, as per BRD? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I put a proposals for ending the naming disputes of Kars through an arbritation by neutral third opinions of administrators in the city's talk page. As the ongoing disputes are not going to be solved by each side anytime soon, the best option is to refer this to the by neutral third opinions of administrators. Unfortunately the problem is, that the will very unlikely be solved at all in the talk page, due to nationalist disputes between the Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists who are not attempting any meaningful solutions but continuing it with no apparent intention of solving it. And any constructive discussion is falling on deaf ears from both sides in the talk page. That is why I requested a Dispute resolution. Although I have overlooked the other impartial editions of the user MarshallBagramyan when I automatically reverted his/her erasing of the city's etymology in the other relevant languages, unfortunately this user has also taken a nationalist agenda like the rest of the Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists by being uncompromising and partial. That is why a neutral resolution from administrators who are expert in this and impartial is necessary to deal with this issue and give their recommendations and changes.
Noraton (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
@Noraton: I'm a neutral mediator/clerk here.
  • I'm afraid that there is no process available at Wikipedia such as "an arbitration by neutral third opinions of administrators in the city's talk page". Content at Wikipedia can only be decided by consensus and even our highest adjudicatory body, the Arbitration Committee, will only make decisions regarding behavior, not content.
  • There does seem to be a pre-existing consensus about which versions of the name should be included in the article. The fact that some arguments or positions may not have been represented or considered in the discussion leading to that consensus is certainly a reason to renew the discussion about the matter, but it does not make the existing consensus any less of a consensus. While there is no doubt that consensus can change, it doesn't change until a new consensus is reached. The way to obtain a new consensus is to discuss it on the article's talk page and, if a new consensus cannot be reached, to either (a) simply let the old consensus stand or (b) ask other editors to join in the discussion by making a request for comments.
  • "Vandalism" has a fairly specific meaning at Wikipedia and the things you allege in your request here do not constitute vandalism (see here). Making repeated false accusations of vandalism can itself violate Wikipedia civility policy.
  • I'm not making an accusation here, just providing some information: Please remember that the proper process to obtain consensus is not to simply continue to revert edits with which you disagree. To do so is an edit war which can cause you to be blocked from editing, especially if the three revert rule is violated, especially in this case which would appear to me to come under the special discretionary sanctions applicable to Armenia-Azerbaijan matters.
  • In regard to those sanctions, if you feel that the conduct of other editors in this matter clearly violate Wikipedia conduct policies, then you may file a complaint at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard but I would caution you, first, that on a quick look I do not see anything which I would consider to be such a violation, second, that such complaints can easily boomerang and, third, that such a filing will not solve the content issues about which you are concerned.
Since this issue is best resolved by discussion at the talk page, I am closing this request as premature. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 28 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.

Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden

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?

Edit warring by two Swedish editors (1 and 2 below) who have teamed up, as they have done previously, to go against the opinions given by WP:3O editors. The conduct of user Kuiper is always full of personal ridicule, false accusations and twisted facts. He has stalked me for years, and I would like to have an inter-action ban as recently has been granted on Commons. Links given on the talk pages of the related articles show how he has behaved. The content dispute is regarding whether or not an academic theory from the 18th century, cited by experts in 2003 and 2007, can be included in an 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=Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden}} --~~~~ 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?

WP:3O, diskussion on the talk pages of the two articles and of Dukes of Östergötland

  • How do you think we can help?

