Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 14
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
24 articles infobox images
Resolved through compromise (promotional posters) -filing party indicated consent to close [1] Chzz ► 11:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
About a week ago, I was doing some cleanup of a few articles relating to the TV series 24, as part of my effort to get one particular article to good article status. I had noticed that the info boxes of the season articles (linked above) had the image changed from the main cast in the info box, which was in effect from 2006 until a few months ago, when InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) uploaded DVD cover art (from Region 1) to the articles. I proceeded to upload over the images with cover art from Region 4, and requested an administrator delete the old revisions under our non-free content criteria, where old revisions are deleted after seven days. Admittedly I jumped the queue, and should have waited the 7 days. A thread was opened on my talk page by Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs), in regards to the differences between using Region 1 cover art as opposed to Region 2/4 cover art. As a result of that discussion, it was agreed that we revert back to the cast images in the info box, so I did so, and requested the DVD covers be deleted. I was then notified of a thread on the WikiProject TV page where InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) raised objection to the deletion of the image, and requested that the Region 1 images be undeleted and restored to the articles. My argument was that the articles weren't broken in the first place, that adding DVD covers has brought up a dispute over which region cover to use (Region 1 encompassing US and Canada, Regions 2 and 4 which use the same art encompass the rest of the world where it was released). Their argument was that DVD cover art is always in the info boxes, and that it is always of the cover art where the series premiered. I feel that discussion on the project talk page has not been effective at coming to a consensus. As a believer in the dispute resolution process, I think that getting more opinions and outside views is the best way of resolving this. Personally I think that if we cannot come to an agreement then we should find a compromise, which I feel is reverting back to how things were previously, but understand that this is a discussion that should have more eyes and opinions, thus it is why I am bringing the issue here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved
Yes, I have notified all the editors on their talk page, additionally I have placed a note at the Wikiproject discussion page. 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
I have attempted to engage in the discussion on the WikiProject Television talk page, but we have not been able to come to an agreement.
I'd like the input from other editors here. I invite comments on what the best resolution for this dispute could be, as I do not feel that continued discussion on the project talk page will garner a consensus. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 24 articles infobox images discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This would seem to be rather premature given that discussion about this matter really only started at WT:TV#Deletion of covers four hours before this dispute was opened, with only nine posts in the discussion so far. I've only made a single post in that discussion and Drovethrughosts, who is also named, hasn't had a chance to post yet. DRN is not for disputes "which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page", and that's the case with this. I don't think Steven Zhang has given that discussion reasonable opportunity to reach a conclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Outside opinion by Chzz
I suggest you split this. It's not one debate, it's two.
Split the 'content debate' from the 'user debate'. Is all. We can deal with the "Was it out of process? Who did wrong?" (A) - we have systems for all that We can deal with "Which image is best?" (B) - we have OTHER processes for that We cannot deal with A+B on the same place. That is the actual "problem" right now. Trying to argue which image is best, whilst the waters are muddied by "BUT you SHOULDN'T have DELETED IT!!!111" isn't going to butter parsnips. I'm not judging; I'm just sayin' - it's two issues, not one. And they should be separated. Otherwise, it's unproductive.
As far as DRN goes, we need to know which dispute you need help resolving. Or, if it's two, fine; we can deal with each... separately. Hope that helps. Chzz ► 04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, we discussed the use of images, and as we could not agree, I looked to the MOS. I noticed that it recommends promotional posters to be used in the infobox as opposed to DVD covers, thus I uploaded 8 posters for each season and they are currently used in the infobox. I think this one can be closed as resolved, but will leave that to someone else to decide. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
|
History of the rosary
A consensus regarding the content has formed on the page, the discussion page, and here. No objections to consensus being the closure here |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Content dispute over an actual recorded significant fact about the history of the rosary. Users involved
It appears to me the users in dispute are simply rejecting valid, cited material in order to lay claim to ownership of the article. Please be aware that Alpha_Quadrant has interceded to offer help and wonderful advice.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Extensive discussion, examples and citations on talk page which are met with either mockery or straw man distractions.
