Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 90

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92→Archive 95

Template:Apple

– 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

One editor is willing to add a group of links (related to software and hardware products that Apple Inc. has produced in the past).

Another disagrees on the grounds that other templates ({{Apple Inc. hardware}}, {{AppleIntel}}, {{Apple hardware before 1998}}, {{Apple hardware since 1998}}, {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}, {{Apple printers}}, {{Apple software}}, {{Apple software on Windows}} et al.) already do so and are already transcluded. Adding said links would only bring about link bombardment.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue is discussed in:

How do you think we can help?

I thought perhaps a moderated discussion can help keep the issue in check.

Summary of dispute by User:Jimthing

Codename Lisa has failed repeatedly to answer several problems put to them directly on the template talk page: why? Raising a dispute here when you have failed to engage in answering with proper explanatory answers and not ones that ignore the reasonable questions asked by other editors on there, is somewhat unreasonable to most longterm editors on WP, don't you think? Especially when you're last edit (HERE) even bothered to screw-up what I had carefully done, by added links to a random handful of individual hardware/software items (i.e. even managing to miss-out most of the current items, for inexplicable reasons) — the very items for which earlier in the discussions you YOURSELF admitted to me should NOT even be on it...strange behaviour for one filing a dispute here?? Jimthing (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:FleetCommand

I don't like being drowned in links either. So, it is said that CL and I have a consensus, although the actual wording was "being in cahoots". (No comments there.)

About steps taken to resolve: "One editor" tried a compromise by replacing the redundant links with other redundant links to templates (see above) that contain the redundant links. "Another editor" didn't agree, because in practice, those templates were transcluded right below {{Apple}} in articles. So, "another editor" proposed another compromise: Some links can stay. Well, "one editor" has explicitly expressed her feelings about it above. Look, I am not exactly famous for my negotiation expertise but I am willing to work, now that I am here. Fleet Command (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Apple discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi there; I am Mdann52, and shall be the volunteer handling this dispute. My initial reaction here would be to suggest that the info boxes are either split, especially as we have Template:Apple software, and the template documentation already states "This is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to Apple content on Wikipedia. However, it can be added to any Apple-related article." [sic]. Anyone have any issues with the concept in general. After we have resolved what will happen, we can then agree on the exact wording of the split. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mdann52. This sounds exactly like what the dispute is about and my initial drive to remove links to software and hardware. Do you have something particular in mind? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Mdann52, I think reverting to revision #599108935 and checking the articles that transclude {{Apple}} accomplishes exactly what you ask; but I fear that is taken as a non-cooperative comment on my part. Do you have anything specific in mind? Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If everyone is happy, I can run AWB later and put the Apple Software template on all articles with {{apple}} later on if everyone is happy with it? Alternatively, we could try and merge the two templates together, or just reword the template, and add new links/rows as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Merging two huge templates is not wise but yes, the first suggestion works for me. How about you guys? FleetCommand? Jimthing?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
If you go the template route, you'd be talking about both the Apple Software template AND the Apple Hardware one, BTW. However, if we went the merge route it'd make life easier for other editors in future as they wouldn't have to muck around dealing with more than one template – but what would get included under hardware and software on {{apple}}, and what left out, as they have current and past software/hardware to think about. Jimthing (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Merge route requires a WP:TFD. But since you pointed out that both routes are awkward, I propose a third: Why not include major hardware and software products or products family names in {{Apple}} and be done with it? That way, the user can get to his intended topic by going to the family article, without filling the articles with links. Anyway, which one do you choose? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I prefer third suggestion but first is good enough too. But Jimthing seems unwilling to continue. Should we count her as bailed out per WP:SILENCE? Fleet Command (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A few days silence (unless I'm missing something) seems a bit odd, but looking over this I think the third suggestion might be the ideal one here in terms of implementing. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Fine then, for the sake of (non-)argument, go with the third option: "include major hardware and software products or products family names". As proposer, perhaps Codename Lisa can add their edit of the template on here first, then we can discuss and agree (hopefully briefly!) which pages are right to use, before it gets finally implemented as the finished template. (BTW, some of the things I added in later edits should still remain, eg's. iBookstore under Stores, and the "Subsidiaries" subgroup title under "Companies", Intel transition add under History group instead, et al). Jimthing (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly don't have to bother other additions. Only a snippet is our subject.

How about this:

I am sure I've missed some entries. Please feel free to mention them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sending ping notification: @Jimthing: Could you please watch this page? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry other commitments, be back 24h to comment. Jimthing (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(Delayed commenting today, due to WP "site busy" 404's all afternoon!). Anyway, made some minor changes to make look neater, but mainly as some current items –which seem like the ones we should aim to appear on this template to stop overloading– were missing, removing the couple of discontinued products that were on there. Also added a hidden comment (<!-- DO NOT ADD DISCONTINUED PRODUCTS TO THIS TEMPLATE: discussions decided they're covered under "Discontinued software/hardware" links. -->) to discourage future abuses:
Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Super nice. Agreed totally and completely. Permission to call the shot?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice: Unless there is anything further, I'm going to close this case as resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

User AndyTheGrump delete reference to Italian parliamentary questions on energy catalyzer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

NONE

How do you think we can help?

Do not allow erasing informations about italian parliament activities on the subject of e-cat/LENR on wiki page "Energy_catalyzer"

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

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

Energy Catalyzer discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Outside admin comment: This request is premature and invalid. One user is determined to included primary-sourced material re. questions asked by a single Italian politician of no obvious importance. Andy has explained why we would not normally include this, no other editors support the edit. The "dispute" amounts to someone not liking the answer they are getting to a demand to include material. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (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.

Kvenland

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

Help is needed concerning two articles: Kvenland and King of Kvenland. User Thomas W. wants to add a reference to a King of Sweden, Charles IX, in these articles yet no historian has ever linked the king with Kvenland in any way. Charles IX lived in 1550-1611, but Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. The matter has been discussed and sources have been asked, but to no avail. Consensus cannot be found.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for sources for the counter arguments being well aware that sources supporting the counter arguments don't exist.

How do you think we can help?

Preventing a ban that Thomas W. and Yngvadottir are aiming at.

Summary of dispute by Thomas.W

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

I don't have much time right now but I'll return later today with a longer answer. Finnedi's presentation of the case is a deliberate misrepresentation of it. The claim that I want to add something about Charles IX is patently false. That section, which is properly sourced, has been present in the article for a long time, and it was not added by me. The true story is that Finnedi ever since creating his current account last year has made repeated attempts to remove the section about Charles IX, i.e. properly sourced material, while at the same time adding POV/fringe material sourced to blogs and personal websites (sample diff from King of Kvenland), edits that have equally repeatedly been reverted by me and Yngvadottir. And it's not the only article on WP that Finnedi is POV/fringe-pushing on... Thomas.W talk to me 06:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please limit comments to article content, not user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Summary of dispute by Yngvadottir

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

At both King of Kvenland and Kvenland, Finnedi and before him, an IP have objected to the inclusion of a section that states that some academics have regarded one of the regnal titles of Charles IX of Sweden as perhaps referring to the Kvens by another name. On request, I improved the sourcing of this section by finding the actual wording in Swedish. Finnedi until recently posted his objections to the section's inclusion at User talk:Thomas.W rather than on the talk page of either article; I started talk page sections on both article talk pages myself and after he posted there, have continued to engage his argument that the section does not belong. Most recently in response to his saying that sources do not exist of academics discussing Charles IX in this context, I first indicated the references present in the section and then provided an example from Google Books of a page in one of those sources (Kyösti Julku's book Kvenland-Kainuunmaa, which is about the theory that the Caijaners (sp.) are the Kvens). As I say there, I believe we have to cover the issue because scholars (reliable sources) have discussed it. Finnedi's primary objection appears to be that the word "Kvenland" is not used in writings of Charles IX's time, but this is not claimed in the cited sources or the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found and brought here summaries of what exactly Julku's argument is in his book, and those reveal more of the context in which he uses the passage whose relevance is in dispute. (I also in the process found other citations I'd like to add at Kvenland, but I'm not sure how relevant that is here.) I'm really trying to follow the rules here; but my view of the core issue hasn't been changed by anything I've found, and I'm trying to understand Finnedi's point of view rather than assume I fully understand it, if that makes any sense? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not post replies in someone else's "summary of dispute". Keep the discussion in the discussion section. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do not misrepresent the point. The Caijaners' and/or Kvens' alleged dealings with Charles IX have nothing whatsoever to do with either Kvenland or the King of Kvenland. Charles IX lived in 1550-1611 and Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. Thus, a king, who lived at a time when Kvenland no longer existed, does not belong in the article. Can't be too difficult to understand.Finnedi (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BogatusAB

I side with those who want the disputed text to be kept, for the following reason: "Sweden", "Sverige" and "Ruotsi" all mean the same thing in different languages. Similarly, "Kvenland", "Kainu/u" and "Caienska Semla" (in slightly varying spellings) also all mean the same thing, in different languages, according to e.g. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa', 1986.)

