Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 90

Angus Deayton

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I'd better start by saying this has nothing to do with the Angus Deayton article per se – another editor has changed the subject of this discussion because apparently there needs to be an actual article in the subject heading. This dispute is about the same edit being made to hundreds of different articles. The Angus Deayton article has never been discussed on an individual basis.

Narrow Feint makes large numbers of edits to placename formats on English-related BLP articles, specifically removing "UK" from placenames. For example: [1]. Narrow Feint considers "UK" redundant in British addresses. I object on the grounds that various formats are commonly used across Wikipedia (e.g. London, England, UK or London, England or London, UK) and editors should not be enforcing any format en masse without a guideline or MOS guidance. There is no guideline or MOS guidance and I believe that any factually correct format of showing a British placename is acceptable, and that enforcing one over the others is not constructive.

After a discussion involving a number of editors here, Narrow Feint believes he has a consensus to make mass changes to English placenames in BLP articles, and I disagree. The discussion centred around the merits of the various formats, and not about the value of making mass changes. In any case, only a small majority of editors favoured Narrow Feint's preferred format, while others disagreed with him, and still others favoured other formats. I consider the result of the discussion to be no consensus, and that it is not sufficient grounds to make mass changes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from the above discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board, I filed an ANI report which essentially told us to come here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses), although I am not convinced that this is a plain content dispute. There has been further discussion at User talk:Narrow Feint.

How do you think we can help?

Narrow Feint is a very civil editor and we have not resorted to edit-warring. He has also stopped editing while we sort this out. But I have issues with his single-purpose editing and the nature of it. We differ strongly and we are looking for guidance as to whether his editing patterns are constructive and justified, or not.

Summary of dispute by Narrow Feint

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

From my end the dispute is about two things.

One: what is the consensus preferred description of places in articles (such as Angus Deayton)? Should it be Surrey, England, UK or should it be Surrey, England? That is, should it be England, UK or just England? Angus Deayton is unusual, usually it is "town, county, England, United Kindom" versus "town, county, England".

Two: assuming that the consesnsus is that UK (or U.K., or United Kindom) is redundant, should it be removed? And, what to do if it is added?

The most recent discussion of on the need for United Kingdom is just here. (I initiated that discussion following Bretonbanquet's comments at several places.) It follows on some old discussions which are linked there. My opinion is that United Kingdom is not required. My reading of the discussion is that there is a consensus that United Kingdom is not required in addition to England.

I have made changes to articles to bring them into line to what I think is consensus. I have only changed England, United Kingdom (U.K., UK) to England. I will reiterate that this is because that is what I was looking for. There have been cases where I changed England but left Scotland, United Kingdom or Wales, United Kingdom in place. If I have left articles with a mix of styles, then that was a mistake. Sorry.

Bretonbanquet clearly disagrees with my interpretation of consensus. And, if there is a consensus, I think he disagrees that the 'electorate' was wide enough. And if the is a consensus and it is valid, I think he disagrees that I have authority (probably wrong word) to make any changes.