Please have an admin examine the edits, the disputed content and the conduct of the editors and render a decision. Wikipedia rules are being abused in this matter as it is now. Djathinkimacowboy 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History of the rosary discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am not even sure it is worth my time to comment on the claims here, given that the 1920s source from Wells used by Djathin is out of date, and contradicts the recently published WP:RS sources already in the article. And he said he has not even read the 1920s source he added, but used a non-RS website that said it had summarized the source. In any case, initially, I did not delete his source, but kept it, touched it up and asked for a page number and a second source to confirm it. When he said he had not even read the source he was adding, the statement had to be deleted given that had not even read his source. And the use of the words "folly" and "height of stupidity" in his very first post on the talk page to refer to others did not help. In any case, a large debate about a 1920s non-WP:RS source the editor had not even read but wanted to insert? Go figure... History2007 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC) History2007 says: "And the use of the words 'folly' and 'height of stupidity' ..." These refer to edits, ideas and actions at the article. I did not call anyone a "fool" or "stupid". This does not violate personal attacks as History2007 would like you to believe, and I take tremendous exception to History's repeated attempts to blacken my name as an editor. Djathinkimacowboy 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring diffs for reference:
History2007 just posted this at the talk page: "By the way, Rwflammang, how about the plot we hatched against Julius Caesar a few years ago in Rome... that was some caper.. was it not? But just to clarify things for the last time hopefully, the first two references in the article, both go against Well's statement. And they are both recent WP:RS sources. Not to mention the other refs in the article that also do not support Wells - a 1920s, less than RS source which ha snot even been read for a while and id quoted from memory or a non-RS source... Go figure... History2007 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)" ... and I rest my case. I will not comment further on the spectacularly juvenile actions of these editors. Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Outside opinion by Elen of the RoadsIf Djathinkimacowboy does not desist with the personal attacks on the other two editors, I can see administrator action occurring shortly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You are following nothing, or you'd be seeing nothing "disturbing", Mike. My edits have been routine and fairly mellow. Hard work to get along with editors who want to get along - I try to avoid those who won't get along. I this case, you are merely shadowing Elen as you two often do. But you are not doing your homework in this matter, and I ask that you both do so before commenting further. And I object to your dragging up an old case that did not go the way you and your friend wanted it to go. Djathinkimacowboy 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Outside opinion by Chzz
I remind all parties that the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article; it is not an appropriate place to warn other editors. Quoting from WP:TPG,
Chzz ► 10:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Statement by complainant
Clerk Comment: It appears that the complaintant has agreed to a resolution. Hearing no objections I'll close down the discussion in a day from this comment. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Flag of Western Sahara
Referred to RfC. I'll have a go at drafting the RfC at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Flag of Western Sahara RfC. Best, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
If you look at the edit history of this page, you'll see it's primarily a history of reverting between edits making it a two-item list consisting of Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Flag of Morocco and edits redirecting it to the first of those two links. The entire page history looks like one big edit war. I opened an RfC in March, and presented three options for the page:
Users involved
I've included pretty much every major editor involved in the page. The most recent editors involved are the first six. The user with by far the largest number of edits is Reisio, who appears to be involved in almost every instance of warring on the page, including the latest.
Done.
Resolving the dispute
The RfC was closed without consensus in March. The edit warring stopped, but has started up again today.
The purpose of this page needs to be determined with a solid consensus so that this activity can stop. Any neutral opinions is most welcome, as is any advice about other forums to seek assistance, although it'd be good if we could come to a decision here. Nightw 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Flag of Western Sahara discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(edit conflict) Hi everyone, and thanks for posting the dispute here. It looks like this dispute has already been well-debated, and that it has been going on for some time, so let me see if I have the facts straight here. The real-world facts pertinent to this dispute seem to be the following:
I think the deletion option is an obvious non-starter, as the term "flag of the Western Sahara" is fairly likely to be searched for, and readers searching for that are probably looking for valid information on which we have articles; so the page should probably have something in it. So we are left with the other two options, redirection and disambiguation/list article. There do seem to be cases for both positions. On the one hand, the redirect option is supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - not many people who are searching for "flag of the Western Sahara" are likely to be looking for the flag of Morocco. On the other hand, the disambiguate/list option is a valid attempt to uphold the neutral point of view policy, as we don't want to give the impression that the flag is an official flag of the territory in question, when it is in fact disputed. In many naming disputes there is no clear best position to take, and discussion can go round in circles for years in some cases. In this case, however, I think we can have our cake and eat it. In my opinion, it is possible to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and still keep a neutral point of view, if we do the following:
At the moment the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article does not seem to be at all neutral, as should be apparent from phrasing like "When the country gains independence by means of a referendum and is internationally recognized ...". If we can do a proper job of maintaining neutrality in this article, then I hope that redirecting to it will be a lot more palatable to editors who have been in favour of the disambiguation/list option. Please let me know if I have made any errors in my assessment, and I would love to hear what you think of my suggestion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Stradivarius, and my thanks for taking on this mammoth dispute which has largely been ignored by everyone but those Night w listed, who virtually cancel each other out. I was tempted to endorse your proposal, because of hat notes being merely what they are, and because it would be a form of compromise that also mostly stuck to the status quo, which is not incredibly terrible at present. My worry, however, is that a hat note referring to Morocco at the top of flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would be a way for people to bring this dispute to even that specifically named article, and it would just go on and on until Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic itself became a divided article half devoted to Morocco. Few people have stuck with this dispute for as long as I have, you see, and most might not recognize one side's blatant lies for what they are, because they weren't there and why should they sift through years of edit histories to find out the truth. For example Night w recently said that the "disambiguated" version "has been the version since the page's creation", and while I remember clearly that it was not, everyone else not completely accepting his edit as one in good faith would have to dig back to the beginning to see it as the lie it is. These people will say anything, and they will take whatever tiny advances they can get. You see flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic used to be at flag of Western Sahara for years. The move to where it is now and implementation of a redirect itself was a compromise brought about by certain people and their agenda, but that wasn't enough for them, they're still at it even now. What assurance is there that after some action taken as a result of this discussion they will not keep going. Will you be there the next time to remember? I doubt it. I'm sorry but I for one cannot assist in the continuance of this POV spread. No one is going to type in "flag of Western Sahara" looking for information about Morocco. No one, ever. The idea is ludicrous. A compromise at this point is not a compromise, it's just another step in the victory of their agenda.