Although the terms Kven and Kvenland are entirely absent from all old Swedish literature, the term Caienska (compare to Svenska) - in different spellings - has been used in old maps and texts over centuries. Julku provides several examples of such uses in his study 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa' (1986). Accordingly, the following statement of Finnedi on the Dispute resolution noticeboard is misleading: "Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century."

The Kvenland article currently correctly states that the term Kvenland "with that or close to that spelling - seems to have gone out of ordinary usage around the end of the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century." However, Kvenland's separate status next to - and later, within - the Swedish Realm only gradually diminished thereafter, over many centuries.

According to Kyösti Julku, even after the reign of Charles IX's son in the 17th century, Kainuu (same as Kvenland in the medieval era, according to Julku) "occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come" (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa'. With English summary: The Ancient territory of Kainuu. Oulu, 1986).

The part of the article which Finnedi wants to remove needs to stay. The text itself explains why it needs to stay. The added map in the Kvenland article, showing Europe in 814, is a good addition. BogatusAB (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kvenland discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am opening this up for discussion now. I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello, thanks for volunteering. I moved my latest reply (to BogatusAB) here:
Caienska Semla = North Bothnia. (See the link. Julku: Kvenland – Kainuunmaa, p. 113) http://books.google.com/books?id=MZNIAQAAIAAJ&q=Caienska+Semla&dq=Caienska+Semla&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=O8FFU7P-N6_AygOa2YDQDA&redir_esc=y

Caienska Semla means the area of Kainuu (North Bothnia), NOT the land, Kvenland. Kainuu still exists to this day, but Kvenland disappeared from all historical records long ago.

"Caienska" doesn’t refer to Kvenland in Julku’s book. Only one translation is given by him. Julku is very specific about the use of the names of places. You must know local history and geography to understand the difference. Kvenland certainly never had a "status within the Swedish Realm". This would have been impossible.

Julku writes: "Kainuu (= North Bothnia/Österbotten) had for a long time a special status compared to the rest of Finland." Kvenland is not mentioned in this context because Kvenland, the land, did not exist any more and the "special status" referring now to the Kainuu area was a relic, a tribute to something that once was, but didn’t exist any more. The Kingdom of Sweden was founded in 1530 but Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century so a link cannot be drawn.

A summary: Charles IX lived in 1550-1611 and, thus, he of course never was a king of Kvenland or linked to Kvenland by any known historian. He has only been linked to the Caijaners that lived later, during his time, i.e. at a time when Kvenland no longer existed. There still are Kvens living in Norway today but that’s no reason to link the current king of Norway to the ancient Kvenland either. Any more than Charles IX can be linked with either the present-day Kvens, Kvenland or the King of Kvenland.

Reference to Charles IX simply does not belong in either article, King of Kvenland or Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating that Kvenland no longer existed during the reign of Charles IX, as if Kvenland was or had been a political entity, and that is what this whole discussion hinges on. There is no proof whatsoever that Kvenland has ever been more than just a geographical name, describing an area around the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia, neither historical documents nor archaeological evidence. All we have is a handful of mentions of "Kvenland", with various spellings, in Norse sagas and similar, mentions that can not be used as reliable sources for the existence of a political entity without the support of more substantial evidence. I have repeatedly asked you to provide reliable sources for your claims, but all you have provided so far are personal websites and blogs. Which are not WP:RS. Thomas.W talk to me 15:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Kvenland didn't exist during Finland's Swedish era and this is why you can't find a historical source linking Kvenland to Charles IX. Thus, if you want to include Charles IX in the articles, you are the one who has to prove and validate the inclusion. The only source I myself have so far added in both articles, is the map of Kvenland from 814AD.
This is what you write on your talk page:
"The name Kvenland... has however been used in various contexts, one of them being the royal title used by Charles IX. So he was undoubtedly "King of Kvenland"." (In reality Kvenland, the land, was never included in his title). Yet now you write that "there's no proof Kvenland has ever been more than just a geographical name."
See the real reason you, Bishonen and BogatusAB want to include Charles IX where he does not belong, is that you are Swedes. You must understand that patriotic aspirations are not an acceptable reason to embellish Wikipedia articles with royalist utopias. Especially when the aspirations have no historical validity whatsoever.
A summary: Charles IX lived in 1550-1611 and he has only been linked to the Caijaners - never to Kvenland - that lived later, during his time, i.e. at a time when Kvenland no longer was documented to exist. There are still Kvens living in Norway today but no historian has ever linked the current king of Norway to the ancient Kvenland either. The same applies to Charles IX in connection to a land that existed long before his time. Thus, Charles IX does not belong in either article, King of Kvenland or Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. How about providing some sources for what you write? Just for a change. You've been trying to make your POV/fringe edits for almost a year now (starting 4 June, 2013, and possibly even earlier than that), first as an IP and then as Finnedi, on a number of articles, including Kvenland, King of Kvenland and Ancient kings of Finland, so who are you to accuse others of "patriotic editing"? You've also been blocked a number of times for edit-warring when trying to add your unsourced/improperly sourced material, both as your IP and as Finnedi. But you still don't seem to understand that you can not make edits unless you're able to provide proper sources for any and all material you want to add and/or change... Thomas.W talk to me 17:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC) (and please learn to indent properly...)
You are the one who has to to provide a source if you want to include Charles IX in the articles King of Kvenland and Kvenland. I did a search and it appears you are not able to find consensus with anyone. You have bullied several editors over the years with similar tactics, only because they don't accept your Swedish utopias. Here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RasboKaren. I think you should be blocked from editing entirely.Finnedi (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You got to be joking. I didn't add Charles IX, he's been in the article for a long time, and Yngvadottir has provided all the sources needed to keep him there. And thanks for bringning my attention to the repeatedly blocked fringe-pusher RasboKaren. I don't know how you managed to find that user talk page so fast and easily, considering it was a long time ago, but now that you reminded me of him/her I see how remarkably similar your choice of subjects, and editing style, is to RasboKaren's... Thomas.W talk to me 17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite serious and even if I've never talked to Karen Rasbo, I'm sorry for her, because she, too, seems to have had not only constructive ideas but a pleasant way to present them. You want to take part in discussions about history, yet you know practically nothing about history. None of Yngvadottir's sources link Charles IX to Kvenland in any way because no historian has ever drawn such a link so Charles IX cannot be included in either article King of Kvenland or Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Julku discusses the term "Caijaner" (sp), and cites the Charles IX document in that connection (in Latin; we should probably update the citation in the article to his version, or cite the Latin from him in addition to the Swedish). His overall thesis is that the term "Kven" refers to lowlanders, and he refers to the Finnish kainulaiset and Kaijunmaa and the Renaissance Swedish Caijaner as equivalents. On pp. 118–23 of this Master's thesis his viewpoint is summarized and contrasted with an alternative viewpoint, using the Old Norse kvenir (Kvens) and the Finnish kainulaiset as equivalents; pp. 152–53 of this scholarly book summarize his argument similarly, using Kvenland, Kainuu, Kainunmaa, and kainulaiset; while on page 34 of this pdf of a paper by Jukka Jari Korpela is a German-language citation of his argument using Kajaner, i.e. Caijaners. It is therefore immaterial, or a matter of disagreement with Julku's argument, that the term "Kven(land)" as such does not occur in the document about Charles IX. He discusses that document as using another term for the same people/place, and our article needs to include that (later) term and its occurrence in the document because it has been the subject of scholarly discussion concerning the meaning of Kven(land). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep it simple: Even if there are Kvens living in Norway today, the present-day king of Norway cannot be linked to the ancient Kvenland. It's the same situation with Charles IX in connection to Caijaner and a land that existed before his time.
In Julku's book Caijaner = North Bothnians, not the ancient Kvens. Julku theorizes, but doesn't draw a direct connection between the Kvens and the Caijaner because he knows a direct connection cannot be drawn as we're dealing with people from different eras. The area of Kainuu is still inhabited to this day and the people there are still called "kainulaiset", whereas the Finnic speaking Kven minority lives today in Norway.Finnedi (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Julku discusses the geographic location, but he does talk about the issue of whether the Caijaner are the Kvens, because he uses data from various periods (including when the Caijaner term is used to relate to North Bothnia). One reason for this is that he is discussing the meaning of the term "Kven" in the ancient texts, and not restricting it to its current use in Norway. Insofar as he discusses the "Caijaner" term - and its use in the document regarding Charles IX - it belongs in our article. The summaries of his position that I have noted (which should also be cited at Kvenland in my opinion) make this clear. No one, Julku included, is arguing that Charles IX or his court used the word Kven. Julku demonstrably does link the word Caijaner to the word Kven and discuss Charles IX in that context. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Your new sources don't link Charles IX to Kvenland in any way, any more than Julku's book does.Finnedi (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

STOP!!! DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page.