Narrow Feint (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator notes

@Bretonbanquet: can you please provide links to places where this issue has already been discussed. Thank you! --KeithbobTalk 23:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of discussion between me and Narrow Feint, only the places I've already linked to, namely Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses and User talk:Narrow Feint. Prior to that I made queries to a couple of admins about whether there were guidelines covering this topic, but they were generalised and Narrow Feint was not named. Narrow Feint wasn't pleased about my original inquiries when he found out, but I specifically didn't name him because I wasn't sure he had done anything wrong. They didn't lead anywhere anyway as I was simply told to engage with Narrow Feint directly, which I did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for providing these links. Cheers! --KeithbobTalk 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Angus Deayton discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200, and I will assist with this dispute. Please give me a little while to review all of the evidence that both of you presented. Depending on where you live, we can kick off discussion in the evening. I just wanted to thank both of you for staying civil and Narrow Feint for halting your editing on edits related to this dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Have either of you read the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS? There is no current consensus on if people from the UK should have U.K. or their birth country listed for their birthplace. It looks like that is what we're going to have to do. I don't want to give an opinion nor side with one of you, but it seems more feasible to use their birth country over U.K,. The UK consists of four separate countries, however UK means "union," and we should use birth countries rather than a union. Something similar to this was the Confederate States of America and the Union. As a whole, it is still considered America (also by other countries at the time) especially if you were born there. On the contrary, citizens from the UK are considered "British citizens" and that can support using UK over the birth country; I still believe using the birth country is more specific. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, MrScorch6200, and thanks to Narrow Feint for responding before the case was closed. I have read (and I believe NF has also read) WP:UKNATIONALS, and indeed there is no consensus on what to do – that's why I object to mass changes. It actually says "Do not enforce uniformity" and although it directly refers to nationalities, I believe this is the same concept. I appreciate your opinion on which to use, but other editors have made good cases for other formats, hence the lack of consensus. For example, not everyone across the world knows that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not independent sovereign countries, but parts of one, and the infoboxes should reflect that. You are correct that all these BLPs are British citizens, and many of them now do not have "UK" stated anywhere on their articles, which will be confusing for those readers who are not familiar with the makeup of the UK. It's important not to overstate the status of the constituent countries. "Birth countries" (England etc) are not mentioned anywhere on British passports – officially the birth country is the UK. Another point worth making is that the documentation for Template:Infobox person does say to use "city, administrative region, sovereign state", which is not being followed.
I reiterate that I'm not seeking to enforce the presence of "UK" across articles, but simply to prevent the enforcement of its removal where there is no consensus or guideline or MOS to support it. There's equally nothing to stop someone adding "UK" wherever they go, so it's basically futile anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of your statements above, however let's get back to the task at hand. Narrow Feint's edits are not justifiable. Nowhere (officially at least) does it say to either use UK over birth countries or vice versa. Nor does it say to enforce uniformity on articles by using one of the two. Narrow Feint, what's your stance on this? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
My stance on this is that I will do whatever the consensus on the matter is. What is your interpretation of the very specific discussion at the UK noticeboard? (n.b. I think you should avoid telling us what your contribution would be.) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the discussion there and there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers. Some also say that "UK" should be used in very few circumstances such as if the BLP had an impact on the UK as a whole and not one of the countries. What do you guys say (post under heading below for organization)? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

UK noticeboard consensus

I don't think that it's a clear consensus, if it is one at all. In that discussion, Narrow Feint did not even explain what he is doing. Apart from those editors who were against removing "UK", at least two editors state a preference for "London, UK" and a few of the arguments in agreement with Narrow Feint were very poor: the idea about the BLP having an impact on just one constituent country rather than the whole UK is ridiculous. It would be impossible to make such a distinction. I actually don't see anyone in that discussion making that point. Also, "England is a country in the UK and everyone knows it" is a particularly vapid argument.

Redundancy seems to be the most common argument for removing "UK", but all the editors in this discussion already know that England and the UK are not synonymous. They all know about the makeup of the UK. What about those readers who don't? How many of those were represented in that discussion? An encyclopedia should not assume prior knowledge. Consider Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic.