Thank you, Stradivarius, for your suggestion. I think it is a good suggestion overall, though I would like to hear what some of the other participants think, as many have not been active since yesterday. The most accurate solution in my opinion is deletion, as the idea of an apolitical territory having a flag is absurd, but that will likely hinder navigation. I'd actually like to see Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic moved to Sahrawi flag, as it represents many things to do with that nation (not just the state). For optimal aid to navigation, redirecting the page in question there would be a good idea, as long as a hatnote is maintained for the ambiguous term. Nightw 03:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I don't understand why the option of deleting has been so hastily cast aside when it could so easily solve the dilemma. Yes, people are likely to search for "Flag of Western Sahara", but they are equally or more likely to search for "History of Western Sahara", "Culture of Western Sahara" or any of the other things that are sections of Western Sahara. Why not merge and redirect both articles to a section titled simply "Flag"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Tachfin (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Just as a general note: I think the reason why this redirect or article exists in the first place is because of the stupid standard template {{Flags of Africa}} which is based upon a geographic template and mindlessly produces the same list, regardless of topic. There are many of them, and so people think the redlink must be filled. I remember I once sent something about "Islam on the Faroe Islands" or some such to AfD, which was an article about the one Muslim family there (result was 100% delete). What I'm saying is unless this (and other templates) are changed, there will always be a redlink begging for people to recreate it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about this dispute some more, I think the next logical step would be to take it to another RfC. It seems clear that we won't be able to reach a consensus on these pages, and comments at this noticeboard are not binding in any way; that sort of thing is usually better handled by RfC. I did consider referring this to MedCom, but SlimVirgin's comments in the last RfC have persuaded me that another RfC with clearer wording could do the job just as well. I recommend giving a short history of the dispute, and then listing three or four choices for participants to choose from. Giving too many choices will make it a lot harder to find consensus, so less is definitely more in this case. Would anyone like to volunteer to draft the RfC for us? I suggest doing it at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara/RfC draft, so that anyone can update it, and discussing the draft on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara so that other editors can see the discussion. Once we agree that the statement of the dispute is neutral and the options to choose from are clear, then we can put it up live on the talk page. How does this sound? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a bit of history, at the early stages of Wikipedia, there were attempts to associate "Western Sahara" with the flag of the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" as if they were the same thing, consensus has been against such practice (Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote). This discussion is an example of the remnants of such attempts, though for me the issue has little to do with NPOV but more with encyclopedic precision; no RS ever called the flag of the SADR, flag of Western Sahara as the two are two separate things. If we're willing to allow such a degree of hand waving, then we'd better just redirect anything "Western Sahara" to "SADR" or vice versa. Tachfin (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Montrose Star
If not resolved by article mergers at AfD, then stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Hacking and malicious attacking of individuals Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, on talk page, I have reversed the edits.
The above article is being hacked by the owner (or owners representatives) and targeting individuals that used to be involved with that business. Can this page be watched more aggressively or block that IP from making those edits. I have had to do 4 "undo's" so far in one day. Or maybe lock the page? Apparently, several people left this particular publication and started their own newspaper, and they are using Wikipedia to defame them. NewsManJustin (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Montrose Star discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi ShreveNewsMan, and thanks for posting here. I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble with other editors on the page, and I can sympathise. It's never nice when editing doesn't go how you want it to. It's probably worth bearing in mind that the other editors are both new, and so probably don't know their way around Wikipedia yet, and that the best way to go about this might just be to point them in the direction of our policy pages. Before we delve into that dispute, however, I think that there is a bigger problem here - notability. There aren't any reliable third party sources in the article at the moment, and I couldn't find any mentions on Google News or Google Books apart from a couple of references to the newspaper in passing.[11][12] I'm afraid that if no reliable third-party sources about the newspaper exist, then the article does not pass Wikipedia's guideline on notability, and should, unfortunately, be deleted. I recommend reading the notability guideline and the essay on notability of media, and then trying to find sources about the newspaper. Maybe there are sources from back in the 1970s that haven't made their way online yet? Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Top Chef (season 8)
Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
In the TV show Top Chef 8, in episode "The final supper" the words "Richard, you are the winner" was not said. Therefore one editor User:Drmargi claims that the show is the ultimate source and Richard can not be declarde the winner. In the next episode it was clearly stated that Richard was the winner, and there are primary and secondary sources stating that he did win. I therefore suggest that it should be stated on the page that he did win. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
See talk page, about 75 edits, 8 months. Talk:Top_Chef_(season_8)#No_winner_in_last_supper.3F.3F
Give second persons opinion on what policies say on topic, primary and secondary sources. --Stefan talk 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Top Chef (season 8) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The problem with Stefan's version of events is that he is trying to create a scenario that allows him to say that something that did not happen in Episode 15 in fact, did, based on his interpretation (key word) of what he saw, the events of Episode 16 and the network's blog. Everything he cites can be documented as part of the proceedings of Episode 16, but none of it accurately describes what we actually saw in Episode 16. What he cannot say, no matter how he tries to spin events and sources, is that Richard was declare the winner in Episode 15 because it didn't happen. There's no possible way, moreover, to provide a reliable source to verify that something happened that simply did not. If editors would step back from the fan aspect of the show and simply look at it from the point of view of recounting of events, it's clear as glass, and there should be no dispute. But most can't, and they're determined to use outside and secondary sources to say the Emperor has the finest clothes in the land, when in fact, he has no clothes. End of story. Drmargi (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments on Edit A and B