Give neutral opinions on the content disputes, adjust content to the benefit of the articles, inter-action ban as requested, help exert whatever discipline is possible on anyone behaving disruptively.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden 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 that before we work on the specific content issue here, we should deal with SergeWoodzing's request for an interaction ban with Pieter Kuiper. I have informally mediated a dispute between these two users before, and they have a long history of disputes. I think the request for an interaction ban is reasonable, if only to prevent further drama. I'm in the process of filing a request on this at ANI. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The thread is up at WP:ANI#Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The twisting of facts and incessant unnecessary arguing is still going on. Should it be discussed here instead - or is double discussion what is intended? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to exit the discussion about Sune Sik before, but as I am stated as a side of dispute here, it seems I have to serve this duty. So, as I see it, the problem is in absence of consensus on whether to include the medieval theory about the ducal title of Sune Sik. The opponents of inclusion claim that this theory is fringe and thus was consequently dismissed by modern studies. The proponent of inclusion (SergeWoodzing) believes it to be notable, true and worth inclusion. Personally I would prefer this theory included with references about its relation to present day theory. I was not participating in other articles discussed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have now added a source which indicates that a reliable publisher today (2007) considers the 18th-century author worth mentioning. And yes, I have asserted that the theory is "notable" and "worth inclusion", but I have never asserted definitely that it is "true". Very few people have ever written anything notable about the Sune Sik grave, and the few things we know about him have all been recounted only in that context. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. I do sincerely believe that that must effectively resolve the dispute.
  2. As the other parties ignore the due process of dispute resolution, this case should be probably resolved on the grounds of lack of the content dispute.
  3. (suggestion) You might want to find more sources to support Your position. Though I think this one does the job, the more references You give, the better coverage You provide. Additional benefit could be from the information that could be added to this page.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As SW says, no one has disputed that the content he tried to add to Sune Sik is largely correct. I do believe that Boraen described Sune Sik as a duke, but reserve judgment on exactly it should be described.
The matter is, instead, whether this is relevant. For me, what was proposed in an academic thesis 300 years ago is only of interest if it can be tied to a longer academic debate: are Boraen's claims about Sune Sik taken seriously today? So far, I have seen nothing to suggest this. SW has claimed that modern historians have studied Boraen's paper, but have not said anything about what they write about Sune Sik. Until I see either that they consider his claims interesting, or a modern, reliable source that discusses Sune Sik bring up Boraen, I will consider him irrelevant. That Boraen can be used as a source in some contexts should not be taken as a sign of his relevance here.
As far as the spill-over debate at Duchies in Sweden, it seems to no longer concern Sune Sik at all. As it has barely started, I don't see why the discussion page there cannot be used.
Andejons (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article is a stub, and thus (in my opinion) no WP:UNDUE issues could be raised. Apart from that, the first the first application of ducal title is an interesting fact, so I don't see any problems with inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A 1724 student's thesis cannot have any bearing on the first use of a ducal title. If Boræn wrote about a duchy of Östergötland in the 12th century, it was a gross anachronism. Rubbish does not get notable by being old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Aside from catchy wording, I see strong personal opinions, but I see nothing to back them up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone else please step in here so that this could be resolved? Andejons (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the Sune Sik article, it appears that the sources were over-analyzed to the point of original research. The article acts like there is a dispute on the person's existence, or on the person's status as a prince. If that is the case, the article should clearly state this information. Right now, the article reads more like a debate, than a neutral encyclopedia entry. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:11, 22 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. ^ http://www.http://www.whiteestate.org/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. doi:10.3177/jnsv.48.325. PMID 12656203.
  3. ^ a b c d Watanabe F (2007). "Vitamin B12 sources and bioavailability". Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood). 232 (10): 1266–74. doi:10.3181/0703-MR-67. PMID 17959839. Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominantly contain pseudovitamin B(12), which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B(12) sources, especially in vegans.
  4. ^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
  5. ^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.
  6. ^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. doi:10.3177/jnsv.48.325. PMID 12656203.
  7. ^ A. Kumudha; S.S. Kumar; M.S. Thakur; G.A. Ravishankar; R. Sarada (2010). "Purification, identification, and characterization of methylcobalamin from Spirulina platensis". Journal of Agricultural Food Chemicals. 58 (18): 9925–30. doi:10.1021/jf102159j. PMID 20799700.
  8. ^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
  9. ^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_12&oldid=1084317284"