Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Sri Lanka

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 Island country instead of Island nation

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Users 1 and 2 seem to be out on Wikipedia to smear the image of Sri Lanka and Sinhalese people with various, random and unprovoked edits relating to Sinhales people such as Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka. All these disputes are related to the recently ended Sri Lankan Civil War.

  • 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=Sri Lanka}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There is a discussion on the talk page that is going nowhere.

  • How do you think we can help?

Settle it once and for all by deciding what's best.

Blackknight12 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka discussion

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


Our intention is not to give bad image for Sri Lanka or Sinhalese people, but the truth about Sri Lanka and its people. By hiding actual and current facts of Sr Lanka if some one think he or she helps Sri Lanka's image to the outside world then it will at the expense of other grieving community in Sri Lanka. It is incorrect to relate some ancient people of Sri Lanka who lived several centuries ago that they all are Sinhalese without any solid logical or historical backing. Again this also will be at the expense of other communities in the Island. They can be common ancestors for other communities which have been dwelling in the island for centuries.Hillcountries (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Why I don't support the view that Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka were Sinhalese, based on the analysis on the article Sinhala/Tamil Nation? by Dushy Ranetunge who is a Sinhalese with the following points;
"Dutu Gemunu is presented as a "Sinhala" hero, but was he of the Sinhala tribe? Does the Mahavamsa refer to him as being a "Sinhalese"? We are told that his mother was from Kelaniya and father from Magama, both well-known Naga settlements.
Is Tissa a name of the Sinhala tribe or the Naga tribe? Who gave Dutu Gemunu a "Sinhala" tag? Where is the evidence? A person being a Buddhist does not provide him with a "Sinhala" tag as during this period Tamils too were Buddhists, (i.e Velu-Sumana) and there were many eminent Tamil Buddhist scholars such as Buddhaghosa.
The fact that the Mahavamsa refers to Elara as a Tamil, does not automatically provide Dutu Gemunu with a "Sinhala" tag.
In fact there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Dutu Gemunu in approximately 200 BC had any links to the "Sinhala" tribe that arrived with Vijaya in approximately 548 BC a mere 348 years previously.
Is it possible that a "Sinhala" tribe that arrived in the island around 548 BC, which was one among many tribes on the island, succeeded in establishing a "Sinhala" identity and consciousness by 200 BC (348 years) to provide Dutu Gemunu with a "Sinhala" tag?"
Hillcountries (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You have claimed so many things here yet you can not provide any evidence. And you accuse us of "pushing: Sinhala into Tamil places but what are you doing now?--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You didn't see clearly what I have mentioned on the top. All above are from the article Sinhala/Tamil Nation? by Dushy Ranetunge who is a Sinhalese. I think you have gone to paranoia state by accusing me, ""pushing: Sinhala into Tamil places". What do you mean by "Sinhala" is a contradicted term. Please read the Sinhala/Tamil Nation? properly.Hillcountries (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Please discontinue this discussion here and take it to the article talk page, or better, just drop it. You both need to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and that you can be blocked or banned if you treat it as one. This forum is only for the "island nation" / "island country" dispute and I will close it if this off-topic discussion continues. Blackknight12, I would very much appreciate it if you would address the settlement proposal I made below. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against a community called Sri Lankans as a community or Sinhalese as an ethnicity.I wish that the world should know about the genocide[I don't expect everyone to accept this ] done by the Sri Lankan state on Tamils during the last phase of the civil war from January 2009 -May2009.Sri Lankan state has been doing systematic genocide and cultural genocide of Tamils for the past 60 years and it has not stopped even after Sri Lankan state had militarily defeated the Tamil Nationalists/Separatists called Tamil Tigers in May 19,2009.

I have not edited Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka.


Regarding the term nation,I don't think that technically applies to Sri Lanka because it's not a [nation-state].It's a multi-ethnic [unitary state] with Sinhalese in all top political posts and with an exclusive Sinhala armed force.There has been no justice and hence no political solution to the Tamils who were subjected to genocide. I think that country would be the appropriate word to refer Sri Lanka.

The meaning for the word nation given in Oxford dictionary is Nation

Nation

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation

noun 

  a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:the world’s leading industrialized nations
  a North American Indian people or confederation of peoples.

Phrases

one nation 

  [often as modifier] a nation not divided by social inequality:one-nation Tories

Derivatives

nationhood noun

Origin:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin natio(n-), from nat- 'born', from the verb nasci — (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

I am a neutral in this dispute. Let me note in passing that this dispute has been brought here after the page was fully protected due to an edit war over this subject which followed on the heels of a prior full protection due to this edit war. I would suggest that the lede of the article be rewritten as follows:

The South Asian Island nation was known Known until 1972 as Ceylon until 1972., Sri Lanka is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait, and lies in the vicinity of India and the Maldives. It is part of South Asia.

or, without the markup:

Known until 1972 as Ceylon, Sri Lanka is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait, and lies in the vicinity of India and the Maldives. It is part of South Asia.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


I accept TransporterMan's proposal(Arun1paladin (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)_

Why is that a reason for opposing the neutral compromise I've suggested? Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be exclusively for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not for the benefit of any exterior interest, and editing to promote an outside interest or position is strictly forbidden. The edit war over this issue has caused the article to be locked down twice and has disrupted Wikipedia. It violates Wikipedia's rules to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. Continuing to fight over this issue when such a simple and obvious fix is available will do just that, especially if the continued dispute is for a reason which is extraneous to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Please reconsider your opposition. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I meant, but in the interests of closing this discussion I will approve.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have a question, through this statement can a unfamiliar reader could grasp that Sri Lanka is an Island ? And unlike cretin Islands shared by nations (eg, Borneo) both the island and nation are one ? Cossde (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's pretty clear from context (and it should be noted that the link to island country doesn't help, since that article defines an island country as all or part of one or more islands), but this would work fine if clarification is needed:

Known until 1972 as Ceylon, Sri Lanka is an island surrounded by the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait, and lies in the vicinity of India and the Maldives. It is part of South Asia.

— TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds perfect to me, which is what's expected from a talented mediator :). ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, and I do have to agree with adamrce, its a talent lacks in most mediators :P Cossde (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've requested that the sysop who has protected the article replace the language with the last version I suggested above. If he does not do it, any editor may do so once the article becomes unprotected. I'd like to commend everyone for coming to a resolution on this issue. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 12 September 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.

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

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.

I'd appreciate it if someone could look into the Best alternative to a negotiated agreement article. In my opinion, the Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement#More_complex_example_-_Misapplied_BATNA section has some serious problems, including WP:COI and WP:Coatrack; see Talk:Best alternative to a negotiated agreement for discussion. I believe that section should be removed, but other, single-issue, editors want to keep it. Could some uninvolved editors take a look? (PS, I have nothing to do with Southwest, TranStar, Air Tran, the airline industry, or labor union negotiations.) --Macrakis (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like discussion has started on the talk page - I'll try to add a few comments there, but it may be a bit premature for this noticeboard. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 12 September 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.

Godhra train burning

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?

Incident should mention new developments to the case namely the case against Nahendra Modi

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

This user is biased towards the Hindus and is of Indian Origin Chennai

  • 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=Godhra train burning}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

message sent to him

  • How do you think we can help?

allow accurate referencing of articles,

Courageous 07 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Godhra train burning discussion

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


Please indicate the relationship between the case against Nahendra Modi, to Godhra train burning. with supporting references that pass WP source accreditation. Distributor108 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained to the editor on my talk page, most of the content was copy-paste from here, the few other sentences implicating Modi (one sourced to Youtube) was not about the train burning itself and the rest is changing sourced content to a statement not supported by the reference it was inserted in front of. Sorry, no dispute here to discuss until he comes up with sources that I've asked him to discuss at the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this report is premature. There needs to be some discussion of this on Talk:Godhra train burning before we can accept it here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)Distributor108 seems recently registered, and possibly unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures and policies, so I'll just point them to the relevant section at the top of this page: "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." I'll also post a standard welcome message, along with links to policies, at the user's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to take exception to the closing statement here -- removing copyright violations does not qualify as revert warring and neither does removing a BLP violation. —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Read again... Administrative closing. This board does not deal with disputes that have not first been discussed on the article talk page. No fault is being found, however your blind revert of Distributor108's revert of your revert of their addition did fall afowl of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 14 September 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.

FIBA Americas Championship, 1988 Tournament of the Americas

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?

Dispute (including edit warring) about sourcing: sources that contradict each other.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

There is an anonymous user claiming that an "official" source should be above all the other sources. There is another user with two different sources, each pertaining to the content in question, which thinks his sources should have more weight.

  • 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=FIBA Americas Championship, 1988 Tournament of the Americas}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Comment on user talk page. Comment on article's discussion page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Clarify what should be done with this type of dispute, which affects four articles.

Coquidragon (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FIBA Americas Championship, 1988 Tournament of the Americas discussion

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

Closing remark: Third Opinion given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:04, 16 September 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.

Sri Lanka religion statistics

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?

Appropriate sourcing of information.

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=Sri_lanka}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

The Talk page of the article in dispute.

  • How do you think we can help?

To define which source is more credible, the actually work i.e document/statistics or a published article from a 3rd party at a later date.

Distributor108 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka religion statistics discussion

I suppose this "dispute" is about the religiosity of Sri Lanka. Distributor108 complains that the stats are outdated and University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition), from which these stats are taken, does not have jurisdiction to make statistical estimates in sri lanka. He asks to change the statistics according to the 2001 Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka estimate. [1]
My comment on Cambridge Factfinder data:
The data is cleary outdated. The source may have not made a statistical estimate, but reused a set of data that was already available at that time.
My comment on 2001 census data:
The report, itself says it was unable carry out the census on 7 of the 25 districts of Sri Lanka, namely Jaffna, Mannar, Vavuniya, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Batticaloa and Trincomalee. And it, in nowhere states the percentages put forward by Distributor108. The department has clearly avoided using percentages because there is no point of giving the percentage followers of each religion in the country, if the census was not carried out on the entire island. And although the User says Department of Census only has the authority to carry out a census in the country, an incomplete census doesn't mean that people of these districts are non-existent.
Besides, there is a separate set of data in the Sri Lankan government official web site [2], which is very much closer to the Cambridge Factfinder data. But it doesn't say, for which year the data refres to. I think the Factfinder data should be retained until a complete census report is released by the Department of Census, which as it seems not long away because the Department has carried out a new census in July 2011. [3] Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"I suppose this "dispute" is about the religiosity of Sri Lanka." - Yes


"complains that the stats are outdated and University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition)" - main concern of this dispute is to use data from the direct source not a 3rd party extrapolation/ publication of the original source.


"University of Cambridge (The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition), from which these stats are taken, does not have jurisdiction to make statistical estimates in sri lanka." - That is correct, which why these stats are an extrapolation of DoS statistics.


"He asks to change the statistics according to the 2001 Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka estimate. [4]" - partly, If you say 2001 stats are incomplete due to the footnote saying the stats were not able to be completed in certain districts due to restriction imposed by MoD for security concerns, then the next appropriate comprise would be to use the latest census by DoS which you are happy with its integrity. I will approve to reach this compromise, however I would prefer to use the 2001 stats and also compromise to include the footnote if thats what it takes to attain your approval for this compromise.


" And it, in nowhere states the percentages put forward by Distributor108." - percentages were calculated based on stats provided, if you feel there is a mathematical error, I'll be happy to discuss this with you further.


"The department has clearly avoided using percentages because there is no point of giving the percentage followers of each religion in the country, if the census was not carried out on the entire island." - Please don't make claims on behalf of state institutions without cited authority/ credentials to do so. Thank you.


" which as it seems not long away because the Department has carried out a new census in July 2011." - Off topic, this dispute is happening now. this is not a viable solution to this dispute.


As i see it we have two compromises. (listed in order of my preference)


1. Use 2001 stats (i'm willing to allow for a footnote with the areas the stats were not covered for detailed, if that's what it takes to attain your approval).