I came upon the page accidentally while looking for the current season, and I noticed the disputed tag. Considering that's an absurd tag to have on the page of a TV show, I decided to read on. This "discussion" has been going on for nearly nine months with most involved parties agreeing that Richard won, but Drmargi persists in reverting anyone who edits the page and insists that the absurd tag remain. Here are some key points:
As I noted above, I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I realize that Drmargi has not answered my last question asked above, but I see from this edit that she tacitly admits that Padma, the show's host, referred to Richard as the winner of Episode 15 in Episode 16. That, in my opinion, is a sufficient, if primary, source for calling Richard the winner of that episode in the article. (The fact that the show based an action on that identification, i.e. by allowing him to go first in Episode 16, confirms that this was not simply a passing statement or chance comment by Padma, but that confirmation is not necessary to make the source reliable.) I also am of the opinion that the listing on the show's official website is also, and independently, a sufficient reliable (if again primary) source to call him the winner. (I express no opinion about the other offered sources or about the question of whether the use of the term winner has been allowed by consensus.) It does not appear that Episode 16 had occurred the last time this issue went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard though the scorecard was up on the show's website at that time. Independent editor Nuujinn has already opined in that discussion that there were already enough reliable sources to identify Richard as the winner of Episode 15. If the controversy continues after this DRN discussion, I would suggest taking the issue back to RSN for an evaluation of the additional sources and, should that fail or prove unsatisfactory to anyone, then to the Mediation Cabal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I really don't want to be involved in this very contentious issue over...Global Warming, Deregulation, appropriate Tax Rates...oh wait, no, Top Chef! But I can't help myself. Just to throw in my part, I too believe the evidence "identified" Richard as the winner. As a compromise back in August I left the Ep 15 alone and adjusted the Ep 16 entry instead to properly reflect the facts that happened in that episode, including Padma's statement. This was undone on Dec 8th, by user: Jennavecia (Lara), understandably because it didn't really make sense to have this in Ep 16 as it was about Ep 15. Personally I'm happy to see it go, as it makes the entry look weird, but without it the Ep 15 entry just looked/(looks) inaccurate. (I have noticed above that the mediator found in favor of Richard being "identified" as the winner in Ep 15 and the Table - so that would make discussion on Ep 16 a moot point if appropriate changes are made). With that said I will attempt to resist my argumentative instincts and bid adieu. With that said, no I won't...some final questions/observations/ramblings:
Outside view from ChzzRichard was the winner. There's strong support for that, and it is common sense. Add a footnote to mention this, if absolutely necessary.[note 1]
Stuff this tiger, and move along; otherwise, this is heading for WP:LAME. If people want to waste time on it further, feel free to badger me about it; I don't mind. If you won't accept my own assessment of consensus, we can discuss that further, and let these good folks get on with improving other stuff. Chzz ► 08:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Insanity defense
Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
One registered editor is insisting on including a phrase whose neutrality is disputed, providing no citations and no rationale for inclusion. The statement in question can be found at [diff]. This is coming to DR to prevent an edit war. Both users have reverted several times (though I don't think there has been any violation of 3RR on either side). The neutrality dispute has been taken to the talk page, but the discussion seems to be getting heated and accomplishing little to nothing. Users involved
The user who continues to add the questioned statement (User:Doc insanity) has been referred to WP policy and guidelines several times, but he becomes defensive when these guidelines are pointed out, resorting to personal attacks on the other involved user.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on talk page (Talk:Insanity_defense#Rule_of_law_and_insanity)
Analyze the situation from an uninvolved perspective and determine the best course of action to make the article most neutral. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Insanity defense discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The basis on which Sleddog believes the statement is not neutral has never been articulated to me satisfactorily, despite specific requests. The inappropriate quotation of Wiki policies should not replace a reasonable discussion in which an attempt is made to resolve disputes. The issue I find most puzzling is the basis on which Sleddog has removed the statement. If it is because it's not neutral, then the statement cannot need support. If it needs support, then it cannot be non-neutral. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
So you're now not saying that the statement is not neutral, but instead that it is not supported? This is what confuses me. The statement is not loaded, because criminal punishment of the insane (however defined) is clearly synonymous with lack of respect for human rights. I can't see any reasonable person disagreeing with that statement personally. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, you're very dogmatic about this. Would you care to explain why you think the statement is opinionated editorialising? Is it the case that every single statement, no matter how basic, needs to be supported by a reference? Somehow I doubt it. It would be very difficult if not nigh on impossible to find an academic reference that directly supports the statement that the insanity defence is an intrinsic part of any reasonable criminal justice system, because the concept is so basic. I can assert with total confidence that you will not find one jurist/legal academic/etc that will state that those who are insane should be held criminally responsible. I can guarantee it. I could add some supporting material, but none that "prove" (which is not the appropriate term for such a topic, but let's not get into epistemology) my statement. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, it is the case that every assertion introduced into Wikipedia must be supported by a reference if it is challenged or likely to be challenged." Yes, that's my point - when I inserted the statement I didn't conceive that anyone would challenge it. So there is no exception even for the self-evident? I find this very bizarre. Can anyone reading this seriously say that they think that the insane should face criminal punishment? Would the statement that the insane should be exempt from criminal punishment have to be "proved"? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan, if the policy is "if anyone voices a disagreement, then the statement, no matter how self-evident, must have a supporting reference", then that is surreal. I'm still getting contradictory messages here. If the statement has little actual meaning (a contention which is not really backed up), then it is not contentious, merely irrelevant. It is a reasonable surmise from the universally accepted notion (no one here has questioned it) that the insane (however defined) should not be liable for criminal punishment that therefore jurisdictions that don't have some form of insanity defence don't respect human rights and the rule of law. I could find several statements on that one article alone that make similar reasonable surmises. So this rule seems to be very patchily applied. I'm still struggling to understand the policy therefore. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Note:I am withdrawing from neutrality on this filing and entering as a disputant. Doc insanity has removed significant portions of this article under the reasoning that they are not cited. As the removals have significantly disrupted the article, Sleddog16 excercised the Revert under WP:BRD with a edit summary requesting an explanation. Doc insanity then re-reverted with no explanation. I attempted to explain to Doc insanity that they were out of line in BRD, waited for a reasonable time for him to self revert, and then proceeded to restore the previous consensus. Overnight (in my timezone) Doc insanity removed the content again. I have warned Doc insanity that further disruptive editing will result in my taking him to the Edit Warring board for disruptively editing the page in question. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Hasteur, could you and the others tell me what the policy is? One minute I am being told all statements must be cited, the next you are warning me for applying that policy (as illogical as it is). As you know full well, an explanation for the removal has been given - do you deny this? Could you make up your mind please? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hasteur [corrected with apologies to Sleddog] - "temper tantrum"? Is that really appropriate language? Do I have to quote Wiki policy to you? Sleddog, you are not neutral in this matter, and therefore I believe you should recuse yourself. You have previously altered one of my entries without having even read the citation properly, so I find your judgment somewhat suspect. You have previously deleted my material when the consensus was that all that was necessary was a citation needed tag. Is this a pattern, or is this confined to my entries?
I am applying the policy as articulated to me. Any lack of understanding can be corrected here, although the policy seemed perfectly clear, if patchily applied. Why would you consider my editing to be "proving a point"? And, none of the material removed was cited. So please don't make false accusations. I also wonder why the numerous inaccuracies in the current article haven't been addressed. Is it correct as Hastuer suggests that any content present for a "non-trivial time" must remain, whether correct or not? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Nuujinn - that's really my point, that permitting evidence about mental capacity for the accused is intrinsic to respect for human rights and the rule of law. Thus any proof would have to be about why this is the case, my statement isn't actually an argument. You say that it's not universally accepted that the insane (however defined) should not be liable for criminal punishment. Although the procedures for determining who is legally insane or the definitions used are all debatable, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you will not find one legal academic (even those who "abolished" the insanity defense e.g. replaced it with 'lack of mens rea') who will argue that those are sufficiently mentally ill should suffer criminal punishment, because they lack the necessary state of mind. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Sleddog, apologies - you're absolutely right, the denseness of the text made me think you had made those comments. As for going over past history, I have explained why I think it's relevant. You persist in stating my material is not neutral, when it's been established that you can't make that assessment. My statement might not have the support you believe it should have, but it's not just my POV. Although this term seems to misapplied with respect to articles about disciplines like law. Unless your articles are going to be strictly black letter law, which hasn't been explicitly mentioned (and would require extensive revision of current articles by someone with a knowledge of law). Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No, fair enough Sleddog - you're acting in good faith and I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Apologies. My reaction is partly down to genuine bafflement, as I didn't see the statement as being remotely contentious when I added it. I think the difficulty comes from applying the Wiki approach to socio-legal analysis rather than black letter law. Not having looked at Wiki articles on other areas with similar issues, I have no idea how they are tackled there. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'm fine with closing the discussion, Sleddog Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Before closing the discussion, I would like to add one more comment. I would like to make a summary of this discussion to post on the Insanity defense talk page so we can continue the discussion easily. This is the summary I propose - if anyone would like to add or correct anything, please discuss it here: Sleddog116 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Summary of Dispute Resolution
Does anyone have anything to add or correct on the above summary? If not, I'll include this summary on the article's talk page for easy reference. Regards. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you TransporterMan for your measured and useful input as always, likewise Nuujinn Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Telangana movement
Closing as stale - please feel free to come back and post here again if you continue to have problems. I have also put the article on my watchlist and will monitor further developments. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a section that one user wants to be added and the other opposes it. There have been attempts to get mutual consensus and a 3rd party opinion was also sought. But nothing seems to have changed. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Mutual discussion on talk page. 3rd party opinion
Both users have their POVs but not aware how the information should be captured on the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Telangana Movement discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
For reviewers, this is the section in question. I haven't read it, but perhaps a primary reason for opposition is that it might seem excessive: perhaps it can be adequately summarised? Nightw 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Killing Lincoln
Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
After talking it over on the wikiproject book page with other editors, I removed the "error list" from the article Killing Lincoln, as a detailed list of what are considered errors in a book amounts to original research. The author of the list reinstated the list and posted a warning to me for removing it. I don't want an edit war, but I do believe, and have heard from other editors, that Wikipedia is NOT the place for this sort of list. I'd offered that he can add a link to a list of corrections to the book on an external page if it's reliable, but have had no luck getting him do that. Help would be appreciated. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Talk on the talk page and on the wikibooks project page.