A lot of the comments above (and not just the ones by one person) are near-duplicates of something that was said in an earlier comment or in the summary of dispute statements. You all tried that on the article talk page. Did it work? No? Then why repeat the behavior that didn't result in resolving the dispute before?

Clearly this dispute needs a more structured approach. I am going to ask each of you to look over the above, and if you believe that you made any new points that you didn't make in your statements, to update those statements. (you can add a comment or edit the existing one; either way is fine.) Keep it short and to the point. Then wait for me to evaluate your statements and we will discuss how to move forward.

As always, you can continue any sort of unstructured discussion you wish on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are not willing to follow the DRN rules, I will be forced to close this because of uncooperative editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • To be honest I don't know why Finnedi brought it here since it's not a content dispute but a clear-cut case of a POV/fringe-pushing editor trying to remove properly sourced material that he disagrees with and at the same time add unsourced/improperly sourced material that supports his non-mainstream views. As can be seen by Finnedi's block logs (in the plural since he's been blocked for the exact same kind of behaviour under multiple names/IPs). Thomas.W talk to me 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Stop misleading Guy Macon. He volunteered to help with the content. The utopia about Charles IX is not sourced at all. I haven't added any info whatsoever in the article yet so this is the right place to remove the false information you would like to keep. I'm the one who opposes the fringe royalist theory connecting a Swedish king to Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The only reason you haven't added anything is that all your attempts to do so have been reverted for being unsourced/improperly sourced. As can be clearly seen from the page history of the multitude of articles that you have been trying to add fringe material to... Thomas.W talk to me 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Stop misleading Guy Macon. He volunteered to help with the content. The utopia about Charles IX is not sourced at all. I haven't added any info whatsoever in the article yet so this is the right place to remove the false information you would like to keep. I'm the one who opposes the fringe royalist theory connecting a Swedish king to Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have read all of the edits to both pages, all recent talk page comments, and checked a few citations.

I am going to open this up for discussion again, but I need to set a few ground rules:

  • Do not talk about other editors. Period. Talk only about article content, not user conduct.
  • Slow down! We have tried the "fill the page with comments" technique already. It didn't work.
  • Don't repeat points. We all heard you the first time.
  • Calm, measured discussion based on logic and evidence will win the day.

That being said, this looks like a classic case of a one-against-many dispute. I wrote us a essay for those in such disputes. It is at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay, if I comment here?
1. This is what has happened: "When you think that the page has been hijacked by a group that is pushing a

particular point of view"

2. The core issue is that no historian has ever linked Kvenland to Charles IX in any way whatsoever. Nor did Charles IX himself draw such a connection.
3. If the matter was a question of interpretation, I wouldn't bother about it.
4. Please, ask the opponents a source that says Charles IX had something to do with Kvenland, the land, and you'll see they cannot present such a source.
All they have presented is a source linking Charles IX to the Caijaner at a time when Kvenland, the land, was no longer documented to exist.
5. The opponents are Swedes. One takes part in the debate with two different user names. If no consensus is found, I'll take the dispute to the neutral point of view noticeboard.
Thanks for your help so far.Finnedi (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A). Not all opponents are Swedes.
B). There's no sock-puppetry here. If you seriously feel there is, feel free to start a sock puppet investigation.
C). Your posts here clearly show that you haven't read and understood what your opponents have said/written. Either because you don't want to, or because of a lack of language skills. Thomas.W talk to me 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for slowing down, making your point, and waiting. It makes it a lot easier to deal with.
Please look over your own comments above and ask yourself "Did I follow the Do not talk about other editors. Period. Talk only about article content, not user conduct rule here? If not, please use <s> and </s> to strike those comments. I think that striking point 5 and reply C will be enough. Also, if the other fellow talks about other editors, do not respond. Leave it for me to deal with. Seriously, the only possible way that we can resolve this is to focus on article content, not user conduct. At the end of all of this I will advise you as to where to go if you think that there are still user conduct issues.
We have all read User talk:Guy Macon/One against many, right? Keep in mind that that page is purely my opinion. It is based on experience, but it is still just my opinion.
Finnedi, please think long and hard about whether you really want to apply the "When you think that the page has been hijacked by a group that is pushing a particular point of view" part of that essay. If you want to do that, we need to close down this DRN case (DRN deals with content disputes only) so that you can take it to WP:NPOVN and/or WP:ANI, in that order.
Please note that we at DRN do not want to hear why you think this, and we do not want to hear anyone's arguments saying that you are wrong. That's a whole other part of Wikipedia that handles those issues.
Also note that I would have given the exact same reply whether I thought that you had a good case or whether I thought you had nothing. It isn't my place to comment on user conduct issues other than to tell you where to take them.
If you change your mind, let me know and we can continue trying to resolve the content dispute.
Everyone else, please give him time to make that decision before continuing the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A solution based purely on facts will be the correct solution. Of course we can try here first. Miracles do happen sometimes.Finnedi (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, that leaves you with the fact that at least three editors disagree with you and that nobody supports you. As it stands, they have a clear consensus. Your only options are giving up or convincing someone. So far, your arguments have failed to do so. Do you have anything else that they haven't heard already? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "The only possible way that we can resolve this is to focus on article content". The number of "supporters" isn't relevant here but the historical facts. (This dispute isn't about one opinion vs another opinion). Do the opponents have anything new I haven't seen already? Finnedi (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong. If you cannot convince a single person anywhere on Wikipedia that you are right, you don't get your way. See WP:TRUTH for a fuller explanation of this. You have made the "historical facts" argument several times and have failed to convince anyone. I personally am purposely not taking sides, and if you can manage to convince everyone but one that you are right I will switch to telling that person that he has to convince someone if he wants to get his way. Your opponents have already demonstrated what the WP:CONSENSUS is. They don't need to convince you. You need to convince them, or convince some uninvolved third party. That's how Wikipedia works; by consensus.
Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Imaging that everyone agreed with you except one. Would you like it if Wikipedia let that one person have his way? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Please advise me how to take this dispute to the WP:NPOVN and/or WP:ANI. It's best if you don't act as a "referee" in this matter.Finnedi (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You may close the discussion here.Finnedi (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, and I wish you well. The instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard seem pretty clear. Or you can go directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which also has instructions at the top. The choice is yours, but I recommend Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard first. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Please note that, as I have stated several times before, you shouldn't go to either noticeboard unless you have solid proof. making accusations without evidence to back them up will not go well for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2014 (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.

ITN

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

This guy is admin, but thinks its cool to call people stupid and attempt to ridicule them as well as posting nonsense as counter argument.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i ignored the personal and abusive tone of his post and tried to reason with him. he went personal and it escalated,. i read he was admin, do i posted here.

How do you think we can help?

tell him to do what he is meant to do and assume good faith and not be abusive to new users. not to attempt to ridicule them, not to post nonsense in lieu of argument. and not to call them stupid.

Summary of dispute by jayron32

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

Jayrons rhetoric ...

"Palestine does something, Israel issues sanctions". In the rest of the world, we call this "Tuesday". When one of the two entities does something, and the other gets pissed off, that's just what happens all the time. --Jayron32 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne... --Jayron32 18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic. I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight. you make plainly stupid statements ...you open yourself to ridicule. --Jayron32 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


SMFH

Great work admin jayron. Way to escalate with someone who wasnt making any personal comments or attacking you in any way.

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution"

Jayron32 - Calls new posters stupid and admits to attempting to ridicule them.

77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
"Palestine does something, Israel issues sanctions". In the rest of the world, we call this "Tuesday".When one of the two entities does something, and the other gets pissed off, that's just what happens all the time. -

What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne..

I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic. I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, such as the notion that all events must be assumed significant, and can only be declared insignificant in hindsight. If you don't see the silly flaw in such a statement, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight. When you make plainly stupid statements that amount to demanding that everyone treat everything as maximally important unless subsequently proven commonplace, you open yourself to ridicule. --Jayron32 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Great work there from the admin guy. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&action=edit&section=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Rodeo Drive

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

As a term-long assignment for COM257 at NCSU, a group of three others and I, were tasked with editing the Rodeo Drive page. This page had hardly any information on it when we began, and as we tried to expand it, we ran into trouble with a specific user who was extremely critical of our content - so much to the point that we had a hard time adding ANYTHING. By looking at the talk page, you can see there has been a lot of discussion. Although we have been able to add more since starting, there are a few things that we (and other wiki users) have been trying to add since 2006 - specifically, a list of the shops on Rodeo Drive - that this user continues to argue against. Even after citing sources establishing the importance of these stores, this user refuses to allow it. We can't give up the article and come back another time, because the final draft is due in a couple of weeks. Our class is learning about encyclopedic knowledge as a field of study - but we are not familiar enough with Wikipedia tools and regulations to make a strong enough case on our own.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have asked for help from our professor and have tried (and failed) many times to shape our material around her critical remarks - hoping to please her and allow her to add this content. We have used many different books from our university library and articles from Google scholar.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully you can have some users look over the content on the main page and the talk page, review our sources and arguments, and help mediate the argument that has been going on for years. By having a third or fourth opinion that is (hopefully) unbiased, we hope to solve this issue as calmly as possible. We are developing an appreciation for global knowledge through Wikipedia and want the most important part of the street to stand out.