Weather they are non-existent, or the reasons for which the stats are incomplete is not up for you to decide, these stats were accepted as satisfactory census by DoS; i.e DoS has met its responsibility and guidelines to the parliament under the circumstances. If these stats are acceptable to you even with the footnote, I have provided the option below. Distributor108 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


2. Use 1981 stats. * Approved--Distributor108 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given my approval for both these compromises, please select one of these which you are happy with and provide you approval so we can close this dispute. Distributor108 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no objection to the 1981 census data. But my question is, why should we use it when government has a more recent estimate? Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have two other options. Use the GoSL statistics [6] itself, or retain the Factfinder data. What's your opinion about the GoSL stats? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Compromise Denied The information cited from 'Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka' neither has legal jurisdiction to maintain and hold responsibility for statistics. The only body that has this power is DoS, you may make an inquiry to ICTA about the source of their information. however DoS remains to be only body with legal jurisdiction to the data in question.Distributor108 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you questioning the authority of the Government? www.gov.lk is the official web portal of the Government of Sri Lanka. A department is inferior to the government that gives it the authority. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As much as I'd like stay calm in this situation, I'd like say you are pushing my limits. The government website, which are you referring to is not the 'government' you are thinking about. That website is another body of the parliament/the government you are referring to. This agency is the ICTA as i said above, it is an execution body of passed/ratified legislation. The government portal has specific responsibility issued to it just like DoS or any other department, in fact the 'Government portal' is a subcontract of another agency, if you believe government portal is failing to meet its legal obligations, please feel free to file a compliant to the coordinating agency (This beyond the scope of this dispute however I extended the courtesy of attaining this information for you.) Please reconsider your oppositionDistributor108 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) [EDIT - Phone number and email address removed — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)]
Let me clearly state my position. I have no idea, what so ever to push your limits or aggreviate the dispute. My one and only concern is the 2001 census. It is not an island-wide census and does not represent the whole picture of the country. I have no problem with the 1981 census, Factfinder statistics or the GoSL statistics. If you calculate the religiosity percentages of 1981 census, you will see that they are in par with the Factfinder and GoSL stats. I am supporting to add or retain any of these 3 sources. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
* Requesting your Approval for use of "1981 DoS stats." - Please Publish the stats here first, and calculate the %, and I will evaluate my approval Distributor108 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Buddhism : 69.30%, Hinduism : 15.48%, Islam : 7.56%, Roman Catholic and other Christian : 7.62%, Other 0.04%. Rather than saying the word approve, I'd say I would not oppose the selection. Astronomyinertia (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Revised figures Hinduism : 14.86% Islam : 7.4% ; rest follows as you stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Which figures did you use? Using the 1981 figures, you should arrive at Hinduism : 15.48% (2297.8*100/14846.7) and Islam : 7.56% (1121.7*100/14846.7) Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there everyone. I have some points I'd like you to consider:

  • The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition is written by David Crystal, a respected scholar, and published by Cambridge University Press, a respected academic publishing house. It passes all the criteria in the Wikipedia guideline on identifying reliable sources, and there is no reason that we can't use it.
  • The newer the statistics are, the better, although statistics that exclude large portions of a country are obviously problematic.
  • We don't just have to use one set of statistics in the article. If there is good reason for using both of the sets, then we can do that. How about saying something like "the 1993 survey reported in the Cambridge Factfinder says X; more recent government statistics from 2001 say Y, although they did not survey a significant part of the island."

Does this sound reasonable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with your first two points. I haven't yet come across a single editor who rejects the factfinder statistics, except Distributor108. However, the 3rd point is not correct because there was no island-wide census in 1993, and the statistics seems to be based on the 1981 census, itself. The stats in the factfinder and the 1981 census are almost identical when the rounding errors are neglected. Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The newer the statistics are, the better, although statistics that exclude large portions of a country are obviously problematic.- I agree to this, and also agreed to write the footnote which was included in the original census document.
  • The Cambridge Factfinder, 1993 edition is written by David Crystal, a respected scholar, and published by Cambridge University Press, a respected academic publishing house. It passes all the criteria in the Wikipedia guideline on identifying reliable sources, and there is no reason that we can't use it. - Correct but this not original work.
  • We don't just have to use one set of statistics in the article. If there is good reason for using both of the sets, then we can do that. How about saying something like "the 1993 survey reported in the Cambridge Factfinder says X; more recent government statistics from 2001 say Y, although they did not survey a significant part of the island." Under which legislation allowed David to conduct this census, by your wording as i understand David himself conducted census? The 1993 publication is based on the 1981 DoS stats, that is why % are similar to once already use, however this not stats as of 1993 (even if you use these stats its incorrect to say the stats are from 1993, it should read 1993 publication based on 1981 census. the book was just published in 1993, the stats are from 1981. That why I said to use the 2001 stats with a footnote detailing the councils which the census was not conducted in, as it is most current, and accepted by the parliament. I again emphasis the use of option 1. Use 2001 stats (i'm willing to allow for a footnote with the areas the stats were not covered for detailed, if that's what it takes to attain your approval).* Approval pending Distributor108 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so it looks like the Cambridge Factfinder has taken its data from the 1981 census. The Factfinder is a reputable reference work, so it should say where it got its data from. Do either of you have a copy of the book? We should really check the source of the information to find out whether it is the 1981 census or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No, off course the data is from the census, DoS is the only body with jurisdiction to conduct a compulsory census. In the very unlikely David conducted a census, it would not be compulsory thus masses can choose decline to complete it. Therefore invalidating the integrity of any census conducted by any body outside of DoS. This is really a no brainer, use 2001 stats, and include the footnote. * Approval pending Distributor108 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As I've stated over and over again, 2001 census is incomplete, and does not account for 7 of the 25 districts of the country. It cannot be used in Wikipedia because addition of those data is fundamentally misleading the readers. Incorporate the 1981 census data, which is the nearest complete census and please finish this discussion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
who are you to dismiss the 2001 census as incorrect?, the census was not able to be carried out in those districts due to various circumstances. 2001 is the latest data we have, there is no reason to use data which is 30 years old. until new data arrives, this is the latest we have. reconsider your opposition to option 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Further Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its not place for discussion, leave that to legislative assemblies to decide if the stats are valid. Wikipedia will simply present this information, and include the footnote in the references that census was not completed distracts detailed in the footnote of the actual census. Distributor108 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I'm out of this discussion. To the closing Admin: Based on the discussion happend on the Talk page of Sri Lanka article and here, 4 users who have involved in the case; myself, Adamrce, Obi2canibe and Mr. Stradivarius firmly believe that 2001 census should NOT be used as a source for the religiosity bar chart in Sri Lanka article as it [census] is not complete and hence does not give an island-wide view of the distribution of religions in Sri Lanka. All 4 editors have no problem with the existing Cambridge Factfinder (1993 edition) reference, and it seems that it is based on the 1981 census of Sri Lanka, due to the almost identical nature of statistics. On the other hand, Distributor108, briefly agreeing to use the 1981 census statistics and close this wayward discussion, has gone back in time and arguing for using the inconclusive 2001 census data. Thus it can be safely concluded that a consensus exists among the established editors, that the present data shall be retained. I see no point of carrying out this discussion anymore. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation: Due to long-term edit warring at this article, the article is currently fully protected on an indefinite basis. That means that only administrators can edit the article. The Cambridge Factfinder 1993 statistics are currently in the article. This means that for them to be changed to the 2001 census data (and you can add my opposition to doing so, though I'm also open to Mr. Stradivarius's idea of using both if justified), then those in favor of the 2001 data must convince a sysop to change it. If Astronomyinertia's support/oppose analysis is correct, which it appears to be, then the chances of that happening seem very remote. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the 2001 data should be used as this was accepted statistics within DoS, as the latest stats available. And considering the significant change between the presently used 1981 stats, and 2001 stats, its fair to say that 30 year old stats are no longer valid. Astronomyinertia stated 4 editors believe in keeping the 1981 stats, the discussion above shows otherwise. I strongly believe Wikipedia should use the latest and accepted statistics by DoS, as i understand the 2001 census was not carried out in all districts, I strongly believe that weather this invalidates the statistics or not is NOT up-to editors on Wikipedia to decide. These are the current published and accepted statistics by DoS, and therefore should be used. That is all Distributor108 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also considering the CIA worldfact book uses the 2001 stats with a footnote saying they are provisional is the best way to go in this situation. In what capacity do you completely reject the 2001 stats, and use a 1993 publication of 1981 stats, then claim it as a sourced from 1993. Please understand the difference between source and publication. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ce.html Distributor108 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I've been watching the debate here and on the talk page. I haven't stepped in because it seems like the discussion has been fairly healthly and productive. I think it's just about hit the point where things are being repeated, suggesting to me that stepping in and trying to summarize views and suggest some options could be helpful. My work day went from decently open to dealing with another teams stupidity foolishness (if field X and Y must be kept in sync, then KEEP THEM IN SYNC! ARGH!), so it may be tonight (~7-8 hours from now) before I get a good chance to review things. Thanks for keeping this productive and respectful despite the different viewpoints. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary and recommendation

I've tried to go through everything posted here and on the talk page, looking to summarize the dispute and see if I can help point everyone towards a solution that's agreeable. I'm not an admin, nor is this page binding arbitration. We're here to help the editors work towards resolving a dispute by giving outside advice and guidance.

The dispute is which set of figures to use as the breakdown of religions in Sri Lanka. The options I've seen proposed are the 1981 census data (also used by the 1993 Cambridge source), the 2001 census data and the Sri Lankan government website (source unknown). Besides Distributor108 and Astronomyinteria, several other editors offered opinions here and on the article talk page.

In general, all of the options would probably pass muster as reliable sources, but none of them are what I'd call perfect. The 1981 data is old. The 2001 data is incomplete. The government page is from an unknown source. There's a fairly strong concensus that the 2001 data is not a good source because it's significantly incomplete. There's a noticeable shift between 1981 and 2001 in several groups and it's easily possible that the makeup of those 7 regions could affect the shift. While the data is more current, I think it's extremely difficult to overlook how incomplete it is, especially if you're trying to use the data to present a general picture of an entire country. Surveys that attempt to do that are done as random surveys across multiple geographic boundaries to eliminate potential bias. An example from my area would be to survey American politics without getting anyone from the northeast area. You'd end up with a skewed picture.

I think nearly everyone accepts the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder (which uses the 1981 data) as a viable source. I think everyone also pointed out the age of the data. I agree, but it's also a complete data set. If the option is old but complete vs new but incomplete, I'm going to go with the old data and note the age of the data.

The other option that I've seen is to use the data from the Sri Lankan government page. I don't know the source of their data which is a concern. It could be new, could be old. Who knows. I think it's an option to use the Cambridge as the image source then in the text note that the government currently estimates the figures as A, B, C.

Distributor108 makes a valid point that the census data being used is old. The problem is that the more current data is flawed. Ultimately, the information on a Wikipedia article is based on a consensus of the editors using WP policies and guidelines to make decisions. The objects raised to the 2001 data set are firmly based in those policies and fall under editorial judgement. Astronomyinteria noted that a census was taken in July 2011, hopefully we'll get updated figures released from that census and we can get both accurate AND up-to-date figures.

My recommendation would be to continue to use the 1993 Cambridge Factfinder data as the source, but note that the data is from 1981. I would consider adding notes in the text of the article, using the figures from the [http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&lang=en official government website, saying the government currently estimates the percentages as A, B, C. Ravensfire (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My Final recommendation

Thank you for your input Ravensfire, you made good summary with several good points. However I'd like to take the time to discuss my concerns. You keep saying the data is flawed, when its not flawed, the word should be incomplete or as CIA worldfactbook uses provisional. Their's nothing wrong with the actual underlying data. As I see from this discussion these are options that as been put forward.

Option 1: use 2001 DoS Data
Option 2: use 2001 DoS Data with saying data is provisional
Option 3: use David's 1993 publication of 1981 DoS datasourced from 1993 (currently in place)
Option 4: use 1981 DoS Data, with a footnote saying, Newer data shows significant change from stated figures however data maybe provisional.

My analysis on the above option

option 1: Is the latest data, but to leave without a note saying the data maybe provisional could be misleading
option 2: This is the newest most valid data we have that holds the broadest scope and integrity, however it not complete, thus a footnote to indicate the data maybe provisional is the best option as i see fit.
Option 3: This completely wrong and miss leading; and nobody here has a copy of this book. nor can it be easily referenced or accessed.
  • This is a 1993 publication of the religious distribution of 1981; Not 1993
  • The WP article currently states the Source is 1993; when it is agreed upon that this untrue.
  • The original data which is easy to access is available here from the source not publication; http://www.statistics.gov.lk/.
  • I explain below in " 6.2 My Suggested changes of data as follows in relation to Option 2 or 1" that this data is in fact flawed, It says Christianity was 8%; when Christianity wasn't a option in the census. Roman catholic and other Christianity was combined into one.
Option 4: This Okay, if 2001 data was not available however I see it as being better to use the 2001 data and include a footnote saying the data is provisional.

Conclusion

Ravensfire mentioned that the source from an unknown government site and provides a link to a government portal side. The government portal site is maintained by the coordinating agency ICTA, if you see the information on there is sourced incorrectly please contact them. I repeat again the government portal site is not a source but a publication. I have provided the link to the Department of Census and Statistics, where the information can be trusted to be genuine, its integrity guaranteed, takes full responsibility and liability for maintaining statistics. Full details of numbers and statistics are available there, and I repeat again this is the ONLY original source. we do not need to use publication when we have access to the original stats. Please refer to that site only, as any other source is a publication.