Clairify is this is orignal research or appropiate material to wikipedia.
Killing Lincoln discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
From 5Q5: The precedent for revealing the errors in a best-selling book has been well-established with the article Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code?. In Talk:Killing_Lincoln I give examples of other Wiki articles where the controversies in books are noted and discussed. 5Q5 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
|
HIV
Appears to be resolved, but stale in any case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The image titled "Diagram of HIV" in this article does not seem to have a reliable source. I submitted it for deletion but it was kept. Nobody who opposed the deletion gave a reason which refutes my reason for requesting the deletion and yet the image was kept. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have discussed this matter on the Talk page. I have requested that the file be deleted and entered into some discussion there. I have asked for advice at the Commons Village Pump.
I would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources. The image is currently sourced to dead links, is a dead link a reliable source? The source link points to an archive instead of to the originator of the image (the NIH). This appears to be against the rules for reliable sources. WP:NOR states that "all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source." One of the criteria for identifying reliable sources states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"WP:IRS. A web-archive does not appear to meet these criteria. There *are* similar images available from the originator of the image (the NIH) and if the image was to be sourced to the originator then that *might* meet the requirements for reliable sources. I have suggested this on the Talk page but to no avail. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC) HIV discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Further discussionMy perspective as a previously uninvolved editor (administrator): Now that DavoDavoDavo's replied to the various questions and comments, I think we have a clearer picture of the situation. Part of the picture is that there were/are a few simple misunderstandings of fact on DavoDavoDavo's part, with regards to the Wayback Machine and editorial guidelines; both I and other editors have addressed those above. The main, continuing, issue seems to be that DavoDavoDavo wants the image removed because of style concerns, not because of verifiability or accuracy concerns. DavoDavoDavo hasn't challenged the credibility of the NIH (in fact, he endorses it) or of the particular image; his strongest argument on that front is that removal or change of a page from/on the NIH's website might reflect a change in the NIH's stance. Such a position is unpersuasive - you challenge a reliable source with another reliable source, not with speculation. No such reliable sources have been provided thus far. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Biblical cosmology
Discussion has stopped and both disputants have accepted to put the discussion on hold. See my further comments below. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The article currently discusses, at considerable length, the nature of Heaven, Hell, and angels. To my mind this is not what cosmology is about - cosmology means the shape and origins of the cosmos (the universe). In the context of the article, it has to be a discussion of the way the biblical authors viewed the origin, form and nature of the universe. My attempts to do this have been stymied by şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:, who reverts everything I do. In fairness I can't say I don't understand - my view of the scope of the article and his are worlds apart, as he wants to retain an in-depth discussion of heaven, hell, and angels, and I'd rather like to discuss things such as the first chapter of Genesis. I can't see any hope of us resolving this through discussion. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on article Talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_cosmology#Edit_war:_what_is_cosmology.3F_For_.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8:
We need an editor who is (a) trusted by both main parties (myself and CarlAude), and (b) reasonably knowledgeable about biblical cosmology (I might be prepared to lower the bar on the last one). The mediator can help us decide whether an article on biblical cosmology should concern itself mostly with what various theologians have to say about heaven and hell, or what the ancient authors of Genesis etc thought the cosmos looked like. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Biblical cosmology discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I've read Carl's comment and he makes a valid point, namely that he doesn't know what I'm proposing for the article. I'll outline my problems and proposals on the article talk page, in detail, but as a summary: the existing article doesn't begin to come to grips with the subject, dealing with a number of irrelevant matters instead. Carl raises the possibility that the article Genesis creation narrative should be enough to deal with biblical cosmology. It isn't: it's one chapter out of 50 in one book out of dozens, and it presents only one part of the bible's views on the cosmos. There's far more to be said. Plus, of course, that article itself has to deal with far more than cosmology, as Genesis 1 is about a lot other than the shape of the universe. "If PiCo thinks it has to many of the ideas of today's theologians..." If it has any ideas at all from today's theologians, that's too many. The article is about cosmology, not theology, and ancient authors, not modern ones. Cosmology is not theology, and Carl's inability to understand that point is the source of our conflist. PiCo (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediator comment Hi there, I'm here to help mediate this case. I'm uninvolved in this dispute and have a reasonable grasp of philosophy and theology - hopefully we can bring this to a resolution. The key issue seems to be the scope of the term "cosmology", which is the study of the universe as a whole; Carlaude has rightly noted that this includes Heaven, Hell and whatever else people believe exists. Thus, any part of the universe mentioned in the Bible should be discussed in this article. I suggest we go about this in a structured way. Firstly, we need to come to agreement over exactly what cosmology encompasses. Once we've done that, we can then look at what "Biblical cosmology" consists of. For now, let's stay focussed on cosmology: we seem to all agree that the earth, heavens and underworld should be include. What do we think regarding angels, celestial bodies and stellar firmament? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Defining "cosmology"Following ItsZippy's suggestion above that we begin by defining cosmology, I've opened this new subsection, and, on the article talk-page at Biblical cosmology, invited interested editors to put their thoughts here. I'll begin by copying definitions given in two recent scholarly works. (Feel free to add more definitions, or simply discuss these two): PiCo (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I've moved your heading down a level so it's under discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
2. So what is "biblical cosmology?"If "cosmology" is the shape of the universe, the next step is to write a short paragraph defining what the bible sees as that shape, how the bible sees it being created.