Summary of dispute by JSmitty01

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

Summary of dispute by Jbrubins

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

Summary of dispute by Wikilaina

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

Summary of dispute by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

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

Rodeo Drive discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello, and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board. I am Mark Miller, a volunteer here. I have no special powers or authority however, I need to make a note here as this is important. While Wikipedia welcomes students to edit articles, we do not allow groups to tag team. That could be the perception of editors of what is happening in the comments above. Also your professor has no authority here and I am more than a little disturbed by the suggestion that your are trying to please her with an assignment she seems to have given you. Whether or not your assignment is due in a few weeks or not is of no importance to the project. That sounds harsh but Wikipedia is not a university and not a pet project for schools. You must still collaborate and attempt to work together even if in a heated manner.

This note might open the discussion but do not post in this section until a volunteer has looked through the dispute to see if it can be debated here and all participants have made their opening comments. (Unsigned by Mark Miller)

If no one objects, I will be closing this request as discussion continuing on the talk page. Participants seem to be engaged.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:MOS

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

Within WP:MOS is a subsection WP:MOSID which allows for an exemption that violates both WP:BLP and WP:V. I boldly removed it on April 11 with a note later on that night (I was blocked by my firewall at work that day ), explaining the reason for the revert and that it violated WP:BLP. JHunterJ removed it in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which mandates that a good faith removal on BLP grounds can only be reinserted if the person wishing to re-insert it has met the burden of proof. He left a note stating consensus existed, I take this as a good faith effort on his part, however, this consensus violates WP:CONLIMITED which states that a consensus on any page may not overrule Policy for any reason , which this does. I attempted to discuss this with JHUnterJ on his page and he has replied that he has no intention of reverting himself, and has left a notice of discretionary sanction for Sexology, which is not relevant to this page. This page does have discretionary sanctions, but Sexology isn't one of them. I'm not bothered by his brusque manner, I'm pretty thick skinned myself. I would ask that the sanction be removed and that JHunterJ revert himself on MOS:ID

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discusssion on JHunterJ's page. I told him I would allow a week for him to think it over and hopefully self revert. His response was he wouldn't self-revert and I could start D/R if I wanted to (I don't, but it's a user vs sysop, and I want to avoid the drama of the ANI board)

How do you think we can help?

Establish that the consensus of MOS:ID is a case of WP:CONLIMITED and therefore invalid and establish that the revert on MOS:ID that I made needs to stand, pending further discussion.

Summary of dispute by JHunterJ

I warned Vosh about edit warring on the Manual of Style's section regarding transgender identification.

  1. KoshVorlon's bold (or reckless) edit, a few days after his topic discussion ban ends: [1]
  2. My reversion, citing the previous discussion: [2]
  3. KoshVorlon's improper revert, contrary to his own 0RR policy, the MoS editing guidelines, and the ArbCom ruling on transgender topics: [3]
  4. PaleAqua's reversion: [4]
  5. My warning to KoshVorlon: [5] (with the incorrect year)
  6. And KoshVorlon's ultimatums on my Talk prior to this noticeboard: User talk:JHunterJ#Sexology warning for Kosh Vorlon

-- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Fluffernutter

[Kosh accidentally pinged me about the opening of this case; I hope you don't mind my input, having watched this play out over the last few days]. At least part of this issue appears to be a conflict based on the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions not matching the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions. More specifically, the Sexology decision says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)." (bolding mine) while the Discretionary Sanctions policy page says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict" (bolding mine again). The question, if we care to wikilawyer the issue that finely, is then which wording takes precedence and what defines "within" an area of conflict; clearly that can only be solved by asking Arbcom for clarification, not by pursuing the issue on DRN. If Arbcom intended DS to be applied as the DS policy is (appears to be?) written, rather than making a special, different provision for Sexology, then Kosh's action in blanking the section that started this is sanctionable under Sexology and DRN can't do much about it; if they intended to write a special case provision, then it can become a debatable policy-content issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I am inclined to close this as not being something that we can help with, but before I do, I would like to hear any arguments for or against keeping this open and suggestions as to where would be a better place to take it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon Thank you for hearing this dispute. At it's core, this is a content dispute. I removed a paragraph from MOS:ID which was clearly against both V and BLP. Per BLP any content that violates BLP must be removed and the person looking to re-insert it must show that it can be inserted and that it complies with BLP. JHunterJ attempted to do this, but has chosen not to belive that it violates BLP and refuses to revert himself. I have advised him that per policy he needs to, and further, even though he claims consensus, this consensus is invalid per CONLIMITED as the consensus is attempting to over-rule both policies of WP:BLP and WP:V. If you believe it cannot be sorted out here, I too, am open to where this can be sorted out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong in your facts. I refuse to revert PaleAqua's revert of your revert, since your revert was inappropriate. There is no clear contradiction between MOS:IDENTITY and either WP:V or WP:BLP. If there were a clear contradiction, it would have come out in both the previous discussion that I cited in my edit summary and also in the discussion that you began at the MOS talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Please set aside arguments concerning who is right for a moment. We will get to those once we establish whether this is the right place. First I need to determine whether this is a content dispute of a policy/guideline dispute. One could claim that any policy/guideline dispute is a content dispute because it starts with someone changing the content of a policy or guideline and someone else disagreeing, but I still have my doubts as to whether DRN is the place for this. That being said, if you both want me to, I am willing to try to help.
Also, I see some other editors have made recent edits to that section. Should they be included in this DRN case? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you; this is not the place for it. The place for discussing the changes to the MOS is the MOS talk page, where the discussion is going on. The only problem I see is that there is no place for KoshVorlon's demands that I "self-revert" (sic) PaleAqua's restoration of the text KoshVorlon wants to delete without discussion. As long as there is agreement that KoshVorlon does not get to dictate the removal of the previously discussed section MOS:IDENTITY without forming a new consensus, there is no dispute with me; I am uninvolved in either that previous discussion or the current discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2014 (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.

Leavitt Bulldog

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
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.



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

The reason for the renaming of the breed from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog is in question. One side has made the statement in top header that the breed was being modified because the original creator (David Leavitt) did not like the direction that the breed had taken. The other side disagrees that this was the case and has provided a quote from David Leavitt regarding the reason for the name change in the article, as well as a statement in the Talk section showing that David Leavitt actually approved of the current condition of the breed at the time he renamed it, as well as a direct statement by him that he was not changing the breed (its conformation) but simply the name in order to dissociate the dogs from the more commonly, and inappropriately, used OEB title for many of the Alternative Bulldogs that use it. There has been no response from the first party in the talk section, despite it being referenced in the edits in order to get their attention.

This is actually relevant to the Genetic Background section as well, as the current article makes it sound like a new breed was founded in 2005, while at the same time stating that the dogs can still be registered as OEBs with the United Kennel Club (which is an obvious contradiction).

Thank you, but you are right that the situation is confusing. Before forming the LBA, David was involved with the OEBKC (see the Olde English Bulldogge article) because that was the only organization pursuing his original bloodlines exclusively. The breeders that joined David in the LBA came from the OEBKC. When they talk about the breed becoming bullier (which is not a quote from David Leavitt by the way, and the point of contention is why he changed the breed name) they are talking about people who used the OEB breed name, but were not breeding dogs from Leavitt bloodlines. That quote refers to dogs from groups like the IOEBA (see first reference link in the History section of the article), NBA, etc. David's quote about the LB and OEB being the same dog is specificly refering to dogs from the OEBKC and LBA. This portion of the quote is far more relevant and is the reason that both the OEBKC and LBA are listed on the UKC website for registration requirements:

"The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed. It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s, and bred to OEB’s, who are creating two breeds out of one. It would be in the best interest of genetic diversity to allow dual registry. Dual registry is in the best interest of the dogs."

If the LBA has changed their minds and wants to change the breed I can simply compromise by having them taken down from the UKC website. I'm the one who had them put there in the first place anyway... Also note that 2 of the 3 dogs back on the Olde English Bulldogge page were actually produced by LBA breeders.Ss 051 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added comments to the Talk section as well as providing direct quotes, in both the article and Talk, to support the edits made

How do you think we can help?

I think a little mediation on how to resolve the difference would be appreciated. I have no problem compromising, so long as the statements that wind up being made have some degree of evidence. I was involved with the breed at the time all this happened and have been since, so I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt) and outright falsehoods without a hint of evidence are... tiresome...

Summary of dispute by Freedombulls

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

User:Freedombulls has communicated to me by email that he doesn't intend to participate further in the EN wikipedia and has asked that his user page be deleted, which has happened. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sminthopsis84

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

There are several aspects to this dispute, it has become confusing, and is moving too fast. The current main thrust seems to be centred on a quote from this page [6]: "The LB and OEB are clearly the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue. The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed." User:Ss 051 with this edit says "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." I would say that that is a misinterpretation.