"Ultimately, the information on a Wikipedia article is based on a consensus of the editors using WP policies and guidelines to make decisions."

This is true, but when editors do not have the capacity to synthesize information correctly, and claims publications to be sources, do not have access to the source itself,; an admin should make the best judgement given the information above. Based on WP polices and guidelines, I think its clear that WP is an encyclopedia or publication, just like CIA worldfact book. Currently the 2001 statistics are accepted by the DoS and the parliament as the latest stats available. If the stats were flawed they wouldn't be accepted. I urge WP to maintain the status quo of DoS. And use the 2001 statistics until newer data is made available. When newer data contradicts older data; the newer data should be held true. even if the newer data is provisional we are not in a position to assess its validity. Distributor108 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My Suggested changes of data as follows in relation to Option 2 or 1

  • Buddhism: 76.7%
  • Hindu: 7.75%
  • Islam: 8.48%
  • Roman Catholic: 6.11%
  • Other Christian: 0.88%
  • Other: 0.04%

((12 986.6 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 312.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 435.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 035.7 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((150.2 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((8.4 / 16 929.7) * 100) = 100

Reference
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-13.pdf
Source
Department of Census and Statistics

Jurisdiction of DoS

Purview

Legal authority for a census is required for fixing administrative responsibilities on public officers, placing legal obligation upon the public to give correct answers and for maintaining confidentiality of the individual information.

The DoS has taken steps to amend the Census Ordinance and the Cabinet of Ministers has given approval to do the amendments as required. The amendments were sent to the Legal Draftmans Department for drafting the new bill which will then be submitted to the Parliament.

Selected ordinances


Jurisdiction for new census, conducted in July 2011.

My No.: 14/CPH/GEZ/2011.

THE CENSUS ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 143)

Order under section 2

BY virtue of the powers vested in me by Section 2 of the Census Ordinance (chapter 143) I, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance and Planning, direct that a Census of Population and Housing of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka be taken in year Two Thousand and Eleven.

Reference:

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=1655_8E&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3

Is it compulsory to provide my information to the census enumerator?

Yes, The Census Ordinance provides legal authority to the Department of Census and Statistics to carry out the census while the same ordinance obligates every person to answer census questions to the best of his/her knowledge and ability. During census enumeration, a representative from each and every household is asked to answer the questions on the Census form. If you do not answer the questions, the Director General of Census and Statistics as the Census Superintendent has the power to direct you to provide the information. If you fail to provide such information this, you have a legal obligation to comply.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q3

Is my information going to be provided to the others?

No! The DoS under the Census Ordinance is legally bound to protect the confidentiality of the information collected on individuals/household at the census. Neither a government agency nor any other organization will be given data about an individual person or a household.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q4

Also see: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/databases/data%20dissemination/DataDissaPolicy_2007Oct26.pdf regarding Data Dissemination policy

Micro-data Dissemination policy of the Department of Census and Statistics (DCS)

Under the Statistical ordinance, micro data cannot be released with identifications for public use. Procedures are in place to ensure that information relating to any particular individual person, household or undertaking will be kept strictly confidential and will not be divulged to external parties. Information on individual or individual household/establishment will not be divulged or published in such a form that will facilitate the identification of any particular person or establishment as the data have been collected under the Census/Statistical ordinance, according to which the information at individual level cannot be divulged and such information is strictly confidential. Therefore, all direct identifiers will be removed (name, address, ID number, business name, reference number, telephone number etc.) before the release of the data file. The following rules apply to micro data released by the Department of Census and Statistics.

  • The micro-data pertaining to Censuses will not be released.
  • Micro-data of other sample surveys is released free of charge. Only the requests of

Government Institutions/Semi Government Institutions, Recognized Universities, Students engaged in higher studies and selected international agencies are entertained. However, the Data users are required to strictly adhere to the terms stipulated in the agreement form.

  • All the data requests should be made to Director General (DG) of the DCS as the

sole authority of releasing data is vested with the DG, DCS. DCS of Sri Lanka reserves sole right to approve or reject any data request made depending on the confidential nature of the data set and intended purpose of the study or analysis.

  • Requests for micro data should be made through the agreement form designed by

DCS for this purpose (Form D.R.1). The agreement form should be filled in triplicate and the study/project proposal should accompany the filled agreement form. If requests are made for the micro data of more than one survey, a separate agreement should be signed.

  • If the data request is from a student, a letter from the respective Department

Head/Dean/Supervisor, recommending the issue of data, should also be accompanied.

  • If the request is approved, only 25% of the data file is released at the first stage.

The release of the full data file is considered only after reviewing the draft report prepared on the basis of the 25% sample data file.

  • The released data file should be used only for the specific study/analysis

mentioned in the agreement form and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior approval of the Director General of the DCS. Moreover, Copies of the micro-data file, obtained from the DCS, shall not be given to anyone else without the prior written approval of the Director General of the DCS.

  • The draft report of the Study/Analysis based on full data file should be submitted

to the DCS and the concurrence of the DG, DCS, should be obtained before publishing it. Once published, a copy of the final report should be submitted to the DCS.

Note:- Agreement form for releasing Micro data files (D.R.1 Form) can be obtained from the Head office of the Department of Census and Statistics, located at No. 15/12, Maitland Crescent, Colombo 07. Download Agreement from (D.R.I) for micro-data release: D.R.I Form For further details regarding the releasing of micro data, please contact: Mrs. Thiloka de Silva (Statistician) on 2682176, e-mail: data.requests@statistics.gov.lk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of Cambridge factfinder( Mr David) to conduct 1993 census

  • Please fill here - Thank you

Assessing validity and integrity of factfinder census.

Is it compulsory to answer david's questions?

Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is NO. Then i politely decline to answer his questions; therefore this census is invalid.

Is my information going to be provided to the others?

Answer here please- Thank you. If answer is Yes. Yo David can you tell me where my ex girlfriend lives!, shes hiding from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Further note is these newer statistics hold much broader scope and accuracy. The currently used stats from the publication say Christianity is 8%; when the DoS didn't have 'Christianity' as an option, they combined Roman Catholic and Other Christian into one for the 1981 census. It should read 'Roman Catholic and other Christian' not 'Christianity'. Where as these newer statistics breaks down 'Roman Catholic' and 'Other Christian" into two separate categories and also includes an 'other' category. These newer results holds much broader scope another reason for its use. Distributor108 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing note: Three neutrals, Mr. Stradivarius, Ravensfire, and myself, have given their opinions that the Cambridge Factfinder data is preferable. One editor, Distributor108, rejects that position. The discussion has reached a stalemate and is no longer productive, so I am closing it as unresolved. Any parties wishing further dispute resolution on this matter should take it to either the Mediation Cabal or, preferably, to a request for comments posted through the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 16 September 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.

Sri Lanka Armed Forces

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?

Wikipedia is not a gossip channel or place of discussion. It is an encyclopedia to published only proven content. war crimes allegation is not a proven content. This content should be removed.

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=Sri Lanka Armed Forces}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Futile discussion at talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Inform Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) WP is not a gossip or discussion channel. That it is an encyclopedia, if he wishers to discuss/gossip, indicate to him to take this discussion to a forum that will accommodate him.

Distributor108 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Armed Forces 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.

Haven (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?

I am dealing with an editor who has done a lot of work on Haven (TV series) and Haven-related articles, and am encountering a lot of resistance to changes. I am not going to go so far as to suggest an OWNership issue, but it's swiftly moving in that direction.

To whit, the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series (which is a lot, but at least three editors thus far have considered it a load of trivia). I sought to bridge the gap and stop the revert-warring (of which I was admittedly a part) by converting the list to prose and trimming out all but the more prominent references. I even found two citable reference to X-Files, which the editor removed. Indeed, the editor went right up to the "electric fence" yesterday, and flat out drove over it today (eight reverts). The recent edits by the author seem like sour grapes, and I am running out of ideas on how to respond.
I need a little help, because I am starting to lose patience, and am trying very hard not to lose my patience.

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. (Clerk-ish note by Danger (talk))

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Haven (TV series)}} --~~~~ 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 engage the user in both usertalk page dialog (regarding interpersonal frictions) as well as the more conventional article discussion page. I have also reworked the material to reflect the larger portion of what the other user wants up to the limits of concensus, but they insist on including every bit of information they have ever added to the article as far as references to Stephen King's works are concerned. Additionally, the user doesn't seem to understand NOT, OWN, RS or AGF to a degree consistent with communal editing. I'm at my wits' end; I was going to report the user's behavior at AN/I, and it was suggested that I seek to resolve the matter here first.

  • How do you think we can help?

Not sure you can, but if you cannot, its off to the AN/I page for more stringent measures that don't really involve a happy resolution for at least one of the users here.

Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven (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.

I see this dispute has made its way to AN3. Let's wait to hear the outcome of that discussion before deciding anything here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of the exact opposite idea: The AN3 report should be put aside to see where this heads. Blocking people who are trying to talk things out (such as they are supposed to do here at DRN) is a bad way to encourage consensus building and dialog; even if one technically violated WP:3RR, if it is clear that they are interested in talking going forward, it is better not to block and instead encourage discussion. --Jayron32 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Jayron here; I filed the AN3R report because i was getting fed up with the reverts and eight (reverts) - as they saying goes - is enough. If Ihutchesson puts forth a serious effort within the next day (that time frame so the AN3R doesn't go stale while the other user waits it out) to resovle the problem, I'm all for dropping the report. I don't want to have blocked a user willing to work within a group. I haven't the slightest problem with blocking anyone trying to OWN something against consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that talking things out is better than handing out blocks if both sides are willing to participate. I suggested waiting for two reasons - this board isn't supposed to be used for disputes that have been brought up elsewhere, and also because it is hard to engage in reasoned discussion when there is a threat of a block hanging over your head. Let's put the AN3 discussion on hold if Ihutchesson indicates his willingness to participate here, so that we can have a proper discussion here without being distracted by it. I'll leave a message at AN3 to this effect as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I need to comment here. The first edit by Jack Sebastian was the reduction of a section comprising a paragraph and a series of dot-pointed references to Stephen King works (see here) to the paragraph and one dot point (here). This edit was done ostensibly for lack of citations and the claim of original research. I returned much of the material, supplying relevant reliable sources, ie the company that provides the program.[7] The editor proceeded to revert to his edit three times.

He finally made a constructive edit,[11] which I took this as a positive step. I then removed a piece of trivia about X-Files being mentioned in the show, which the editor tried to justify by offering user-edited material as his sources. [12] [13]

I then responded with my own version in two steps reinserting what I considered the more useful of the excised material, ie leaving much of it out.[14][15] Yet above he makes this strange assertion: "the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series".

Jack Sebastian reverted to his last constructive edit three times instead of another constructive edit showing a willingness to compromise to find consensus.

As I have said to the editor, I have no personal interest in the Stephen King material: I don't find him a noteworthy writer. I didn't put much of the material there, merely attempted to give some coherence to it by adding the introduction and editing the material. However, the show is steeped in elements that draw on his work, so, if one is going to have a section that deals with it, it needs to be non-trivial.

Jack Sebastian seems to have taken ownership of the section and will not be guided by the protocols of WP:BRD. He has taken me to task twice for being ready to violate 3RR (see my talk page), while having made the first of each revert sequence.

In the last few days I have received more user talk from Jack Sebastian than I have from everyone else for the rest of the three years I've been editing. The last comment re 3RR came less than an hour before the editor decided he had to lodge this dispute. What I am dealing with here is hard to understand as the simple matter of an editing conflict.

  • How do you think we can help?

I also am not sure. I was looking for an administrator who might discuss the matter, when this dispute resolution was lodged. I feel that there is difficulty understanding the notion of compromise, especially in the editing process, ie a reversion to before the last constructive edit is not Wiki compromise in any sense.