(off-topic comment: can you please sign your posts) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (reply to off-topic comment: can you please sign your posts - sorry!) PiCo (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC) This issue is about what should be included, so we need to determine what Biblical cosmology encompasses, rather than what it says. Therefore, we must determine whether each part of the current article (stellar firmament, celestial bodies, Heaven and Olam Haba, Hell and Gehenna, and angels) fall under Biblical cosmology. I am slightly concerned that we have not heard form Carlaude; I'll drop him a message, inviting him to join the discussion again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will close this thread now. If/when the discussion comes up again, I suggest that you try to discuss it at the talk page first and request a third opinion. Feel free to bring it back here if necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Otis Redding
Stale. Feel free to relist if dispute resumes or if Guild edits are not fruitful. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Recently I reviewed the article for good article status and failed it on the grounds that the prose is poor. When completing the review I saw that the article had been been self assessed as B class by the GAN nominator, User:GreatOrangePumpkin,diff1 although there was no evidence that a B-class review had ever been carried out. I re-assessed the article as C class.diff2. This was reverted by User:GreatOrangePumpkin.diff3 User:Binksternet endorsed the re-assessment at C-class.diff4 User:GreatOrangePumpkin reverted User:Binksternetdiff5 and has since aggressively stated that anyone can make a B-class assessment and demanded that I give examples of where the prose was poor, although that had already been done in the GA review. I have reverted back to C-class, but User:GreatOrangePumpkin refuses to accept this and has "promoted" the article to B-class again. I believe that if this sort of behaviour goes unchallenged the whole quality rating system of Wikipedia is undermined. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Attempted discussion on the article talk page but without any success.
Hopefully User:GreatOrangePumpkin can be convinced that they should accept the advice of two experienced editors that as it stands the article Otis Redding does not meet B-class standards and that edit warring is not a way to proceed on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Otis Redding discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is a hopless case--♫GoP♫TCN 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Apparent weight
Merger dispute apparently now moot, close requested by editor making the request here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Article was proposed for merger; consensus among small number of editors who discussed was merge. After no activity on discussion after six days, I merged the article. It was reverted against discussion. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page
Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Apparent Weight discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Well, I just don't see the necessary consensus to move the article. There was insufficient input in the merger discussion. And you can't then just count heads and declare that 3 for merger and one against is a consensus for merger after 6 days. Why not at least ask the previous editors of that page or aks other editors altoghether. In the first section of the talk page you can read why the article was created, most of the objections raised to motivate deletion/merger were actually answered right there back in 2005 when the article was created. Some of these editors still contribute to Wikipedia, they may want to know about an article that they created back then being proposed for redirection now in 2011 because 3 editors don't like the very concept of "apparent weight". Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha, I just see that the consenus has evaporated, one new editor came along and agreed with me. Clearly, it was wrong to suggest here that 3 editors can constitute a consensus, at least in this particular case given also their previous stance taken on this issue. That leads to instability, as just one new editor can then completely change things. The whole point of consensus is that it brings with it a degree of stability. Count Iblis (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The article has been rewritten from scratch with sourced material; I considered the matter resolved and propose closure. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Khalil Ibrahim
No talk page discussion, no notice to other editors, probably no dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I have come to read the history of west of Sudan and request any historical evidence of the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa before new Sudan was formed. The issue is the article states that the main land of zaghawa is in Sudan and this does not conform to the fact that geographically the ancinet kingdom of zaghawa lied in the border of the kingdom of the Foour and the maps I have seen fall in Chad. The president of Chad himself is from Zaghawa and his tribe is tremendously influential there. The Foour tribe for example are non disputable as indigenous Sudanese people. However this is not the case with Zaghawa who face the question of their being indigenous (beyond the last 50-100 years) and that they are well known for being cross border citizens. How does the author of this article claims that the zaghawa are basically located in Sudan? what reference does he base this statement on? Could you refer to books that described the history and geography of lake Chad region for this would be an obvious fact! Whether the old history or the present situation to my knowledge nothing conforms with this statement! And it is not a denial of their citizenship but it makes a major difference between being migrants and cross border citizens (with majority in Chad area) and being indigenous; whether to the understanding of the common reader to the background of things or to the reliability of this article as a source. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
197.252.76.8 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Khalil Ibrahim discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