There are two clubs, the LBA and the OEBKC, both breeding dogs descended from the "Olde English Bulldogge" breed developed in the 1970s by David Leavitt. More context from the same page is: "When he came back to the breed in 2005 he found that people had begun to try to change his breed into a bullier more English Bulldog look. He knew this was not good for the breed and formed the Leavitt Bulldog Association to further his dream. When he did this he changed the name from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog …". In the quote that User:Ss 051 is using, I would say that the OEB referred to is the original breed that David Leavitt developed in the 1970s, not the OEBKC dogs (the other club). Thus "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." is a mistaken impression. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Leavitt Bulldog discussion

Hello everyone, I am a volunteer with DRN and I would like to welcome everyone to this discussion. Before we begin, some preliminaries. First, we the volunteers at DRN are neither Judge nor Jury. Secondly, please respect all editors and maintain good faith and finally, DRN's are about content and not conduct. If we OK so far, then lets proceed. Firstly, I have moved the comments of Ss 051 (talk · contribs) to the opening section of the discussion, because they belong there. In future please don't add content to the discussion section of a dispute, before it has been opened by a volunteer because it confuses us. I also note that Freedombulls (talk · contribs) has not yet participated. I would normally wait for his comments but then again I see that the discussion has already started, so his comments later would be welcome to this discussion. He has been notified of this DRN in his talk page. When I went to the talk page of the article I could make out that this topic has not been discussed there. I do see a section called History created on the 8th of April, but other editors have not had a chance to answer the comments yet. Please understand that Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page. As begining I would suggest all editors to first discuss the issue on the talk page and wait for a consensus. Would that be OK?--Wikishagnik (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

May I leave you a comment? These issues were discussed on various talk pages, mine, Sagaciousphil's, Tikuko's - and is a bit scattered all around Wiki talk page archives. Since quite a long time. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is fine by me Wikishagnik as I have just realized the extent of some of what I consider to be misinformation that has been left on the Talk page for this article. To your point, there is quite a bit of info that likely needs to be provided. What I'm not sure of is whether or not that misinformation was intentional.Ss 051 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Hafspajen (talk · contribs) and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) for responding. I have read your comments on your own and the article talk pages, and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) I don't disagree with what you have said. However, in good faith I would like to make some observations that may or may not be acceptable, but I believe is the root of the confusion. From your comments such as I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt)... and It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s...(emphasis is by me) that drive me to conclude that in your personal life you are involved in some or other way with Leavitt Bulldogs. That leads to a problematic scenario called conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT) between being a Wikipedia editor and being a participant in the events surrounding the subject of an article (as per your own comments). While their is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits such edits and editors, the policy was designed specifically to ensure neutrality in all articles (WP:NPOV) by deterring incidents where the private and personal passions of an editor clouds the overall objectivity of an article in general, and Wikipedia in particular. Even if we assume complete good faith, would it be reasonable for me to expect you to accept a POV that is completely against your POV, even if it is suggested with reliable source etc.? For example, if I was to suggest a statement like while some authors consider Leavitt Buldog to be a separate breed[1], some others have used the terms interchangeably with OEB[2][3], would you be OK with that? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that due to your personal passions and invlolvement, would feel such a statement to be wrong? Please understand that nothing above was intended to be a personal attack. I am only trying to point out that Wikipedia is neither a forum for discussion (WP:NOTFORUM) nor a Journal (WP:NOTJOURNAL) where original ideas are meant to be discussed and then presented as right or wrong. Any discussion on the talk page of an article or in DRN should focus on what content can be added to an article based on reliable (WP:RELIABLE) sources that make the article encyclopedic and neutral. I am not even entertaining the discussion about dual registration of your dogs because that is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia or its articles.--Wikishagnik (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikishagnik, I would actually be fine with the statement you proposed above provided those references actually make those assertions. I've considered the conflict of interest and to be frank I don't think I fall into the problem. I have been involved as Registrar for the OEBKC since Jan of 2006, for which I collect no pay or priveledge. I do not breed dogs, nor am I involved financially in anything club- or dog-related. I consider myself to fall more into the category of subject matter expert. Whether anyone wants to consider the Leavitt Bulldog a separate breed from the original OEB bloodlines they separated from isn't the point and doesn't matter to me (and I doubt very much the LBA would want to make that assertion, as it grants them nothing but costs them quite a bit of legitimacy, no small part coming from the fact that it is completely, outrageously and verifiably false), but the reason for them splitting in the first place very much IS the point. This latter has been documented on the internet and the statements that have been made in past versions of the Leavitt Bulldog page are simply not in agreement with the evidence. Same with the Genetic Background section. The original OEB bloodlines aren't even referenced, and if that was intentional, if they simply wanted to go back to the very earliest foundation, then why not list the Bull Mastiff and Amer. Pitt Bull Terrier breeds that were used? A short list of inaccurate statements that have, or still do, exist within the article are:
That the LBA is one of the Parent Clubs for the OEB with the United Kennel Club
That the Leavitt Bulldog was renamed/created because the original Leavitt bloodlines diverged or were looked unfavorably upon by David Leavitt
That the LB breed is comprised of English Bulldog, Continental Bulldog, Hermes Bulldog and American Bulldog

Ss 051 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we deal with one matter at a time, please? I don't understand the problem with "That the LBA is one of the Parent Clubs for the OEB with the United Kennel Club". This noticeboard entry posted by David Leavitt in August 2013, states "As you can see the LBA and OEBKC were both approved as the parent clubs of the OEB.". Is there some technical definition of "parent club" that needs to be brought in to understand this matter? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That was per a letter dated July 2007, before the breed officially entered into the CDHPR in August of 2008. Since then the LBA has had no affiliation with the CDHPR/UKC. They were trying to state on this page that they were now a Parent Club because the UKC site lists LBA paperwork as being recognized. Being a registry (which issues registration paperwork such as the LBA does) is not the same as being a Parent Club (which provides direction to the registry for their breed).Ss 051 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


A lot of changes were made but let me be clear i did a lot work on the Wikipedia page. But I never said we were wanting to be involved with the UKC. This was my text not more nothing less I had nothing to do with the changes that’s why I left because of this ongoing war. Original text by freedomdulls: Those breeders still working from Leavitt's original ideas were invited to join the new Leavitt Bulldog Association. The LBA and its members are dedicated to maintain and improve the health, temperament and working ability of the breed by careful selective breeding. The association provides a registry service and plans to maintain a stud book. After a rebuttal from the United Kennel Club, the association chose to go it's own way, without recognition from the kennel club. This independence means that the association members remain free to breed in out crosses when needed to maintain healthy genetic characteristics. You all can see no where I stated we want to be recognized by the UKC. Again I’m out because of all this rewriting that has done. Sminthopsis84 did a wonderful job with the page. But after april 5 Ss_051 start changing a lot of good work. Look at the changes from the history part until April 10 it stated that the Leavitt Bulldog was a part OEB but it was changed by someone and Ss051 start saying we were in hiding history. This is my one and only writing Good luck to you all Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Barry, but the quality of the work is what is in question. The graphic in the Talk section in particular showing the differences between IOEBA, LBA and OEBKC; did you honestly think that was representative of the 3 groups? You should know by now that none of the LBA breeders in the US have dogs with the type of head you listed under LBA (only the crossbred DeWinter dogs that were never recognized prior to 2006), and the OEBKC dog you show was actually produced by an LBA breeder (the Courvilles at LGK). Even if you go back and look at the picture of David Leavitt with Tweed[4] (who David has called his "perfect" dog) you'll notice that his head looks nothing at all like the one you used to support your argument of a difference between the LBA and OEBKC dogs. Much of the article was inaccurate and based on poor information.Ss 051 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
OOPS, no personal attacks. Let's stay cool. (THE perSsonal mentor - for the moment). Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ss 051 (talk · contribs), Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs) and Freedombulls (talk · contribs) for participating. I have gone through the comments above and unfortunately there isn't much, we the volunteers of a DRN can do about this situation. (1) This whole discussion seems to be a debate between members (or registrars) of LBA and United Kennel Club and while there is nothing stopping such individuals from editing on Wikipedia, it certainly does not mean that they can argue their differences (WP:BATTLEGROUND) of opinion on Wikipedia. (2) Although I am not questioning the veracity of the sources (WP:V) and opinions, there remains the question of good faith amongst the editors (WP:GOODFAITH). This situation is certainly not being helped with the levels of hostility I see here amongst editors. (3) Finally, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury, nor is Wikipedia a forum to discuss alternate points of views and reward the victor (WP:NOTFORUM), nothing discussed here may have any impact on the ongoing dispute between the two teams of breeders. DRN's are aimed at consensus based on discussion about content, which in turn will involve a little give and take from all parties and lots of good faith about each others opinion and intent. Since we are all aiming for a consensus, which does not mean a solution everbody will be delighted about, but just a solution everyone can live with, can we think of a compromise solution that can satisfy all parties?--Wikishagnik (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Ok ones more because this will lead to no were. I never showed an OEBKC or IOEBA dog I only posted up LBA dogs. [[7]] The only thing I used is the compared diagrams between the 2 clubs. So please stop finding poor excuses. You Ss_051 or better P..... start bring in personal stuff like epilepsy and said it took the LBA 4 years to come out with the news. But you know as well as I you were asked many times for proof and you never did. Meanwhile all the OEBKC breeders still breeding the Cival line. Sliversands Boomer from [[8]] Has Chaos /Ruby and Cival in the pedigree all litter mates. Only 2 generations away. Millenniums Southern Belle[[9]] Has Cival From watch city T-bone has Cival also Shiloh ,Sadie , Lunabelle , [[10]] Otis and Chilli pepper has both Cival [[11]] Sassy lyn has Cival as Ziggy and Lunabelle.\ Castle Bulls [[12]] LTD Shiloh star has Cival So stop making the LBA look bad and start focus on your own club like we do. My solution would be let the pages be monitored by Hafspajen and Sminthopsis84 and forbid me to work on the old English Bulldog page and forbid Ss_051 to work on theLeavitt Bulldog page. For me that’s seems best Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the link right here that was posted in the Talk section to show the differences in the 3 classes