Perhaps, a few objective opinions on the matter might help us both. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, an objective opinion might be better served with the right information going in, Ian. On another page (where you essentially duplicated your post from ther to here), you asked why the matter had been brought to AN3R. I replied that the answer was obvious, but I am beginning to suspect that those policies and guidelines that the rest of us follow and more or less adhere to are largely unknown to you. I had assumed that because you have created over a dozen Haven- and Stephen King-based pages(1) that you were aware of them, but I guess I was wrong.
And yeah, I just pointed out how your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie designed to make you look like some innocent waif being put upon. As well, your comment about me having received more user talk than you, having edited for over three years is indeed misleading - you've logged less than 1650 edits in almost five years(2). I've logged almost twice that in less than five months. Of course I am going to have more discussions, and you want to know why? It's because I talk to people I am editing with! I do not presume that it is easier to receive forgiveness than permission.
That is what makes me feel that there is an OWNership issue here, Ian. You don't want anyone changing or removing material that you added, and you aren't prepared to discuss anything less than complete inclusion of said material.
As for the content, I offered a compromise edit which would include the most obvious (read: explicit) references to works by Stephen King. I'd left out the rest because they were trivial. Two others editors agreed, and yet you kept speaking about some vast consensus that demanded every crufty detail be shoehorned into the article. Yet, they have been nowhere to be seen. It's only you, demanding that these bits (and nothing from a double sourced reference about the X-Files) be included. I think that is what got me reverting; the idea that you would not only fight to preserve nonsensical trivia, but would actively work to remove information that was well cited and interesting.
I am going to note this again here: I've seen the links you've supplied about the connections to the series. They all come from Syfy.com's website for the series. All use a type of pop-up video to point out the references, no matter how obscure. You are forgetting that just because something can be cited, that it belongs in the article. It does not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think you are offering non-notable information as if it were the Sermon on the Mount. It offers undue weight as to the importance of this information and, coupled with your side explanations explaining the references, serves to render the information largely unusable by Wikipedia.
But I've already pointed this out to you several times, both on your talk page and in article discussion. I am not sure if you don't get it, are misinterpreting it, or are seeking a new standard of your own devising. I only know it isn't what we use here. You lack of willingness to admit that you handled this entire matter extremely badly makes me wonder if a dispute can be resolved. You think you are blameless in this entire matter, and no dispute can be resolved with such a person. Unless something comes along rather apologetic from you, I an, I am not holding out hope of this ending well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have some advice for both of you before we start: please keep your posts short. Very long posts do not make for productive discussion. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My second thought is that we need to determine the reliability of the sources being used. Having a look through the reliable sources noticeboard archives, eeggs.com was regarded as being basically a self-published source, so we can't use it. Some of TV.com's material is written by staff writers, so using that may be ok, but the material in question here is from a user-generated portion of the site, which we definitely cannot use. Syfy hasn't come up yet on the noticeboard, and I'm not sure if it would be permissible or not. I can't find anything on how they generate their material or their editorial process, but the videos in question do look like they are produced by staff, and I see that they also have a magazine which is a good sign that they have an editorial board which vets facts. I think I'll make a new post on the reliable sources noticeboard and see what the reaction is. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a new thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syfy.com about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. I missed the fact that Syfy are the producers of Haven, which was pointed out to me very nicely by the people at the reliable sources board. That means we can use it with the restrictions in WP:PRIMARY - namely, we can use it to cite straightforward facts, but not any interpretation of those facts. This brings us to what we should be including in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so we want to be comprehensive, but on the other hand, we want to avoid any lists of trivia, and we don't want to give any aspect of the show undue weight. This still gives us quite a bit of leeway in what we can include, and the exact final wording should be determined by consensus. I personally wouldn't mind a few more paragraphs on influences from other works, as long as it doesn't descend into a list of trivia. What are your thoughts on how the section should look? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Knowing that Syfy is a primary source, would you like to comment now on the version of the disputed material as I had here ("Stephen King in Haven")? Are there any problems in the edit when compared with the version found here ("References to other works")? Thanks. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is basically good material. The Stephen King material is not just trivia, as it is linked to two main points about the series - that it is based on The Colorado Kid, and that It is a favourite of the Haven producers. I would be careful, though, to make sure that the only things sourced to Syfy are facts that can be verified by the videos themselves. For example, I would change "The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book" to "According to Syfy, the scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book".

I also see no reason that we can't change the section heading and add material about other shows, as long as we can find a reliable source that says they take references from other shows too, and as long as it doesn't become a trivia list. I think it is possible to have a couple of examples without it becoming trivia-like. If we can find the sources for this, I would say we could add both your and Jack Sebastian's material together - this is not necessarily a "one or the other" situation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm actually a scholar so references are rather clear to me. (See the scholarly article I work on, Qumran.) I think I'd be adding "according to Syfy" for most things, if you'd make the change you suggest. Syfy actually says--among other things regarding the scene--, "the paper boat is a direct reference to the famous opening scene from Stephen King's IT".
I have no real objection to the Fox Mulder reference, though it is pure trivia. For me the issue was the imbalance of including that while leaving out more substantive materials. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions re Haven edit

Questions for Jack Sebastian:

  1. Assuming you can find reliable sources for the material, why do you want to include the X-Files trivia? Should we also include the Star Trek reference to a tricorder as well in episode 201? If not, why not?
  2. What is wrong with the King material that I inserted that shows that King influence is not merely trappings but at times integral to the plot?
  3. What problem do you have with noting that the King book "It" is a popular source for material in the series, along with a few examples, and is acknowledged by Syfy?

The first issue involves whether the X-Files reference has any serious value to the show, while the other two deal with material that I consider useful for people to know about the series.

If we are left with a section that is about King's influence on the series and its writers and about 99% of the total references are to King, what is wrong with calling the section "Stephen King in Haven"? The title presently used is "References to other works" an invitation to trivia and not very indicative of the contents when it is mostly about Stephen King anyway except for an overlong piece of trivia concerning an oblique reference to Fox Mulder. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, been away in the real world, caring for a kid. I also felt the need to disengage for a bit, to fight off various impulses to decimate. In answer to your questions:
  1. I think that using sourced references about subjects from outside the Stephen King milieu indicate that the program is more than a one-trick pony. There are references to other shows and such, and the ones we can note are those who pay homage to those other shows. Haven has been called (rightly so, imo) by several sources the inheritor of The X-Files, and noting a reference to that is not inappropriate. I will concede that the Eegg.com reference isn't that good, but the TV.com one is pretty rock solid. Lastly, passing references to things like tricorders (or bic lighters or beer - all of which appear in the series) are inherently inconsequential, as they have no impact on the background of the characters or in the development of the plot. That is the deciding factor to what goes and what stays, really.
  2. The problem with including every little reference to King's body of work is threefold. Firstly, there is the tendency to connect the dots between the source material and the present material - a no-no. Secondly, there is the tendency to get top-heavy with the references, which clutter up the article. A further factor in favor of limiting the references is that they can easily be explored by interested readers by following the show link at the bottom of the article. That's sorta the way its been done forever. Thirdly, it is your interpretation that some of these sources are integral to the plot.
  3. A cinematographic choice to use a kid chasing after a boat in the gutter before it goes down the drain which does not end in that kid being pulled into the drain by a murderous clown does not constitute an integral part of the episode or series. If a source explicitly states that these sorts of common set-ups and shots are used through out the series, then we can use it. Not before, and not anything less than an explicit source to that effect - this is key. We do not decide what is integral - a source does. To do so is both Original Research and Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the TV.com source, it is an obviously user-generated source, as there are edit links beside the quotes. This makes it unusable as a source for us. I hope you will agree that using someone else's user-generated content to verify our user-generated content has an obvious logical flaw. More on your other points later. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Impulses to decimate seem to be a problem you have evinced regarding this article. Your first removal of material I had to describe as a "destructive edit".
  1. Opinions about connections to X-Files are irrelevant. How many times is X-Files referenced in the 22 episodes of Haven? Has more than 5 seconds of all episodes been spent on them? Even if you find a reliable source for the issue, it is still just plain "inherently inconsequential".
  2. It is simply false to make the accusation that I want to include "every little reference to King's body of work". It in no way reflects my last constructive edit on the issue. When plots revolve around characters which embody ideas from King, such as someone with pyrokinesis or the ability to disappear from sight (these are just two more examples), then it is not difficult to conclude that they are integral to the plot and the references from Syfy confirm this. Claims of OR and SYN are baseless. The citations should make that clear.
  3. You confuse issues when you refer to the drain scene as being claimed as integral to the plot. It was never claimed as such, but as emblematic of the writers' use of It, a use noted by Syfy.
If you have nothing else to offer, can my work be put back, please? -- IHutchesson ► 22:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. I flatly disagree with you that a reference to X-Files would be inconsequential. I will, however grant that a good enough source has not popped up yet. It was a reference that wasn't from King's works, and so it is notable in and of itself. When someone citable notes that, its going back in, simple as that.
  2. Fact: prior to my initial edit, your bullet-pointed section included over 13 references to works by Stephen King (which is pretty amazing for someone who claims no special interest in his material)1. My collaborative edit sought to note only the most significant three references that were integral to the show. My statement at "Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films cased upon said works" is more than enough of a nod to the rest of them that the reader can explore on their own by exploring the show link at the bottom of the article. Your last "useful" edit added 8 more references to the section bringing the total to 11, While this is two shy of what it was before, I think it fairly proves my point. You are seeking to re-add these same trivial references to the same section.
And lets look at some of these references you wish to include: you think that the episode using pyrokinesis is a reference to Firestarter. Could it not just as well be a reference to just about any episode of The Last Airbender or the aptly-named episode of the X-Files called Fire? Invisible assailants? Golly, for invisibility we have Misfits, and no less than three X-Files episodes: "Excelsis Dei", "Fearful Symmetry" and "Detour". X-Files had several "dark man" adversaries - one of which was actually made of dark matter! I could present as many examples as you can, but the thrust of my reasoning is simple: the crux of your argument (and I thank you for putting it into words) is "...then it is not difficult to conclude...". You cannot conclude or surmise of extrapolate anything. Period. And hiding behind the same source at Syfy is repetitive. You can use a few, but not all. It becomes redundant, esp. when there is a link to each one of your pet points.
  1. It is one thing to sate that the series' creators like It. It is quite another to claim that it is "emblematic" of the writers' use in the series. That typification is one which you believe there to be. Using that reasoning, we should include the X-Files-related conversation because it is emblematic to refer to works outside of Haven. It isn't called a slippery slope for nothing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a good example of your spirit of compromise: "When someone citable notes that, its going back in, simple as that." You don't listen to others. Your ideas are just as fixed as this. That's why you revert rather than enter into the editing dialogue to find consensus.
Much of what you say are false accusations. There is no point in continuing them (unless you insist).
If you want to include references to Airbender or Misfits or whatever, all you need do is provide reliable sources for the connections (as I have done) and defend your claims of relevance and significance. Syfy is happy to acknowledge Firestarter as the source for the character's ability. They should know.
You are arguing about two insertions I made to the rewrite you made of the section. They were 1) a sentence about the fact that King books supplied plot essential ideas and 2) a paragraph which talked of the fact that It is a favorite source of the series writers and producers. I don't seek to put all those bulleted points back into the text. Your aggression and exaggeration are misdirected. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The next time you make a personal attack, we're done here. It might be done anyway, because you appear far more interested in preserving your "ego" than improving the article. My spirit of compromise went out the window when you started edit-warring. I see absolutely no change in your behavior or even your perception of your behavior: Case in point (from AN3R):
The point is not who is right and wrong. The point is that edit warring is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Do you deny that you have been edit warring? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
When you start talking of denial you already seem to have an opinion. If edit warring is repeatedly overriding each other's contributions, I'd like to hear your view of the matter. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not see your behavior as even wrong. I find that boggling, and rather indicative of the sorts of users who contribute usefully for a bit and then flame out when they feel their brilliance isn't appreciated enough by the plebeian masses. Here is the short of it:

  • you do not appear to be interested in compromise;otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to re-add the same, trivial cruft over and over again,
  • you are either incapable of seeing that you are doing this, or are lying about doing the aforementioned; why else claim you aren't? Why claim you do not have an interest that it's provably clear that you have?
  • you came to DRN looking to point out how I'm a horrible little vandalizing monkey and you were 200% right all along; why else keep fighting at AN3R when it was politely suggested at least twice to get lost?