It is not clear that there is any dispute here. The Khalil Ibrahim article does not talk about the geographic location of the kingdom of Zaghawa. The article on the Zaghawa people relates what medieval geographers wrote about the place where they live and which kingdoms they dominated, without mentioning a separate "kingdom of Zaghawa". There is an article Awlad Mana with a section The Zaghawa of Central Africa that does state "Long ago, [the Zaghawa] had their own kingdom ... . The remnants of this ancient kingdom can still be seen today." There is no discussion of a more specific location than "Central Africa", and no source is cited for this statement, but verbatim the same statement is found elsewhere on the Web here, which gives "Text source: Bethany World Prayer Center", and from which the Wikipedia text may have been copied. Perhaps the question is best taken to the Humanities section of the Wikipedia Reference desk. --Lambiam 07:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members
Closed as inappropriate venue, per instructions, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." Also see closing notes, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Several articles relating to the Underhill Society of America and related family members have been nominated for deletion. In initially preparing the articles I did not anticipate it would illicit such a strong reaction from others. As such, I may not have demonstrated the necessary rigorousness for writing the articles initially, including adding sufficient secondary sources, etc. After having a number of my articles recommended for deletion, however, I worked to strengthen my existing articles and to be more rigorous on new articles. Since making improvements, there has been either no repsonse to the AFD's or new AFD's placed on new articles that I have written such as the United States Fire Insurance Company of New York. With the assistance of Blanchardb, the AFD for John Torboss Underhill has been lifted. I believe that the Underhill Society of America meets the notability guidelines with the edits that I have made, and most if not all of the pages for family members have notability too. For those who do not, I would be willing to incorporate their material in the Underhill Society of America page. Before doing so, I would like to know whether the Underhill Society of America page will be deleted or not. Getting recognition for the importance of these figures and generating interest in the USofA and the Underhill family is hard enough as is. To make it difficult or impossible to draw attention to the organization and family within Wikipedia makes it very frustrating for people who care about this subject matter. What makes this situation that much worse is that the editor in question is clearly not aware of the importance of the significant role that Captain John Underhill played in Colonial America, settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Amsterdam, and Long Island, nor how his ancestors across many generations continued that distinguished service in every major war, as well as in business, industry, and politics. Had he know this he might have been a little more cautious before nominating so many articles for deletion. Users involved
The aggressive use of the Article For Deletion tag almost made me want to walk away from Wikipedia altogether. Then I recognized this editor has used heavy-handed tactics with other users too. What it came down for me as an expert in this subject matter, is if I did not take a stand, then no one else would. I am committed to this subject matter and also committed to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm hoping clearer heads can prevail and a satisfying resolution may be found. If a resolution can be found, I can see myself helping other users in similar situations moving forward.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have reached out to the editor who made the AFD requests. He is insistent that the family organization and members of the family are not notable. I made improvements to each article and tried to engage the editor in a discussion though have received no response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#Dealing_with_Underhill_postings I reached out to a number of other users who contributed to the articles or offered to help and also have gotten little response.
I would appreciate help getting connected with people who have similar subject-area interests, and who can help me with refining these existing articles, so that I may more effectively contribute moving forward. I will also reach out for editor assistance, separate from this request. Placepromo (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Closing notes: This is inappropriate for DRN. The instructions for this noticeboard say, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." Moreover, if Placepromo feels that the AfD nominator is proposing articles for deletion in a manner which violates Wikipedia policy, the issue should be raised at WP:WQA or WP:ANI since it would be a conduct dispute, not a content dispute; the content dispute is the issue being handled at AfD and that's where the discussion should take place, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Taliban
Stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a dispute about whether the term "military support" (of Pakistan to the Taliban from 1995-2001) should be included in the relevant lead sentence. Anyone please take a look at below sources and tell us your opinion whether you think
Sources Encyclopedia
United Nations
Human Rights Watch
Academia
Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)
International Governments
Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
The issue was discussed on the Taliban talk page. There is neither a consensus to use the term "military support" nor a consensus to not use it.
You can help by considering above sources and then provide your position in response to the two questions posed above. JCAla (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Taliban discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's note: Mediators/clerks here at DRN should take note of the special conduct limitations regarding this dispute (set out here by sysop Magog the Ogre), which extend to discussion of this dispute by the disputants here at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The consensus mentioned above by TopGun is not meaningful for this discussion. The discussion was about another time period (2001-today), the specific term "alliance" and the infobox. The current discussion is about 1995-2001 and the addition of one verified term to an already existing agreed-upon lead sentence. 1995-2001 is a period on which there are a lot of studies and the obvious (see sources) majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support" to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
|