[[13]]
I was refering to. The signature in that section certainly makes it seem as though you posted it, and as I mentioned the OEBKC dog was produced by the LBA, while the LBA dog is not representative of the dogs within the LBA. Browsing through US-based breeder links at the LBA website will show this. As for seizures if you would like me to forward you the email from 2010 where this information was all passed over to the LBA I would be happy to do so, and you'll find that it is entirely consistent with the current path forward that the LBA is taking.

As for the article, its back to my original problem. Is the Leavitt Bulldog a new breed founded in 2006 or not? Was that due to David Leavitt feeling the current Leavitt-line dogs were no longer true to his original bloodlines or not? Is this new breed composed of the 4 breeds now listed in Genetic Background, or is it in fact the same as what they started with back in 2006? If there is evidence that either is the case I am fine with a 3rd party making that distinction so long as it aligns with the fact that current breeders of the LBA are also registering their dogs with the UKC, which is representing the very bloodlines that supposedly diverged from his original. Freedombulls himself is listed on the UKC website as a breeder currently, so I find it hard to rationalize that the Leavitt Bulldog is a distinctly different breed from the OEB recognized by the UKC. If this "divergence" is refering to dogs registered by the IOEBA and similar groups then it should be more clearly explained since those groups did not start with original Leavitt bloodlines, making divergence impossible. Something similar to the quote that I added to the article under the History section seems fairly clear to me, but perhaps not as much to an outside observer. The Genetic Background section would also need to be brought into similar alignment. As it stands it current delegitimizes both the Leavitt Bulldog and the Olde English Bulldogge.Ss 051 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ss 051 (talk · contribs) and Freedombulls (talk · contribs), for your response. Although this discussion is still heated, I would like to interrupt both parties to make a point. Although an WP:ANI or WP:COI/N action seems to be the path recommended - from the comments above to block users - I recommend that both parties voluntarily refrain from editing both articles in a way that is contentious to others. I am not suggesting anyone is wrong but, you must realise that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and that Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality source (emphasis is in the policy). Also, please understand that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (from WP:VERIFY) and Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted... Although I am not trying to beat anyone with policy, we are also not achieving anything by continuig this dispute apart from passionately re-iterating our points of view (WP:SOAP). I request both users not to discuss the merits or demerits of information that is not supported by multiple high quality verifiable sources. Please disengage from suggesting edits for this article for now as Even if your position on the article is not accepted, it might be in the future. (from WP:DISENGAGE) --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post here or not - especially as I'd made a promise to myself back in December that I would stay away from the Leavitt Bulldog article! Wikishagnik, the problem with the Leavitt Bulldog article is, and still remains after some four months, that it does not meet the WP:GNG. When it was first created, the notabilty was questioned here, and here as well as here. Doubts about its notability were also raised on the article talk page right from the outset. Going further back an editor who signed as "David Leavitt" even left this post on TKKs page (she now seems to have retired from editing). In my opinion, the reason the current dispute has arisen is precisely because there are not sufficient reliable sources to support the claim the Leavitt Bulldog is a separate breed. The United Kennel Club is only accepting dogs from the LBA register as Olde English Bulldogs. Without reliable sources, I'm afraid the discussion is not going to achieve anything. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


That was before we created our own Leavitt Bulldog page. We indeed share the same old bloodlines but after 10 years we have more separate lines than the Old English bulldog and we have a different look or like they say appearance which i think established already before . The request last year from David Leavitt to Tutikio was because back than the Old English Bulldog page displayed a lot of false information and he tried to show the difference by adding a link to the LBA web page. It was the same false information that you can read all over this dispute. We are sharing the same show ring with OEB’S but not alone also with Renascence bulldogs Alternative Bulldogs and all other Bulldog mixes this was because the breed is not recognized. And all bulldog mixes can be called OEBS I have hundreds of pedigrees from different registries to show this. Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This was the text before it was change on Date: 29-12-2013
We are now 10 years apart we have more Outcross lines than you have mentioned only we are not going to show you all of them. On wiki we are the same dogs and for the UKC we are not please make up your mind but before you do let me tell you I don’t care what you think. Again we do not want to be in the UKC as the LBA or the Leavitt Bulldog. Yes I’m on the UKC list but I have done that to make a point because they wrote we are accepted with a 3 gen pedigree. So that is why not because I want to create OEBS We are Leavitt Bulldogs simple and you have OEBS. The emails from 2010 with your calculation is pretty strange sins your club still breed the same lines with Cival as I have showed in my previous statement . But like everything with you the bad side of the calculation is for the LBA and the clean side of the calculation is OEBKC. We are still waitingon a name from Shakes his off spring real evidence if you have that email for me please post it up because I have probably mist that one email.We love to to take the necessary steps like we did publicly in January of this year because we could not rule out dogs just on your gossip. So please send the one email which say clearly a name of the off spring . Stop with all your accusations.--Freedombulls (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Everybody nice and polite, please. Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building. If you can't agree the maybe you can't agree , but still be polite, both of you. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Sorry i have changed it. Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Freedombulls, the obvious problems with the past version of the article:

Article text:"The new breed was named in 2005, because Leavitt felt that that his creation Olde English Bulldogge from 1971 was not being preserved as he had intended. Descendents of the 1971 breed had become heavier and not all breeders were using the original standards" and the book by Zettler is referenced.
Actual text from the book by Zwettler: "To protect his dogs from the always-growing number of Olde English Bulldogges and to distinguish from other alternative breeders, Leavitt decided to change the name of his own line to Leavitt Bulldogges at the end of 2004". It says no where that "descendants of the 1971 breed had become heavier". This implies his original bloodlines had changed, not that others had misappropriated the name for a different breed of heavier bulldogs. When it states later that the OEB breed had changed it is refering to these unrelated variants of the breed, not his original creation.
I think this reference merits a further look too. The writing is awful and full of inaccuracies. 1. Leavitt changed the name at the end of 2005 and not 2004. 2. He specifically changed the name to Leavitt Bulldog, not Bulldogge, as mentioned in on the website I've quoted several times. 3. Basic grammar indicates little or no editorial resources were spent on the publication.
Additional text from the past version:" but after the breed standards were developed that breed diverged in appearance from the original bloodlines" again needs some specificity regarding whether or not this refers to Leavitts original lines (unsupported) or unrelated lines like those at the IOEBA, etc (supported).Ss 051 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing comments - It is apparent that this issue cannot be resolved via DRN for the following reasons. (1) The notability (WP:N) of the subject as a seperate breed has been questioned many times and it has not been sattisfactorily asserted. Any expectation to reach consensus on verifiable content is unreasonable at present. (2) Participants are yet to provide the multiple reliable sources required for verification of extraordinary assertions and are instead simply debating their pet points of view (WP:SOAPBOX). (3) The discussion has turned acrimonios and editors have abandoned good faith (wp:GOODFAITH). As a volunteer I wish the editors Happy Editing and remind them that the discussion can be carried forward via the talk page of the article and through WP:RFC. This discussion is closed as no consensus.--Wikishagnik (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Earlier version

Therapy dog team

The Leavitt Bulldog is a late 20th-century re-creation of the English Bulldog as that breed looked in the early 19th century Regency era, about 1820. In contrast to English bulldogs of the time, depictions of the breed from nearly two centuries earlier showed healthier, more agile dogs, with working ability. Unlike the 19th century breed, however, the Leavitt Bulldog has a placid temperament. It is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems in the English Bulldog breed.[5][6] The Leavitt Bulldog was developed by breeder David Leavitt, originally named the Olde English Bulldogge, but after the breed standards were developed that breed diverged in appearance from the original bloodlines, which prompted the new name and creation of a separate breeders' association.[7]

References

References

  1. ^ Marlene Zwettler (7 February 2013). The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier. epubli. p. 22. ISBN 978-3-8442-3922-5.
  2. ^ Phil Maggitti (2009). Bulldogs. Barron's Educational Series. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7641-9653-9.
  3. ^ Rescue Ink (17 September 2009). Rescue Ink: Tough Guys on a Mission to Keep Our Animals Safe. Penguin Group US. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-101-13641-6.
  4. ^ http://www.freewebs.com/lbaorg/
  5. ^ Benoit Denizet-Lewis (November 22, 2011). "Can the Bulldog be saved?". The New York Times, Magazine.
  6. ^ Zwettler, M. (2013). The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier. epubli GmbH. ISBN 9783844239225.
  7. ^ "Leavitt Bulldog Association, Web site".