Considering these factors, I am not sure how DR is going to work. I've compromised enough; I'll wait for a better X-Files citation before re-adding the info to the article. I recognize that I should have been more thick-skinned when the other user reverted like doing so was worth a dollar, failing to use the talk page. I readily admit to allowing the other user to goad me along.
I still oppose the addition of tons of crufty information which does not improve the article and keeps it from being anywhere near GA quality. I still oppose dealing with people who have every appearance of not being entirely candid about their motives. And lastly, an apology for any petty slights the other user might have felt injured by will not be forthcoming; they have given umbrage far more than they have received, and it has been an increasingly heroic effort of will to not tell the user to kindly go off and perform a sexual impossibility with themselves. Without the other use drastically readdressing how they deal with me and the article, I'm afraid this DR isn't going to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhetoric aside, in the blue collapse bar below ("Stephen King editing data") I showed that I was not responsible for the King references themselves. When you (and ThuranX) removed nearly all of them ostensibly for lack of citations, I put most back with citations, as per the request. Somehow you translated that into my wanting King trivia. After you reverted that edit three times, you made a substantive edit, which allowed the editing process to move forward. I edited that and you again reverted three times, claiming I wanted to include "every little reference to King's body of work". In reality, beside removing the X-Files material my edit put two insertions into the article. "They were 1) a sentence about the fact that King books supplied plot essential ideas and 2) a paragraph which talked of the fact that It is a favorite source of the series writers and producers." Here is the edit:
I've argued that the X-Files material is pure trivia that reflects a few seconds of the whole series, while the drain scene from It alone occupies more time than all the non-King allusions in the series combined. And that scene is mentioned because it reflects a stated and cited preference of the writers and producers of the show for the book. This is the context for the mention of the Pennywise appearance. Besides It, the only other material inserted regarded the cited fact that the plots of some episodes revolve around an idea from the work of King and I cite two, though there are more. And naturally Syfy is a primary source for knowledge on Haven, being responsible for the show.
The edit, which built on yours, shows that I don't want to include "every little reference to King's body of work". I have attempted to show the relevance of the material. I think you need to justify why you reverted my edit and continue to oppose it. It's not a matter of citations. It's not a matter of excessive King trivia. It's not a matter of OR or SYNTH, as the citations demonstrate. What exactly is wrong with the edit? -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, after you said, 'your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie', do you now accept that your statement is false?
I didn't start editing the material until 16/08/11 [26]. You have no good reason for asserting anything about my interest in Stephen King or lack thereof. I would appreciate a retraction. -- I.Hutchesson ► 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
^--- The above put back in its correct location after the following refactoring. -- I.Hutchesson ► 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Tactless, yes. False, absolutely not. You've created over a dozen articles on the series that are - by any reasonable assessment - dripping with references to King's works. Your actions shout much louder than I ever could about your involvement and personal in Haven and King-related material. If you are looking for an apology for calling a spade a spade, you will be a very long time waiting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your tactlessness here, though it is endemic of your behavior. I am interested in your false claims. You cite pages I have created and state here that "in a dozen articles on the series that are - by any reasonable assessment - dripping with references to King's works". This is another bogus claim. Please show your reasonable assessment of even one of these dozen pages listed in your link that are "dripping with references to King's works". Otherwise, retract that too. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, Hell will start selling popsicles before that happens, Ian. If you are looking to massage your bruised ego, look elsewhere. Move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Fundamentally, I'm trying to get you to develop your claim by asking for some substance, as it is seems to motivate your reaction to my last good edit. -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Clerk's Warning: The instructions for this noticeboard say:

Discussions on this page should be focused on the issues brought here. Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them.

If the parties hope to receive assistance here they will maintain civility or the discussion will be closed as nonproductive. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This discussion requires you both to be open to the other's point of view. If you feel that you can't post here without things getting personal, then I recommend taking a break for a while. Taking a break might put things in a different light and make things go much more smoothly when you come back. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's my point of view, sans the interplay from before. I think there are far too many references to Stephen King's works, which serves to clutter it up. We should note the most explicit ones, mention that there are numerous others within the series, which the interested user can explore through the External links. I did precisely that, trimming the number of external link - thirteen in total, and all from the same web source - to three. This would seem to be the most concise, best way to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You are still really at the dot points here. We have moved on to the next edits, your edits leading to this text and my subsequent edits which culminated in the form here, which you removed three times without actually entering into a discussion of the material and by that I mean you talked a lot but didn't exchange ideas at all. Would you please engage now with my comment above starting with the words "Rhetoric aside" and especially the two paragraphs after the first blue bar. Thank you. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have had an awful lot of discussion but not got an awful lot done. I think a change of venue might be appropriate - would both of you be willing to undergo informal mediation? There is no obligation to undergo further mediation at all, but I think that in this case it might be useful. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Granted, I started out this process pretty pissed off. At this point, I am pretty much tired of dealing with the user. I'm personally a fan of mediation, but it only works when both people want to find a middle ground. I don;t see the other user looking for a middle ground.
I think that taking the matter to another page will only entrench the other user's opinions about his edits. At the risk of reopening a can of worms, three different editors feel the material was trivial, and only Ian didn't believe it was. To reiterate, prior to my compromise edit, there were 12 individual references to King's work. After my edit, there were three. Shortly thereafter (and up to Ian's last edit), that number had shot back up to 11 references. All of them taken from the same website's pop-up video. I've already pointed out that too much is too much. I think my edit is pretty solid in and of itself. I'll concede that if the info about IT being a favorite of the producers/writers/etc. could be cited better, I'd be far more comfortable having the info about specific visual references to that film. Without it, I think my edit covers it, and welcome any uninvolved editor to weigh the two. Actually, i think that's what is really needed here, not mediation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The beginning of the dispute is of little concern to discussion of more recent edits. We are dealing with a later stage of the article. If you thought that the It material could have been improved on, then you should have attempted to provide an edit which improved the material, rather than simply reverting it. It is included below. How would you "fix" it?
Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers".[1] For example, in "A Tale of Two Audreys", a little boy in a yellow rain slicker is seen outside the church chasing a newspaper boat that he has set in the stream in the gutter. He chases until it falls down into a stormdrain on Witcham Street. He then sticks his right arm down into the drain and screams. The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book.[1] Also derived from It, episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who (unwillingly) takes the form of a person's worst fear, and in one instance appears as a clown, a visual allusion to Pennywise of the film version of It.[2]

[1] "Haven Stephen King References: A Tale of Two Audreys". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.
[2] "Haven Stephen King References: Fear and Loathing". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.

You have said nothing about the sentence dealing with material on which plots revolve you reverted:
In some cases the plot of an episode revolves around an idea from the work of King: a character who has visions on touching people, but is unable to act upon them;[1] or plants that start killing people.[2]

[1] The plot of "The Hand You're Dealt", derived from The Dead Zone. "Haven Stephen King References: The Hand You're Dealt". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.
[2] The plot of "Roots", inspired by "Weeds". "Haven Stephen King References: Roots". Syfy. Retrieved 12 September 2011.

The citations show both the relevance and the importance: King's influence on the writers is far from trivial and it is frequently acknowledged. Other than non-functional claims of OR and SYNTH (shown not to be relevant if one sees the citations), why is this sentence not worthy to be included, given that it was reverted three times? -- I.Hutchesson ► 04:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, Ian - find another source. You keep pushing the Syfy source. It's a one-trick pony, with no provenance as to where the information is coming from. It could be a marketing hack making it up, for all we know. If this information is so very vital to an understanding of the series, then surely other, reliable notable sources have said something about the producers' bonder for the series. All I am saying about that particular reference is: find it.
The character Troubles bearing similarities to characters in other King stories isn't important, unless you are saying that Johnny Smith (the psychometrist/clairavoyant from Dead Zone) was totally plagiarized for use in Haven. See where this is going? You are connecting the two using a pop-up video source who's source you cannot identify. If the video disappears, you are left holding the bag. If a reviewer notes the similarities, that shoukld easily be found.
In short, I think the pop-up video source from Syfy is crappy. We have no idea who the person is adding the notes. It could be some high school intern for all we know. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read what you are supposed to be responding to. I have been trying to get a response from you many times about not only the It material, but also the plot significant matters. And Mr Stradivarius has clarified the value of Syfy as a reliable source, being the producers of the show.
As to the complaint about The Dead Zone, you still have not reviewed the sources, otherwise you would have read this comment about Vanessa's affliction: 'This ability references Johnny Smith from King's "The Dead Zone". Johnny, like Vanessa in this episode, becomes preoccupied with trying to prevent something he has seen.' Next time, check the sources rather than erring. So, you've tried citations, then trivia, then OR and SYNTH and now you are complaining about my use of a primary source. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:47, 19 September 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.

Alfred Powell Morgan

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?

He was my grandfather. The article states that he had three sons. He actually had four, my father William 'Jack' Merritt Morgan being the first from a very short marriage.

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=Alfred Powell Morgan}} --~~~~ 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?

I would like to change the article to state that he had four sons. Who's Who in America lists my father as one of his sons. I'm assuming that would be sufficient verification. However, if you need more information I will be happy to provide what I have.

MerrileeMorgan (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Powell Morgan 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.

Real-time MRI, MRI

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?

reverts because of conflict of interests

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Hi all, I need some help/advise. I am a scientist working in the field of MRI. We recently contributed some real-time MRI movies under a free license and added them to some articles. An editor reverted my edits to real-time MRI and related pages, because I have a conflict of interest (COI). This is of course true: we are proud of our work and would love to see it on wikipedia. On the other hand, I have read the policy concerning COI and it seems that it explictly allows edits by scientist and also especially encourages the addition of media files. It would be nice if somebody could review our reverted edits and restore it if it is approved. If you think our contributions are not appropriate for wikipedia, it would be nice to tell me why or what could possibly be changed. The reverted edits are by me and my colleague Shuo Zhang to the articles real-time MRI, the real-time MRI section in MRI, and in temporomandibular joint.

On a general note, I feel that the way this was handled by the respective editor is not exactly in the best interest of wikipedia. Looking at his contributions and talk page, it seems to be his mission to revert spam, advertisement and all edits which he identifies as coming from editors with a COI. While I understand that it is important work to remove spam and advertisement from wikipedia, it do not feel that linking to your own scientific work is on the same level as adding a link to your own commercial web page selling viagra.

Speaking for me, if had known before that my contributions would be simply be reverted in - as I feel it - hostile way (without at least a small explanation or a word of apology), I would not have convinced my employer to contribute the movies under a free license to be used on wikipedia.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to discuss this on the talk page of MrOllie

  • How do you think we can help?


Martin.uecker (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Real-time MRI, MRI discussion

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

Closing note: The instructions for this noticeboard say:

This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.

(Emphasis added.) Feel free to re-list the dispute if discussion does not solve the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:02, 22 September 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.

Morrissey "image and politics" section

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

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

Morrissey's relationship to his fanbase is extremely important and central to his enduring appeal. While there is a large amount of information on the unfounded allegations of racism and his sexuality, as well as on 'feuds' within the industry and minutiae, very little content there relates to his relationship with his fans and his online fanbase, the intensity of which is unique to Morrissey. I have provided a good, well-sourced overview of Morrissey's relationship with his fans which is not disputed. Unfortunately the same individual (former IP) repeatedly deletes (censors) any mention of Morrissey's online fanbase, which is crucially important. Morrissey has written about his fansites on numrous occasions, mentioned them in interviews, thrown fansite owners out of concerts and worn t shirts urging his fans to "f***" a particular website. He may also be the victim of an internet hoax/parody, which he has written about three times in 3 or 4 months. When I include this very pertinent detail, former IP repeatedly deletes the content, citing 'poor references' (untrue - the references are good and many other items on 'Morrissey' have NO citation) - and 'trivial' again not true, as proven by morrissey's repeated actions drawing attention to his fansites and criticising them, it is far from trivial. He does not seek to compromise, but rather repeatedly deletes content, even when I repeatedly attempt to reduce the content, he simply deletes it. I also have concerns that this individual has a conflict of interests, being a moderator on one of the websites Morrissey has repeatedly criticised.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Compromise should be sought first - as I did. This user has not compromised but instead has repeatedly deleted a salient addition.

  • 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=Morrissey, Image and Politics}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

This is my first step

  • How do you think we can help?

I am new to this site, please help. I am now informed after all this typing it must be discussed on the talk page, which I do not understand.

Friendlyfan4 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey, Image and Politics discussion

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

Hi Friendlyfan4, and thank you for your post. Before we get on to the details of the content that you added, I would like to ask about the conflict of interest of which you speak. While being involved with a fan site about Morrissey would not necessarily mean that an editor would have a conflict of interest with the Morrissey article on Wikipedia, the same would not be true for material about the fan site itself. This is quite a serious accusation and I think it would change the manner in which we would deal with this dispute. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interest. I just had the page on my watchlist and noticed the addition of a very large amount of crufty material without reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 18 September 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.

Portuguese language

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 PedroPVZ constantly cleans my attempts to correct the beginning of the article, where it is said that Portuguese "is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". In fact, Portuguese was born in Galicia, which included the present-day Northern Portugal: the southern part of Galicia, called "County of Portugal", become independent and then it spreaded the language to the south. See the articles "County of Portugal" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language#Galician-Portuguese_period". The arguments of user PedroPVZ to exclude any mention of Galicia are purely political and doesn't respect the historical data. I have a degree in Galician Philology and gave PedroPVZ some citations of famous linguists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPVZ), but he rejects any explanation. He wants Portuguese language to be born just in Northern Portugal and unfortunately it's impossibe go ten centuries back and change History. It's not the first time user PedroPVZ changes this item, as you can see in the history of the article.