But most importantly, there's no discussion there about enforcing this format at the expense of others. It's just about whether the "UK" is necessary. Talking about whether something is necessary or not is not the same as talking about wiping it out. One editor (Kahastok) brings up the point against enforcing uniformity, for example, and that is a crucial point. The discussion was not about making mass changes, so how can it stand as justification to make mass changes? If "UK" is to be removed from all BLPs (contrary to the infobox template instructions), it would need a much stronger and wider consensus than this – it is a controversial subject on which to be enforcing uniformity. Nobody has yet explained to me how enforcing uniformity in this way is constructive. Why not make an attempt to form a guideline or at least include it in a MOS? It would at least then have gained wider support than a rickety consensus on a talk page which large numbers of interested editors will not have seen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that of those editors who considered "UK" to be redundant, not many advocated its removal, and only a small number of them admitted to actively removing it when they see it. So how can the discussion justify mass removal? How many editors requested mass removal? Narrow Feint is the only editor of whom I am aware who makes it his sole purpose on Wikipedia to remove it. I do wonder, with all good faith assumed, why NF does this, only this, and nothing else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I definitely see your point that not all readers know that the UK and England are not synonymous. Also, like you and I said, there is no justification for Narrow Feint to make mass changes without a crystal clear consensus. Some editors consider that disruptive to the project. Also, the discussion (I will call it that instead of consensus) there is about if UK is necessary and not making mass changes opposing it (like you said). I remember an incident about two months back where a newer editor thought the consensus to use the new reader's commenting system on only some articles meant it shouldn't be used on any. He went and disabled the commenting system on hundreds and hundreds of articles. That made a lot of people mad and he refused to listen to anyone that there was a clear consensus to only roll it out on articles that could use it. Anyway, I would like Narrow Feint to state his current view on the discussion before I continue. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you (MrScorch6200) when you write above "there seems to be consensus to use (e.g.) London, England over London, England, UK. Many (if not most) editors there say that it is redundant, cluttered in infoboxes, and is odd formatting especially for English (as in language) readers." I note the minority position that prefers '"Manchester, UK" rather than "Manchester, England"' though as someone wrote there that might cause trouble for (e.g.) Edinburgh. I expect that that change would make "a lot of people mad". Narrow Feint (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(cut and paste cut but not paste!) The next stage of this dispute resolution must surely be to agree on the consensus at that discussion, no? Bretonbanquet still does not agree, I think. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep forgetting to say this. Templates at Wikipedia are an aid to text entry. The guidance at any template to (e.g.) use soverign country it not a statement of anything except what the template documentation writers were thinking at the time. Narrow Feint (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) With regard to NF's first point there, I think that's why there should be flexibility across BLP articles, so that each article (if necessary) can host a discussion if there's a difference of opinion. Different formats will work better at different articles. I believe that's why there has never been a guideline or notes in the Manual of Style telling editors to favour any format over others. There really is no benefit in having the same format for all articles.
I think any agreement we might make on the consensus (or lack thereof) at that discussion is not relevant to our dispute, due to the fact that the discussion did not examine the nature of your edits. The only consensus that could be extracted from it might be that a (small) majority of editors prefer not to use "UK". There's really no talk there of removing it, particularly on a mass scale.
You're right about the instructions at the template, but it's also the only guidance there is on the topic. Those instructions would though have been formulated over a long period of time via a consensus, not just one editor writing them. It's an extremely heavily used template. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I have received a notification that the discussion at the UK Wikipedians Notice Board now has new posts (I think due to this discussion here at DRN), and another editor has expressed a desire for "UK" not to be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing that to our attention; I'm going to let the debate there run for a few more hours (as the last post was 10 or so minutes ago) before we continue, unless either of you want to. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That discussiuon seems to have stalled again. Perhaps we should carry on? Narrow Feint (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure what happens next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's mainly up to Narrow Feint and how he sees the situation at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I see the situation much as before. I think I agree with MrScorch6200 on the consensus at the UK talk pages, But Bretonbanquet does not. Bretonbanquet writes that the documentation of Template:Infobox person is "also the only guidance there is on the topic", but as I said before, it's just an aid to text entry. There is however guidance at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements where it says "The lead ... should normally cover the following: Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (...), and constituent country." Constituent country is England, Scotland, etc. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, MrScorch6200 has pointed out that any consensus at the UK Wikipedians' talk page does not constitute a consensus for your edits and that your edits are not justified. He has actually said that twice. The discussion there does not correspond with what you are doing. Do you accept that? With regard to your other point, that guidance refers to the article lead, not the infobox. You are generally editing the infobox, if I am not mistaken. Furthermore, that guidance refers to articles about settlements and you generally edit articles about people (BLPs). So nothing of it applies to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me say it upfront - Any consensus (if clear) at the UK Noticeboard does not have much relation to what this DRN request was filed for. Nowhere on the Noticeboard has a discussion about Narrow Feint's mass editing not UK vs England, UK etc. Please remember that this was filed to address the mass editing and not interpret a consensus. Both of you are quote mining from me so I summed my view up here. Now, let's work on a solution. 23:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well that's the whole point of this DRN – we were sent here because it was deemed a content dispute. Narrow Feint believes that discussion is a consensus which allows him to mass edit. If we have established that it isn't, then he doesn't have justification for the mass editing. What kinds of solution can there be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My proposal. In most circumstances the phrase "UK", "U.K." or "United Kingdom" is not needed in addition to the constituent country; it can be removed on sight and should not be added. Narrow Feint (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No. It cannot be "removed on sight" because there is no guideline, MOS guidance or consensus to do that. I do agree that it should not be added en masse in the same way that it should not be removed en masse. Mass edits to any effect which has no supporting guideline or consensus are unconstructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Note I have to stop posting and cannot respod before tomorrow about three. (Thursday 15:00) Narrow Feint (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: How about you cease removing UK from infoboxes/leads and leave them as they are? If it has been there then technically there is a consensus to keep them, else other editors would have removed it. This is one of those things that can't have uniformity; it's impossible. These types of edits are considered unconstructive and are completely unjustified. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why do you assume that it has been added (it has always been added, never there from the start) because there is a consensus but I am removing it against consensus? Other editors are removing it, and in this case it is me. And what to do if it is added? At the risk of repeating myself, why is it OK to add it but not OK to remove it, especially when the consensus format is to not have it? Narrow Feint (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass editing or repetitive changes to a series of articles without clear consensus from a group of people at a project page or a WP:RFC is generally not appropriate, especially when other editors have registered their objection. In the past I have seen it lead to problems for the editor that is making the mass changes. At some point the issue transitions from being a content dispute to being a behavioral issue and I think we are at that point now. Better to put a hold on the changes and get a clear consensus by a group of editors and make sure that the changes are beneficial to the project and not unintentionally disruptive. NF I think you are acting in good faith but I recommend that you stop making these changes and find other productive work on WP until a clear consensus is formed that specifically endorses your desire to make this change across all of WP. I'd also like to suggest that this discussion be closed since it appears there is another discussion on this same issue on the UK project page which is in violation of our guidelines. --KeithbobTalk 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First, there is a clear consensus at a project page. I was advised to seek a consensus there at WP:BLPN. I opened the discussion ("... Do I need to reconfirm here that UK is not needed, or can I get back to improving things? ..."). Having confirmed that the consensus was the same as it had been for years I went back to improving things. Bretonbanquet was about the fourth editor to comment (the exact number doesn't matter). He had the chance to say then "this is not the place", but did not. Nobody has said there "this is not the place". OK, one more time (I have asked this before). Where is the place to seek consensus about the preferred way to describe places in the UK?
Second, where is this other discussion (that Keithbob describes) taking place? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh third. Close it if you like, but not much has been resolved. I will be away for four days from about 23:00. Please don't assume anything from that. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought there was mention in the discussion above that there were ongoing comments on this issue at the UK project talk page. If I'm mistaken then I apologize. As for what is the right venue to get support for mass changes. I think you need to have an RfC at a venue with good traffic and participation. If you feel you have gotten that already please provide the links here so I can look at them and comment. Many thanks to all for your patience and participation in this massive collaborative event we call WP :-) --KeithbobTalk 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, my apologies I was not aware of this discussion that NF has cited in his comment above. It appears to be quite comprehensive. The remaining question is: Was there a clear consensus to make the change en masse? I admit that I don't have time to read the entire discussion as I'm in the midst of a busy week. So I'll leave it to the two parties here and the moderater, MrScorch, to sort that out. I will leave this discussion with one suggestion though. That is to list the Dec 2013 discussion at the UK Wikipedians' notice board at WP:ANRFC and ask that it receive a formal closing with an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. I think that will provide something solid on which to base further action. Cheers! --KeithbobTalk 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We had linked to that discussion here a few times. I realise you haven't read it, but in it there is no discussion about mass changes. Nobody made any comment about mass changes because Narrow Feint did not disclose that that is what he is doing. We've sort of been through that above. Even if a consensus could be extracted from it, it still wouldn't justify what NF is doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@MrScorch6200: It's been two days with no new comments. Is more discussion needed here? Or would you like to summarize and close? My apologies if I seem pushy, but we have a lot of open cases this month and I want to move things along in a timely way if I can. If more discussion is needed then please, by all means proceed, but if not, then a timely close would be helpful. Thank you for all your help at DRN! --KeithbobTalk 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be OK if we go to WP:ANRFC and ask for the discussion at WP:UK to be closed and summarised. Narrow Feint (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done that. I have based the request on others already there. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have asked a specific question there related to the consensus that may be found in that discussion. There's no value in someone saying "Yes, there's a consensus" without clarifying what that consensus allows editors to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before anyone gets round to that closure. In the meantime I read WP:DISRUPT and I don't see anything there that's relevant. I don't want the discussion as yet (give me time to read) but where do I look to find the policy/guideline/consensus that helps to understand if edits are disruptive? Narrow Feint (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all there, I think. WP:DISRUPT is a rock-solid guideline, and admins basically decide whether someone has violated it or not. I don't think it's so much the exact edits someone makes, but general behaviour that can be seen as disruptive. But nobody's saying (as far as I can see) that you have violated that guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The word 'disruptive' apears twice in this section. I don't want to be accused of quote mining so I won't extract it, but it is in the post by MrScorch6200 at 03:02, 11 January 2014 and the post by Keithbob at 16:25, 16 January 2014. Just checking. Narrow Feint (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think either used the word to directly describe your actions, rather that the potential is there for your editing to be seen that way, particularly if the consensus closure is in accordance with this DRN case. Let's wait and see – as you say, it might yet be a day or two, or longer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's wait and see what happens at ANRFC. I'm also going to confirm that I didn't want to call out Narrow Feint's edits as disruptive, just that they can be viewed that way (especially by an admin and because there is no current consensus). There's definitely a backlog at ANRFC, so let's R&R for a few days. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Prior administrative discussion about the status of the case