History

The new breed was named in 2005, because Leavitt felt that that his creation Olde English Bulldogge from 1971 was not being preserved as he had intended. Descendents of the 1971 breed had become heavier and not all breeders were using the original standards.[1]

Those breeders still working from Leavitt's original ideas were invited to join the new Leavitt Bulldog Association. The LBA and its members are dedicated to maintain and improve the health, temperament and working ability of the breed by careful selective breeding. The association provides a registry service and plans to maintain a stud book. After a rebuttal from the United Kennel Club, the association chose to go it's own way, without recognition from the kennel club. This independence means that the association members remain free to breed in out crosses when needed to maintain healthy genetic characteristics.

Genetic background

The Leavitt bulldog was created with only breeds that all have old Bulldog in their background such as American Bulldogs, Continental bulldog, Olde English Bulldog, Hermes Bulldog and English Bulldog.

Characteristics

The Leavitt Bulldog has a very stable, friendly and loving temperament, which makes them suitable as family companions, and some have qualified as therapy dogs. They are easy to train and they are useful for various sports. This breed is extremely strong, which means that socialization and obedience training are important. Their disposition should be confident, courageous and alert without being overly protective. They enjoy not just physical games, but also activities that require intellect, such as tracking.

Appearance

Leavitt Bulldog body diagram
Leavitt bulldog head, a male dog

According to the breed standard,[2] the Leavitt Bulldog has a large head (the circumference of the head is at least equal to the dog’s height at the withers), with powerful jaw muscles. The lower jaw extends forward. The back and chest are wide and muscular. The tail is straight, and reaches the hocks.

References

References

  1. ^ "IOEBA Breed Standard". International Old English BullDogge Association.
  2. ^ "LBA Standard". Leavitt Bulldog Association.
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.

2014 Formula One season

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.

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

On 9 March Prisonermonkeys launched a proposal to remove the Official Race Titles from the calendars which have been present for quite some years on the Formula One season articles. His proposal was not met with a consensus to implement it, yet Prisonermonkeys tried to force the proposal through by removing the content on two occasions (on the 10 and 12th of March) despite not gaining a consensus to do so. The discussion later dried out after several unsuccessful proposals to improve the calendar altogether. However, the discussion was resumed om the 26th of March and has been continuing since. On the 30th of March Prisonermonkeys tried again to force the proposal through by removing the content a total of four times, breaking WP:3RR in the process, despite still not having gained the desired consensus. As a result of that the page was put under full protection by HJ Mitchell and has remained in this state until now following an extension of the full protection period. The talk page discussion has continued in the meantime and the side in support of the removal now continuously claim a consensus in favor of them, primarily based on a head count, despite the long list of arguments presented by both sides. In addition to the users whom I have listed, both sides have received some approval by another few users who haven't brought in any arguments of their own, hence why I didn't list them among the "Users involved"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have thoroughly discussed the matter with them on the article's Talk page and I have initiated a Request For Comment as well, which hasn't however brought any new input in the discussion so far.

How do you think we can help?

We are looking for a member of the community who is neutral on this matter and who is prepared to read through an consider all the presented arguments by either side and their merits by either side to determine wether or not the consensus for the removal of the content has been achieved.

Summary of dispute by Joetri10

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

No comment. I leave Tvx1 to explain this as he can in a much more detailed manner. All I can explain regarding my actions and opinion on the matter is that I try to expand the article in terms of extra complete relevant information so that the article is more helpful and educational to those who may be more interested. What started off becoming an argument about sponsorship details and the gross ignorance displayed by Prisonermonkeys has resulted in a 'complete opinionated democracy', a call of heads as it were. Understandably so I can relate in not wanting trivia and foreign languages featuring as much as possible although when speaking about the official detailing of events including that which forms the sport and is present in many aspects, it can be a tricky game of opinion and wins over what our sources use, why, for what purpose and how that should relate to this page when really it shouldn't at all. We are our own separate source for information, we should give as much as we can and to be as helpful as we can. It matters not what we 'think' is useless and useful for the page when we can otherwise resolve in a neutral agreement by showing 100% accurate information. The positives; if even small outweigh the negatives. It only serves to help. There was nothing wrong with this information before and I feel the arguments for deletion are weaker then they should be. *JoeTri10_ 12:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet

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

Tvx1's precis of the situation is somewhat disingenuous. He has omitted to mention two other editors (User:QueenCake and User:Falcadore) who have supported removal of the column in question from the table, plus two further editors (User:Hydrox and User:StandNThrow) who entered the debate. He also says that other users supported retention of the column – untrue. There were no other editors in favour of retaining the column. The "head count" was at least 5:2, and Prisonermonkeys considered this to constitute a consensus and I agree with him. Tvx1 and Joetri have refused to suggest any compromise, whereas I and others have clearly stipulated that the information in the column will continue to be present in other, more appropriate articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider the information in the column in question to be relatively trivial, this being the official race title of each Grand Prix of the season, e.g. Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014, in light of the presence of the generic race title, e.g. Spanish Grand Prix. Both titles are not required, in my view. This information belongs in the generic race article as above, plus the individual race report, in this case 2014 Spanish Grand Prix, along with all the other relevant details of the race itself. The race title has no bearing on the season itself, and 2014 Formula One season is the general summary article about the season, not a repository for all the minute details of each race. These season articles are prone to clutter and trivia, and we are attempting to restrict it to the essential facts for purposes of readability and article size. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth mentioning that there have recently been a number of similarly lengthy and frustrating debates on Formula One talk pages, for example a two-month argument about the formatting of the table of drivers, and a six-week row about the driver Sergei Sirotkin. Cool-headed consensus-building and rational discussion is to all intents and purposes, non-existent on the Formula One WikiProject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am all for removing the mentioned race title in the table. As the url address bar of this site states "en.wikipedia", "en" refers mainly to English and so, I do not quite get the idea of having foreign native languages getting into the mix. That's about all I could say. My stand will always be the removal of that "race title" column. StandNThrow (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys

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

I agree that the description of the situation is not truly representative. There was enough support for a consensus to be formed; however, I feel that those in support of the minority have resorted to deliberate stalling tactics to try and force a situation where there is no consensus and thus keep the article as it is. Almost every single argument made by the majority has been shot down on the grounds that it is weak or unproven, despite the way enough people agree with them to form a consensus. There is also an over-reliance on the idea that consensus is not a vote; while true, it ignores the clear majority, and allows a minority to prevent a consensus from being formed, regardless of how big the majority is.

In the interests of expediting the resolution, here is a summary of the arguments in favour of removal:

  • The FIA - the sport's governing body - does not recognise those race titles as the formal names of the races.
  • Almost all of the secondary sources used in the article do not use the race titles.
  • Everything within the column is redundant, having been explained elsewhere in the article, or covered in a more-appropriate article.
  • The only unique content in the column is the name of the individual race sponsors. And while sponsorship is important, it only affects individual races, rather than the season as a whole (which is what the article is about). Furthermore, the exact importance has not been established, and all sponsors really get is a bit more signage around the circuit.
  • This being the English-language Wikipedia, the emphasis should be on English; other languages should only be used when necessary.
  • Any "educational and informative value" the column provides is effectively trivia; if somebody is looking to learn about the Hungarian language, for example, there is an article for that.

I will leave it to those in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GyaroMaguus

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

While I previously supported the motion of Tvx1 and Joetri10, I changed my standpoint for removal of the column. I believe the column serves little useful purpose, and have produced many points, including: use foreign language when avoidable should be discouraged; the official names are only used by sources they are bound to use them, are not to the season as a whole and the article titles are not the official names; linking the full race titles will most likely confuse readers; we shouldn't force our readers to work out something for themselves; people do not come to the 2014 Formula One season article for all F1 queries; etc. Bretonbanquet has provided equally valid and correct arguments; while Prisonermonkeys has, in my mind, corrected identified a consensus, but has been a little strong in his efforts to implement it.