Users involved

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to talk with PedroPVZ.

  • How do you think we can help?

Please keep Wikipedia a serious place with contributions of specialists of each area.

Susomoinhos (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese language discussion

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

Hi Susomoinhos, and thank you for posting here! I think PedroPVZ probably reverted your addition because you didn't provide a reliable source for it. If you have a look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability then you will see that there needs to be a reliable source for any claim which is contested or which is likely to be contested. The fact that your addition was removed doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its accuracy - it just reflects the fact that you added it without a source to back up your claim. If you can find a source that directly backs up what you said, then it is much more likely to make it into the article. Also, please understand that this is no judgement on the dispute, but I'm afraid we can't have a discussion here about your dispute until it has been discussed on Talk:Portuguese language. There really needs to be discussion on a talk page somewhere before we can take a dispute here. I suggest you start a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language and post back here if the discussion stalls. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The diachronic map in the article demonstrates the view in Susomoinhos's edit. PedroPVZ's last revert description, 'nonsense again. the article should be reviewed because of people with their "theories"' is not helpful. It would be good if Susomoinhos could supply a reliable source for the view that Portuguese is derived from Galician: it would help the quality of the material as vast sections of the article also need sourcing. -- I.Hutchesson ► 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that there has been some discussion at User talk:Pignoof#Lingua portuguesa, but it looks like it is in Portuguese. Would anyone be willing to summarize the arguments being made? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The discussion about the article has been between user PedroPVZ and me. I'll open a discussion in Talk:Portuguese language, as you have suggested.

Here are some reliable sources of the origins of Portuguese, which I wrote to user PedroPVZ on his talk page User talk:PedroPVZ:

-"Portuguese is the literary language of Portugal, its possessions and Brazil. It is based, originally, in the dialect of Galicia (northwest corner of the Peninsula), an area which has always remained connected to the Astur-Leonese crown (and, later, Castilian) and now belongs to the field of Spanish written language. The Galician border march in the south, along the mouth of the Douro, which in 1095 became independent as county (kingdom from 1139) of Portugal, had already taken in the mid XII century the reconquest of Portugal until the current southern border, and spread by these border territories the Galician dialect, which was used in the Middle Ages in the lyric also in the Castilian-speaking territory."

(LAUSBERG, Heinrich, Linguística românica, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1981). The translation is mine.

-"The Galician-Portuguese language began to be spoken in a region covering Galicia and northern Portugal."

(MIRA MATEUS, Helena, e outras, Gramática da língua portuguesa, Caminho, Lisboa, 2003. The translation is mine.

-"Portuguese, as we have already seen, developed as a concomitant of the southward movement of speakers of Galician, with which as a result it still has the closest of affinities." "Galician, from which Portuguese ultimately derives (...)"

(HARRIS, Martin e VINCENT, Nigel, The Romance Languages, Croom Helm, Beckenham, 1988)

Thanks again. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to the arguments of PedroPVZ for deleting my contribution (and similar contributions of other people). Here you are an excerpt of our discussion we had in Portuguese; he said:

"I know Galicia since I exist as a person. Although Galicia is now more Castilian than Galician and some have even seeming vain of it, you have to see Castilian as we see Portuguese standard, it's a different reality than the one that exists in Portugal, Brazil and even Africa! But what you're doing is a perversion, although the Galician and Portuguese variant of Vulgar LATIN in the Middle Ages were already variants of the same language, but that does not validate to be adding things about the Kingdom of Galicia in the article of the Portuguese language. Portugal doesn't owe its language to the Spanish Galicia, and that's what you are implying, and this is false and has another name! There is a relationship of direct dependence of the language between North and South (where they added something to the language) and Brazil and Africa (where additions were also made), but putting Galicia into this is ... A linguistic relationship with Galicia, whether or not it's the same language, does not matter. The only place Portugal owe (by dependence) its language to is Rome."

(I don't want to make any comment about his recommendations about the language we have to speak in Galicia according to his opinion). As you can see, his motives are not linguistic (that is, related to the external history of the language), but motivated by his personal political and cultural ideas and concepts. Susomoinhos (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting these sources. Going by these, it does indeed seem reasonable to say that the origins of Portuguese is in Galicia. I suggest re-adding your text into the article, citing these references, and also starting a new discussion on Talk:Portuguese language explaining why you have done so. If anybody wishes to remove your additions, then they will need to explain their reasons on the talk page, as Wikipedia uses consensus to decide article content, and merely reverting without discussion would count as edit warring. If discussion on the talk page stalls, then you are welcome to bring the dispute back here. (By the way, you might want to have a look at our easy guide to referencing to help you with citing those books.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You could use this pdf for an online source: [27] from www.sociolinguistica.uvigo.es. (See page 42.) See also the first page of this scholarly pdf [28] Perhaps, these will function as reliable online sources: [29], [30], [31] (search for "Galician-Portuguese"). Even Wikibooks says that the languages share "a common base".
The problem in all this though is that the issue is not really a linguistic one: it is inherently political. The suggestion is the move of Galician away from Castilian (and Spain) and towards Portuguese. -- I.Hutchesson ► 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
PedroPVZ's motivations may be "inherently political", or they may not. Whichever one it is, I would rather wait to hear his response before we judge him about them. (Sorry for the slightly bossy tone - it's nothing personal, I'm just trying to keep everyone on relatively friendly terms.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That was no comment on PedroPVZ. The issue of language relations here is a political hot potato, so it's worthy background knowledge. -- I.Hutchesson ► 11:58, 20 September 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.

Volunteer (Irish republican)

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 removed this section from this article per WP:TOPIC. Domer48 reverted it citing that "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". I asked them for evidence for this on the articles talk page and they have failed to provide any.

I am vindicated in removing the section from the article as it fails WP:TOPIC and is irrelevant to the article. Domer48 has failed to answer my questions and my requests for evidence:

  1. Did the Volunteers (of the 18th century) use the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." as a rank, as afterall that is what this article is on about.
  2. That the Volunteers (of the 18th century) were republicans, what the article on this "rank" is also about.

Domer48's only response other than requesting sources to the contrary, was to edit the article to add in more examples of the Volunteers growing nationalistic ideas, and their desire for legislative independence for Ireland from England. Additions that don't say or substantiate that they were republicans. Thus Domer48 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR

His additions alone do not equate to Irish republicanism or even republicanism, especially as the Volunteers declared their loyalty to the British Crown at the very same convention that they declared their desire for legislative independence from England (this is sourced in the article). Home rule and nationalism do not equate to republicanism even if they do share many facets.

All his additions have done is increase the amount of irrelevant information in the article. If they were republicans, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere - so far no evidence at all.


Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Domer48 simply refuses to engage in proper discussion of the content issue, rather stating over and over again "Sources please", when they are the one that has to provide sources to prove their relevance to the article. They also appear to be persuing synthesis and original research in the article itself to try to imply their viewpoint is correct.

  • 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=Volunteer (Irish republican)}} --~~~~ 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 took the issue to the article's talk page. Domer48 has refused to answer the questions put forward to him so that he can prove his stance on the matter. Rather they have responded "Sources please". I also made a comment on their talk page however they removed it without a response. I then took it to AN/I where an editor suggested i take it here.

Update - Domer48 has since responded with poorly based and easily countered ad hominem statements.

  • How do you think we can help?

To judge whether:

  1. The section is relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC, taking into account the article is on about a rank in Irish republicanism and the section in question contains nothing relevant to the topic of the article.
  2. Domer48 has violated synthesis and original research with their additions.
  3. That their behaviour constitues disruptive editing by preventing the improving of Wikipedia and their use of ad hominem to make up for their failure to provide evidence.

Mabuska (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion

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

Let me see if I have understood the issues here correctly. Domer48 added the "18th century Irish Volunteers" section to the article, and claims that these volunteers are directly related to the the subject of the article - the modern use of the term Volunteers, referring to the members of Irish republican paramilitary organisations. In his own words from the edit summary in this edit, "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". Mabuska contests this claim, with the arguments outlined above, and also says that there is no source in the section that links the 18th century use to the modern use. It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence, which claims "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" (my italics). Would you both agree that this an accurate summary of what you are not agreeing on? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius, your summary would be accurate, but that the arguements against it change so often [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40], in both context and substance it is impossible to tell. The Irish Volunteers were founded in responce to the American Revolution of 1776, who forced from the Government an Irish Parliament in 1882 a section of which inspired by the French revolution would later stage the 1798 rebellion. That they were called the Irish "Volunteers" can not be disputed. That Republicans trace their origions back to these Volunteers is however uncontested, although that was not always the case. It now appears that the whole section is being disputed, despite this failed attempt to have the use of the word "Irish" removed from their title. Now as the personal attacks persist ,[41][42][43][44][45], I can't see why an editor should be badgered into a responce. Here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [46][47][48][49][50][51].--Domer48'fenian' 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I, like Mr. Stradivarius, am a neutral mediator at this noticeboard. You say, "That Republicans trace their origins back to these Volunteers is however uncontested" but I can find no claims, much less sourced claims, supporting that position in the article. Am I just overlooking them? Without such claims, supported by reliable sources then the connection with the 18th Century Volunteers is just an improper speculation between the specialized use of the term in reference to IRA members and the word "Volunteers" in the name of that group. Could you please point out the claims and related sources which make that connection uncontested? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Off-topic: Domer48's ad hominem statements and arguements are disassembled here, here, and in my second last response here. What exactly is bringing up an [page move] that was to do with removing the need for disambiguation in the article title, and bringing up fully explained and vindicated responses in regards to Kingsmills, got to do with this issue Domer48?
On topic:Mr. Stradivarius and TransporterMan, you have both hit the nail on the head. All Domer48 has to do is provide evidence to back up his claims that the section meets the two points above that would make it relevant to the article. None has been given despite continued asking, and the fact i had to open an AN/I and this due to his unresponsiveness.
I would like to point out this edit by Domer48: Failing to provide any evidence at all, they tried an attempt to pretend that the only thing in the entire section that made it relevant to the article was sourced, whereby they swapped these two sentences around, and when i added a {{cn}} tag after the sentence, they reverted it pretending that it was now sourced.
All Domer48 has to do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century meet the two points above (that they were republicans, and that they used Volunteer/Vol. as a rank) which would make them relevant to the article. The AN/I and this was created to try to get Domer48 to discuss and provide evidence - which they have failed to do despite many requests, only bringing up unrelated arguements that have nothing to do with the issue, i.e. that the Irish Volunteers were created in response to the American and French revolutions. So? No-one is contesting that, but its irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank bringing up and detailing the creation and aims of a non-republican organisation that just happens to include the term "Volunteer" in its name. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48 has now finally provided a source in an attempt to back up their claims - a single source dated to 1842, and on that i don't have the good faith to believe they have kept the context of the source intact, most notably because of the "..." and the glaring grammatical issue in his source quote that highlights a possible deception on Domer48's behalf with regards to this source:

The origin of the Irish Volunteers, which, as an organized national military association, may be dated from 1777, ceased to exist as such in 1793…It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes.

So what exactly is this actual quote saying if you look at it closely? The source is a book about the United Irishmen, an actual republican organisation. The entire exerpt provided by Domer48 reads as: the editor is stating what they say is consistent with truth in regards to the what United Irishmen spanned ideologically, whilst stating that it is inconsistent to state it for the Volunteers. Thus it is not stating the Volunteers contained republicanism. Nice try.

Also is the quote even in the source? Not according to searches of the 1846 edition of the book and the original 1842 edition (parent link being [52].

Why is this Domer48?