Friday closing notice (old)

I or someone else will/should close this dispute as either stale or as a major party declined to participate in 24hrs if there is no participation. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we leave it open at least until Friday? Narrow Feint has limited connectivity (his words) from Monday to Thursday, so maybe he is unable to post at the moment. If this is closed, we do not have any other route to solve the problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will wait until Friday night but if there is no participation I will close. Thanks for letting me know. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've put a note on User:Narrow Feint's talk page to let him/her know that we'd like ,him [them] to join the conversation soon.--KeithbobTalk 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm online again. I will make a start today. Narrow Feint (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for participating :-) User:MrScorch6200 I'm stepping out of this now, so please continue with this case, if you have time.--KeithbobTalk 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

South Asia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Limonana

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Cryptocurrency

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Old Fashioned

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Bitcoin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Randolph Mantooth

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Antichess

Closed discussion

England

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Bitcoin (2)

Closed discussion

Talk:The English Patient (film)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Flag of Serbia

Closed discussion

Phineas Gage

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Puerto Rico

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Alexander the Great

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Ian Fleming

Closed discussion

Carl Ballantine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Nokia Lumia 1520

Closed discussion

Pine Bush, New York

Closed discussion

Bitcoin (3)

Closed discussion

Talk:England

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Haaretz

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Christian Science

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
  1. ^ Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources
  2. ^ Miles, Nelson Appleton (1896). Personal Recollections and Observations of General Nelson A. Miles - Embracing a Brief View of the Civil War, or, From New England to the Golden Gate : and the Story of his Indian Campaigns, with Comments on the Exploration, Development and Progress of Our Great Western Empire. Chicago: Werner.
  3. ^ Safa, Helen (March 22, 2003). "Changing forms of U.S. hegemony in Puerto Rico: the impact on the family and sexuality". Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development. Retrieved 2008-08-03.