Nothing that contradicts this source and quote that i added to the article which Domer48 has failed to counter or prove wrong: Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100. "Quote: We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights and no more than our rights". Loyal to their sovereign. How can republicans, especially Irish republicans be loyal to their sovereign, which was obviously the British Crown? Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Vol. 1 first edition, of which I have a copy! This discussion is over! Your personal attacks, have gone to far!--Domer48'fenian' 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so. And you have provided at least a partial response. If you can provide the publication information, I think this entire argument can be laid to rest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The volume is possibly irrelevant anyways as the source isn't needed to show that Domer48's quoted exerpt may not back up their claim entirely (i am accepting that it does have some merit towards it). Domer48 if you want your source to be taken as the answer to this issue (despite the fact its only one source from 1842) then answer the following questions about your exerpt from the source:
"It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes."
  1. The bit that is embolded - as far as i read it, it says that it may be inconsistent with truth in regards to the Volunteers - or is it saying its inconsistent with its military glory?
  2. What exactly does it mean by "with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers"? Is the entire exerpt talking specifically about a specific institution of the Volunteers as opposed to the entire organisation?
  3. Is it on about the revival of the Irish Volunteers which occured in 1791?[1] Especially seeing as after the war in America ended, the Volunteer movement rapidly declined other than in Ulster where it remained.[1] Would that not make them a slightly different institution to that of the 1780s seeing as it was a revival of an organisation that had rapidly declined other than in several counties.
  4. Is it on about a specific branch (an institution) of the Volunteer, such as the Belfast Volunteers which held different views to most other Volunteer branches?
  5. What precedes this quote you provided? Does it elaborate on what "institution of the Volunteers" it is on about? It reads as if the preceeding text does indeed elaborate on it - why have you not provided that text?
  6. If this institution of the Volunteers does refer to a specific part or branch or the revival of it fortunes, then how can this source be used to represent the entire organisation spanning a specific part of it? Would it not be more appropriate to add into the article the specific institution or incarnation of the Volunteers it is referring to? It would be deceptive not to.
After all the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century several years before their rapid decline did state quite clearly in 1782:
  1. "We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal" - [2][1].
  2. "Resolved unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a Grievance."[1] - Would republcans say that the king can legally make laws for Ireland?
So this "institution" to me must be a specific branch of it as it definately wasn't the entire organisation for such a turn-around in its stance would surely be better documented than a single source from 1842.
But at least we are getting somewhere as we now have a source of sorts for contradicting these comments by the organisation itself. I took the liberty of amending the first sentence to be more accurate to what Domer48s source states, however even if his source turns out to be good enough - how is the rest of the section relevant to the article as it goes on about the history of an organisation that has its own article, which is already linked too so that the article can remain as WP:TOPIC as can be.
Mabuska (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources
  1. ^ a b c d Bardon, Jonathan (2005). A History of Ulster. p. 215-222. ISBN 085640764-X
  2. ^ Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100
Suggestion

In fact this is what i think the article could contain at this moment if we include Domer48's source put into proper context. Compare that to the article at present and you'll see it removes the Domer48's recently added bloatedness of irrelevant information in the article keeping it firmly on topic per WP:TOPIC.

Once Domer adds clarification as to what institution his source refers too, it can be added into the article and the clarification tag removed and the whole issue is done and dusted at long last!

All this for something for simple. Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska, and thanks for posting here again. I have a request for you - would you be willing to keep your comments down to the minimum length necessary, and to not alter them after you have posted them? It does make it harder to follow the conversation when there are long comments that keep being changed. Regarding the 1842 source - the issue here would appear to be whether the 18th century usage of Volunteer is connected to the modern usage, and so a source from this long ago is obviously inadequate. Any source will need to discuss the modern usage of Volunteer, and so it will need to have been written after the modern usage arose (The article says this happened in 1913). Also, newer sources are preferred to older sources, as subsequent historical research may have made the conclusions drawn in older sources outdated.

The bottom line is that if the 18th century Volunteers are included alongside the 20th century Volunteers with no indication in reliable sources that they are related, it would count as a synthesis, as it would imply that they are related when they may not be. I am not saying that they are definitely not related, but we do need evidence that they are before we can include information about the 18th century Volunteers in the article. (By the way, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the general term volunteer came into use around 1600 from Middle French, not the 18th century as the article now claims.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the ever edited comments, though i'm guilty of that when its my last comment before anyone has replied to it. Though yes i need to keep them briefer as well - it gets too easy to ramble on. Mabuska (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
And i'll amend the sentence i tweaked to match Domer48's source to place it in an Irish context. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the edit which i hope helps the clarification for the current section. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note - at the article talk page another editor has made a comment that virtually mirrors my suggestion above. Mabuska (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to second Mr. Stradivarius on his last comments about the article, above. If I may gloss on them a bit, the fact that the members of an organization whose name includes "Volunteers" are generally called "Volunteers" simply is not significant in and of itself (any more than, for example, members of the United States Congress are called "Congressmen"). The article documents with reliable sources that the modern Irish Republican Army uses, formally or informally, the term "Volunteer" as a specific title or rank for individual members. The fact that the modern (i.e. post-1919) IRA is indisputably a direct descendant as the 20th Century Irish Volunteers (and, in one or more of its various factions perhaps the very same organization as them) justifies some mention of that organization in the article. What's not currently in the article is any explicit claim or proof that the Irish Volunteers (18th century) was in name or in spirit the source of the (a) modern IRA specialized use of the term or (b) the name of the 20th Century Irish Volunteers. The mere fact that the Irish Volunteers (18th century) merely called their members, individually or collectively, Volunteer just doesn't prove that fact, and without such proof inclusion of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) information simply isn't justified. An aside: I spent a couple of hours yesterday trying to find (online only) some documented connection between the Irish Volunteers (18th century) and the 20th century Irish Volunteers or IRA and I could not find it. The closest I could find was that certain members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood founded in 1905 the Dungannon Clubs which is a indirect reference to the Irish Volunteers (18th century) and that the faction of the 20th Century Irish Volunteers who sponsored and took part in the Easter Rising of 1916 were members of the IRB and were acting in accordance with the IRB's goals, though in opposition to the leader and majority of the Irish Volunteers. It was that faction which first used the term "Irish Republican Army" to refer to itself and which, when the remainder of the Irish Volunteers switched to a more radical position due to the executions which followed the Rising and due to the Conscription Crisis of 1918, became the philosophical heart of the Irish Volunteers which were converted in 1919 to the IRA. That connection, if it is the only one which exists, is simply too tenuous and post hoc to justify mention of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) in the article. Finally, and by no means decisive but nonetheless interesting, are the photos of the County Antrim Memorial in Belfast's republican Milltown Cemetery viewable here (use the "next" button to page through all of them) which records republican deaths as far back as 1862 but which reserves the use of the "Vol." title only to 20th Century IRA members). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
A connection is even less plausible when you read Irish_Volunteers#Initiative, which is sourced. Most notably read the first paragraph of this section which makes it clear that the Irish Volunteers of the 20th century are modelled on the Ulster Volunteers of the same time - not the original Volunteers. If Domer48 can't provide a source that meets the standard of what is acceptable for the claim, or fails to even vindicate their position - how do we proceed? Mabuska (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I too will gloss over that fact that the IRA, a title used in 1916 is the same IRA, post 1919 and agree that it "is indisputably a direct descendant as the 20th Century Irish Volunteers." I'll also brush over the fact that the Irish Republican Army don't have the term "Volunteer" in the name of the organisation, yet refer to their members as "Volunteers." That they refer to Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen as the father of Irish Republicanism, yet the United Irishmen don't have the term "Volunteer" in the organisations name. So were dose the use of this title come from? Now I did not spend the day looking on the internet, I prefer to read books. And looking through just a couple I came across the following:
"And yet, when on April 23 the Military Council decided on the Rising, the seven men were acting within a tradition and to a large extent as an organization which could trace its antecedents back into the eighteenth century. It was in the eighteenth century that Republicanism had been linked to the long-standing Irish Revolutionary tradition." The Secret Army: The IRA, J. Bowyer Bell, page. 7
"This movement [United Irishmen] meant to build upon the reforms that had been won by Grattan and the Volunteers a decade earlier, but it was critical of the nationalists' reluctance to carry their ideas through to what seemed a logical end." The Longest War: Northern Ireland and the IRA, Kevin Kelly, page. 9
"It was not until three years later, when the guerrilla war against the British forces [War of Independence] was well advanced, that the name Irish Republican Army was used to unite the disparate groups that made up the rebel forces...These men and women saw themselves as part of a tradition that stretched back to the sixteenth century when the first nobles rose against English rule in Ireland. Some parts of rebel history seemed to be more relevant than others. In particular, those who supported the use of physical force saw themselves as descendants of the United Irishmen who rebelled in 1798." The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, page. 17
"By the Act of Union of 1800, Britain and Ireland were bound together 'forever' under the 'supreme authority' of Westminster. Throughout that period, right back to the Act of Union and even earlier, an Irish republican physical force tradition existed to 'break the connection' with Britain." The Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin from Armed Struggle to Peace Talks, Brendan O'Brien, page. 10
Now that was just some books on the IRA, I did not even bother to go through the ones on 1916. However without even trying I could name a couple which give the origin to the name used by Republicans for their clubs in Belfast the "Dungannon Clubs." I even included in the lead the following referenced text:
"The United Irishmen who have come to be regarded as the forerunners of modern physical-force nationalism, in a line that extended to the Young Ireland revolutionaries of 1848, to the Fenians of 1867, and onto the Irish Republican Brotherhood of 1916, up to the Irish Republican Army of today."
I think the removal of the section on the 18th Century Irish Volunteers, in the context of the use of the term would run against the current of a number of published sources. Thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All your quotes prove is that the IRA and their republican ideals can be traced back to the United Irishmen who like the Volunteers are from the late 18th century. However unlike the Volunteers, the United Irishmen (especially Wolfe Tone) are actually regarded as the forebearers of Irish republicanism. No-one is doubting that but what relevance has it to this? None of your above quotes back up that the Volunteers of the 18th century are the forebears of the IRA and Irish republicanism and their use of the term Volunteer is traced back to them. It is entirely irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank. Your quotes are perfect for Irish republicanism#History where they are entirely relevant.
"So were dose the use of this title come from?" - Irish_Volunteers#Initiative states pretty clearly who the Irish Volunteers of the 20th century were inspired by in regards to organisation, and it appears its their contempories, the pro-Union Ulster Volunteers - and that is sourced as well. Mabuska (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way please don't move my comment down the pecking order withoiut good reason especially as it was posted before yours. If you had an (edit conflict) then please use an {{ec}} tag. Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion might benefit from wider community input. How would you both feel about taking this to an RfC? You will be able to go through all the details of this in an RfC, which isn't really practical on this noticeboard where space is necessarily limited. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

if you think it'd help, though seeing as Domer48 has only provided one source, dated to 1842, an inadequate source it appears, to back up their view, is there really a need? If there was modern evidence i personally believe it'd have been provided long ago. If Domer48 would like more time to search for some i'm sure we could implement this which they can always expand upon when an adequate source is found? Mabuska (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stradivarius, your dismissal of Madden as a source, who is considered to be the historian is strange to say the least, however I would welcome sources which dispute a historian who not only knew, but met and interviewed members of the United Irishmen and the Volunteers. Anyhow, here are a couple of more that might help or hinder but I'll leave that up to you?
"This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". Page 21
"The first Society of United Irishmen grew out of the ashes of the Volunteers and the disappointed hopes of the legislative revolution of 1782; the Volunteers grew out of the parliamentary and popular opposition to British government which had shown itself at intervals almost from the beginning of the century, and had gone on steadily widening and deepening from the accession of George III to the American war".
"The grievances which arose during the eighteenth century between Protestant Ireland and Protestant England, and which gradually created the spirit of Anglo- Irish nationality, effected a legal revolution in 1782, and attempted a military one in 1798". Page 8-9
"The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". Page 64
"When the Parisian massacres occurred in 1792, moderate Republicans in Ireland feared to accept freedom accompanied with such terms. The Catholic clergy in a body separated from the Reformers, and denounced the atheism of France from their altars…During this crisis the whole body of the Irish priests were most awkwardly situated. The hatred of French infidelity and atheistic republicanism converted them into zealous Royalists, and yet they had the mortification of hearing themselves denounced as apostles of sedition". Page 65

IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888

"A paramilitary tradition in Irish politics was launched by the Volunteers of 1782 and that tradition, whether nationalist of unionist, loyalist or republican, has continued to shape and delimit the contours of Irish political activity. The force of argument had been trumped by the argument of force". Ireland: A History, Thomas Bartlett, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521197205, page 190
Like I pointed out already, there are indeed a number of sources to not only support what I said, but not one to challenge them. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just post these additional sources up to knock this discussion on the head. Again, they do in fact illustrate that the points I made above were and are indeed correct.

"Arthur Griffith later wrote that the declaration in favour of Irish unity by the mainly Protestant Irish Volunteers in 1782 annihilated earlier differences and created one nation. Amalgamation was still the official policy of the republican movement during the first Irish revolution." Ireland's Terrorist Dilemma Yonah Alexander, Alan O'Day, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, 9780898389128, Page. 170

"After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5

"If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967.

Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Of those i think only five merit relevance to this discussion:
"This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". Page 21"
Does a "republican temper" equal a republican organisation? No.
""The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". Page 64"
Sounds like an organisation made up of people of mixed political ideaologies, an organisation (party in the above) that broke up with the republican portion seeking reconciliation with southern Catholics. Does that make the organisation before it broke up a republican one? No.
"Arthur Griffith later wrote that the declaration in favour of Irish unity by the mainly Protestant Irish Volunteers in 1782 annihilated earlier differences and created one nation. Amalgamation was still the official policy of the republican movement during the first Irish revolution." Ireland's Terrorist Dilemma Yonah Alexander, Alan O'Day, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, 9780898389128, Page. 170
The first sentence is on about the Irish Volunteers. What is the second sentence on about? The republican movement or the Irish Volunteers (18th century)?
"After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5"
As the above quote you provided shows - not all Volunteers held the same political ideaology. As the republican minded ones formed the United Irishmen, that doesn't make the Volunteers a republican organisation.
"If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967.
An offspring? Does that equate to the Volunteers being republicans?
They are the only ones that mention the Volunteers alongside republicanism. However where is the link with the rank used by the IRA and Irish republicans of the 20th century? Where is evidence that contradicts Irish republicanism#Initiative? Mabuska (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteers Section Break

I think that the quotations miss the point. Some of them would be fine to prove an assertion that some later republican organizations carried on an earlier republican position or spirit, but that's not the point of this article. Mabuska seems to have some concern that these prior organizations were not truly republican, but whether they are or are not and whether they are or are not a spiritual or positional predecessor to the IRA is not the issue here. The issue here is the use of the term "Volunteer" in the singular as a title or rank for members of the IRA (and, possibly, other republican groups if the usage can be shown by reliable sources, though that's not in the article at the present time). Indeed, I believe the inclusion of information about the 20th Century Irish Volunteers is just barely relevant to this article, and only that because it is the clear predecessor of the post-1919 IRA and its subsequent factions and splinters (both sharing, among other things, the name Óglaigh na hÉireann). The problem with the information about the 18th Century Volunteers is that it doesn't even (so far, and so far as I can find in my limited search) even that thin thread of linkage to the use of the term as a title or rank. While Mabuska raises that issue from time to time, Domer48 has yet to discuss it head-on and, for that reason, this discussion is so far going nowhere. Unless Domer48 chooses to do so, I'd second Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion that this listing be closed and the dispute move on to an RFC, MedCab, or MedCom. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan, it was claimed that Irish Republicanism did not have any origins in the Volunteers of the 18th century. Is it now agreed that that do, based on the sources provided? --Domer48'fenian' 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, to the extent that point may have been claimed, it is mostly irrelevant to this dispute. I say "mostly" because if it is true, then of course, the 18th Century Volunteers are irrelevant to the article. But that's going around the long way to settle the dispute, is obviously subject to disagreement, and misses the 600-pound-gorilla in the room: the affirmative obligation under Wikipedia policy and guidelines to prove that there is a connection between the 18thCV and the title/rank use of the term if the material is to remain in the article. I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that the 18thCV were republicans and are part of the tradition of Irish Republicanism, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. First, I never said that the Volunteers were Republican. I said that the origins of Republicanism can be traced to them. I know that this my seem slow, but would you agree a number of sources have stated that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to them. --Domer48'fenian' 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually Domer48 you did say that they were republicans. It was your arguement for reverting their removal. Mabuska (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to the 18thCV, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Strike that. Modified answer coming in a moment. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that the origins of Republicanism can be traced back to the 18thCV, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? (Because of the ambiguity of the phrase "trace their origin," the question I struck out is inappropriate as to presume it to be true can be read as presuming the truth of the point which I believe to be the real issue here.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well as you would as soon not say, it is probably immaterial as the editor who filed this report, accepts it now. The editor also says that this article is on about the "rank", so could you address this issue because no where in the Lead of this article dose it mention anything about "Rank". Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 dont mistake rewording a sentence to what a source states as equating to me accepting it and that everything you've added is relevant. If i dd then why are we still here? Your rank arguemebt is purely semantics. What is a rank if not a description of members? Mabuska (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan just so you are clear, Volunteer is both a description applicable to all IRA members, up to the Chief of Staff and a rank analogous to "private." Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 20:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
What difference does it make to the issue? The question if amended would still be virtually the same: Did the Volunteers of the 18th century use Volunteer or Vol. to describe their individual members? Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan, as this article is clearly not simply about 'Rank' as suggested and that it is addressed in the article can we move on. I do think we have made a great deal of progress. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

As I'm fairly happy with the opening paragraph on the section titled 'Original usage of the term Volunteer' I'd be more than happy to remove most of the text and move it to Irish Volunteers (18th century) and build up that article. Thanks again for all your help,--Domer48'fenian' 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

sigh I find this very strange, when it was the very same editor who add it in the first place.--Domer48'fenian' 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly very strange when i asked clearly above that you need to clarify that statement. You failed to answer the question of what "institution of the Volunteers". Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I also find your unwillingness to answer TransporterMan's question very perplexing, as it vindicates my position that there is no evidence that the 18th century Volunteers used the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." to describe their members (yes i used the word "rank" beforehand, but its purely semantics) - thus there is no evidence that it is of relevance to the article regardless of whether your now fairly happy with this.
And on that sentence, the mediators here both dismissed the source being used as not proving the 18th century Irish Volunteers relevance to the article for several very valid reasons you haven't been able to counter. Also i'm not the only editor who objects to the relevance of the entire 18th century Irish Volunteers section.
This is what the article should look like per WP:TOPIC going by the lack of evidence to prove their relevance compared to what the article is like now. As there is no evidence to vindicate Domer48's position, and that they now appear (not stating that they definately have) to have backed down, then in my opinion the dispute should be easy to settle. If however we are to include the sentence Domer is now happy with (despite the issues with the source being used), then i'd suggest my previous suggestion be the one used as it clearly puts the source into context (i.e. 1842). Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan, the editor having accused me of deception a gross violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in regard to a source, for the editor to then go and first use the source and claim that they are "Ameding statement to be more in line with what your source actually states" is totally bizarre. When the editor goes and adds the source, it is mind boggling for them to add a citation needed tag and ask me to clarify their "Ameding statement".--Domer48'fenian' 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 it's actually a clarification tag, not a citation needed tag. And anyways it was a question of possible deception (made clear by the "?" in the section header, and my statement afterwards. Your quote was possibly deceptive in that you provided it as evidence that the Volunteers were republicans, despite the fact it only described an institution of them (a part of them) as containing republicanism. Maybe i worded it improperly (the question of deception) - i don't have the biggest vocabulary in the world - however it was a serious question. Would you care to answer TransporterMan's question as well as mine on what "institution"? Mabuska (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
And by the way: "When the editor goes and adds the source" - no i didn't. You did, and to unfortunately put it bluntly, it was deceptive, as the source didn't back up the statement which you left untouched until i had to reword it to match the source. Mabuska (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is getting a little crazy now. The editor is now says that they want me to clarify their clarification.--Domer48'fenian' 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 please stop improperly twisting every statement i make to detract from the issue at hand so that it gets bogged down in tedious tit-for-tat responses. Focus on the issue at hand and answer the questions asked of you. It should be as simple as that. Mabuska (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I will leave this until TransporterMan or someone else can try and explain what is going on here? The editor is now saying that they "reword it to match the source" and now want it clarity their clarification.--Domer48'fenian' 11:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When I suggested an RfC earlier it was mostly because that is a good way to determine a wider consensus on issues like this - it would side-step arguments about personal grievances and personal bias. For that reason that is the way forward I would choose here, although there are still other options you could choose. We could list a new post at the original research noticeboard to see what they say on the matter, or we could go to informal mediation - but only if you are both willing to be civil, stick with the process, and abide by the outcome. Whichever of these you choose, I'm afraid this dispute can't stay here, as this noticeboard is not the place for long, drawn-out disputes. Sorry for the rough treatment, but I hope you can both understand where I'm coming from. Yours — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand, however this dispute is an easy one to resolve for Domer48 only has to answer the questions asked of him. He has refused to, thus is there anything to vindicate his stance? No, especially seeing as he seems to have virtually backed down on the whole issue above with his "Moving on" statement. An RfC or anything else will simply be the same arguements rehashed and probably more ad hominem comments, however i am willing to be civil and stick with the process. Out of curiousity, i think the 20th century part of the article is also of very little relevance to the article as it doesn't deal with the term volunteer as a term for describing members of the republican movement, but off to RfC. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 25 September 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.

Madhyamaka

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 appears to be a new user 'LhunGrub', who is unwilling to listen, discuss, or compromise about the content of the article. He is merely reverting any changes to the article.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I am a longstanding but infrequent editor, and dispute resolution appears to be different every time some issue arises. This probably needs a 3rd party. It appears that LhunGrub doesn't know or understand WP:RS

  • 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=Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Opened up talks on the article and on his talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Provide a 3rd party.

20040302 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Madhyamaka discussion

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

User is using typical boomerang behavior. The reference is sourced. I went out of my way to type some of it out on the discussion page, but I am not going to type out several pages worth. LhunGrub (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is that the user moved critical NONPARTISAN introductory Madhyamaka material out of the lead. Obviously this is due to the lack of understanding of Madhyamaka in general. LhunGrub (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree with this. I consider LhunGrub's contribution to be tantamount to original research. He has use a reference which does not substantiate his claims in the article. Moreover, he is focussing on a rather specific objection that occurs within the Tibetan academic tradition of Madhamaka, which is not particularly meaningful regarding the scope of a school of philosophy which covers several continents, many cultures, and about 1,900 years. (20040302 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

20040302 and LhunGrub, I think you may find it hard to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on your conflict, as your disagreement is over a fairly arcane subject, and difficult to wade through everything to see what you are talking about. 20040302, it might be helpful if you include diffs of the edits that LhunGrub has made which you disagree with. I can see why the "distillation sentence was problematic, while worded as if it was an objective statement of fact, it was obviously non-neutral and pro Madhyamaka. Lhungrub, I suggest you stop with the accusations of "boomerang behavior" both here and in your edit summaries. I don't know if that is something you made up, or if you are trying to invoke WP:boomerang but it doesn't seem very descriptive of 20040302's behavior, so you look a bit foolish throwing it out, and at any rate it is not civil, so just stop. I suggest take a break from this article for a little while. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is engaging in WP:boomerang behaviour. For yet another example, right here he accuses me of original research when I have painstakenly quoted the source which says almost exactly what I have written. Actually I have quoted MULTIPLE sentences on the discussion page for this illiterate's benefit. He is the one who is inventing his own Madhyamaka theories on the discussion page i.e. original research. LhunGrub (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
my opponent appears to be making my case for me. 20040302 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
mmyers, it may be arcane to you, just as species of saltwater fish are arcane to me - but it's a pretty major (living) philosophical tradition, with a vast academic corpus. There are plenty of individuals who understand the basics. However, my concerns are far more to do with attitude and openness of spirit. Unsubstantiated claims, abuse, and aggressive reverts to incoherent text is a major reason why I contribute to WP less frequently than I used to. 20040302 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You are a funny guy. You destroy a functional article, deleting introductory material, and call the reverts "aggressive." BOOMERANG. LhunGrub (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been contributing to this article since April 2004. I like to think that at least some of it's merit is in light of my contributions, rather than in spite of them. I wish you would prefer to enter into considered discussion rather than resorting to aggressive snipes. 20040302 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(fixed response) 20040302, I assure you I was not attempting to belittle your area of interest, merely pointing out that the issue over which you and LhunGrub are in disagreement isn't one that the average wikipedian will understand. I know considerably more than the average nonbuddhist about the fundamental beliefs and major divisions of Buddhism, but I found the issue the two of you were discussing hard to wade through. I wouldn't call it "the basics" that an average Wikipedian should understand. Based on your initial posts, I assumed you were bringing a content dispute here, but it now sounds more like you are more concerned with LhunGrub's behavior than the content, and in that case, perhaps starting a Wikiquette Alert discussion about his behavior might be called for. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When did you start this dispute resolution, like 5 SECONDS after I first replied to your discussion section (which was only created an hour before) on the talk page?? Regardless of the issues, your various actions are way off. LhunGrub (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's Caution (and PS re complexity): The instructions for this noticeboard say:

Discussions on this page should be focused on the issues brought here. Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them.

Please maintain civility if you hope to obtain assistance here. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I agree with Mmyers1976 regarding the complexity of this dispute. I'm afraid that you may not find a mediator here with the expertise needed to sort out the competing claims. (I know I couldn't figure it out.) If that turns out to be the case, you might consider asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or doing a request for comments using {{rfc|reli}} (or doing the RFC and dropping a note at the two projects asking for comments on the RFC). TM
I agree with TransporterMan's assessment. I had a look at the talk page and at the source in question, and I think anyone attempting to mediate here would need to be knowledgeable about Buddhism. I think you should leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism and see if you get any responses. We do have some good editors who are listed as being part of the wikiproject, so that seems like a good thing to try first. I think that it may also be possible to take this to informal mediation, but you would probably need to "translate" for the mediator and that would make the process take longer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 21 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_7&oldid=1089263086"