Personally, I have Tvx1 to be very obtuse and extremely inconsistent and hypocritical in this discussion. His main argument for inclusion of the column is that it is "educational and informative", an argument he has used consistently for a very long time. He appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both what purpose the article serves and what Wikipedia articles are meant to convey. These arguments are, from my point of view, fundamentally flawed; the article should not serve as a point of reference for everything regarding the 2014 season; rather, it is a summary of events, and Tvx1 seems to think that we need to educate and inform readers on nearly every minor detail, while only things that effect the season as a whole should be included. He does not understand why it is not relevant and considers none of the arguments me, Bretonbanquet, Prisonermonkeys, QueenCake or anyone else for that matter to be any good and believes that he has easily brushed them off.

Concerning Joetri10, I often appear to be on the opposite sides of discussions with him and I also feel he has been obstructive in this discussion. He has a tendency to not fully read arguments before posting, often fails to take all issues into account. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note from random volunteer

Thanks everyone for your participation. I currently have two cases open so I cannot take this case at the moment, however someone will likely open this case for you in the next few days. Thanks for being patient. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I'm really hoping that this can be addressed soon. As has been pointed out, this is the latest in a series of long-running disputes, and I think a lot of people would like it resolved as it will help us establish a precedent for addressing these long-running disputes. Furthermore, if it cannot be resolved here, then I have no idea what the next step is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm more a lurker on the DRN board but I typically get called in to handle disputes that have gone on longer than they should be. I don't think I've ever edited with respect to Formula 1/Grand Prix articles and I do not recall seeing any of your names before. Will you accept my bona fides as a neutral editor here to help you negotiate a solution? Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. —<span="color:blue">Gyaro–Maguus— 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with that. Although I do not think that there is a happy medium to be found - in terms of content, we either keep the column or we remove it. That said, I think it is important that we resolve this issue here. It is the latest in a string of content disputes that should be simple to implement, but take weeks to resolve. For me, the issue is not so much about the content, but how we go about implementing it. I am disturbed that some editors think they can overturn a consensus by declaring the supporting arguments to be weak; that, to me, is clearly a subjective opinion, given that the majority opinion was strong enough to form a consensus in the first place. I am aware that the DRN does not deal with the behaviour of editors, but I think that resolving this dispute here will establish a precedent here that we can refer back to in future to deal with the problems of a) recognising when a consensus has been formed, b) the appropriate way of implementing it, and c) what to do of you disagree with that consensus - the problems that have been plaguing the Formula 1 pages since the original Sirotkin dispute (yes, I was in the minority on that one, but it has no bearing here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting on the remainder of the disputants (Tvx1—Joetri10—Bretonbanquet) to accept my bona fides. Please limit yourself to simple answers and not post great paragraphs of text explanations to simple questions. It means extra time that other editors and myself have to spend time trying to figure out what's going on and in turn slows down the process of negotiating a solution. When I ask a question that has room for elaboration I'll ask for it.Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, fine with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem for me. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at his contributions, User:Joetri10 has not been active in a week. Just in case he is not aware of the updates here, I am tagging him in this post. I hope that is okay, User:Hasteur. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me also and thank you Pm. *JoeTri10_ 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've secured acceptance of the credentials as a neutral editor, I'd like to make sure I understand correctly, the point of contention is "What do we put in the Race Title column for each race?". If this is correct a simple yes will suffice. If not please briefly explain what the point if dispute is (as I seem to have missed it). Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't be blamed for missing it, because it's fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Up to now there have been two Race Title columns, one for the "official race title", often in a foreign language (e.g. "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014") and another column for the generic race title in English (e.g. "Spanish Grand Prix"), which links to the article detailing the history of the event. The difference of opinion lies between those wanting to remove the "official race title" column (leaving the generic race title column), and those who wish to retain both columns. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the 'official race title' features the corresponding sponsorship for the race (depending on year) (e.g. 2014 Formula 1 Santander British Grand Prix) much like the sponsorship for team names (e.g. Williams Martini Racing), something which also has been disputed heavily. Opinion has been a heavy factor on whether this information is relevant before all else whilst forgetting(?) that such concept is often mandatory across all areas on Wikipedia. *JoeTri10_ 21:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the second half of that last sentence (assuming I have understood it correctly). It is not required anywhere to list the title sponsorships of individual events on a season summary; in fact, the full race titles are not used until 2004. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was required but instead something that which should face no question of relevance when partnered with the matter of correct conduct. To ignore is that of ignorance within opinion. Prominence should be irrelevant. It's importance stems from the purpose of being and with that it creates the title, name, event etc. *JoeTri10_ 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You used the word "mandatory", which is a synonym of required, so either you do not understand the meaning of "mandatory" (which I assume you do) or you are wrong there. Also, you did not say it should face no question of relevance before. As for the rest of your replies, the official name has no bearing on the season. It has a bearing on the races (hence the appearances of the full race titles in Grand Prix articles). I don't fully understand what your last sentence is trying to say, but in any case, saying "it's importance stems from the purpose of being" is equivalent to saying "its importance stems from the fact it exists for a reason". That is not a valid point. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@GyaroMaguus and Joetri10: Please don't use directed language like "You" here. Don't focus on the personalities, focus on the content. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so this is a layered set of questions

  1. Should we keep the Official Race Name?
    1. If so, Should we keep it in the local language?
    2. If so, Should we list the corporate sponsor of the race?

Do I have it right this time? Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I must point out the irony in some editors arguing that those evil foreign names are unacceptable, but the obviously French expression "Grand Prix" is fine. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: Yes, you have it correct.
@HiLo48: "Grand Prix" is the fancy name applied to the races. Like encore and déjà vu, it is a French word that has been fully incorporated into the English language. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no irony in it at all. There is no English term for Grand Prix. Nobody has described the foreign names as "evil" or "unacceptable". It would be best if we could remain moderately serious and accurate in our posts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur is correct; those are the issues at hand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Yes, you have it correct indeed.
@Bretonbanquet: Actually there is an English term for "Grand Prix". It's Grand Prize. For some reason though it never got widely adopted and in English -as opposed to other languages which do translate it. E.g. Gran Premio, Grande Premio, Großer Preis, Gran-Pri, Guranpuri, etc...- the term ”Grand Prix" became universally used mainly because the races held under that name originated in France. A few races were held under the Grand Prize name, however. Tvx1 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Mega, mega-obscure. It has never been used in Formula One. To all intents and purposes there is no equivalent in English. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I'd like to ask, what benefit do we gain by having the individual race events listed as part of the box? Not if we should, but what benefit do we gain by having something like "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014" in the table. This satisfies the first question. If it turns out there is no benefit to having the race name column is eliminated, then questions 2 and 3 are irrelevant. Please keep the responses short. Hasteur (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I have seen, there is no benefit. All it does is acknowledge the "official titles", which are only used by a handful of sources. These are not widely-used names - only the promoters use the full names. All these titles do is name the sponsor and list the names in the local language. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As myself and *JoeTri10_ have pointed out in the original discussion, they are informative and educational. Bearing in mind that this encyclopedia is written for the general public and not solely for Formula 1 enthusiasts who know everything about the sport, the race title column combined with the grand prix column allow that general public to find out the English meaning of such things as Großer Preis von Österreich or Magyar Nagydij. The alternative ways that could exist for the public to find out this information have been proven to be inefficient, ironically enough, mainly by the proponents for removing the column. Tvx1 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no benefit, particularly in this article. This article is about the 2014 F1 season. It is not the purpose of this article to educate readers about the English meaning of the foreign-language race titles, when they already know them in English anyway. What it actually is, is educating people about the foreign names for the races they already know about, and the names of the sponsors, and that is not the point of the article. All that stuff belongs in the generic race articles, and the individual race reports. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Wouldn't we already have the context of knowing the year and that it was a Formula One race from the context of the overall page? For grins and giggles, and the last time the column in question was acutally linked to something was back in the 2009 when half of the column was linked to the corporate sponsor, and the other half was linked to the national grand prix for the hosting country (which was again linked in the next column. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bretonbanquet The purpose is just to educate the general reader about the English meaning of the foreign-language race titles, when they DON'T know them in English anyway. That's one of the things we have been trying to point out in the original discussion and keeps being ignored all together. Tvx1 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but why do the readers need to know about the "English meaning of the foreign-language race titles"? —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Especially if we consider that they are almost never used. If you watch the Hungarian Grand Prix, it is referred to as the Hungarian Grand Prix - not Magyar Nagydij. It has been argued that this is the "official title", but where FOM (the body that manages the commercial side of the sport) uses them, the FIA (the sport's governing body) does not.
And why is it the role of 2014 Formula One season to educate readers about these foreign languages? If someone wants to learn about the Hungarian language, for example, then surely Hungarian language is the most appropriate place for them to go.
Finally, I dispute the idea that alternative methods have "proven to be inefficient". If the Hungarian Grand Prix is known as the Magyar Nagydij in Hungarian, and if it is the only race with a title in Hungarian, then the best place for that Hungarian title is Hungarian Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@TVX1 – It's not being ignored – that argument just doesn't make sense. If the reader doesn't know what they are in English, how on earth will seeing them in a foreign language help them? It's utterly nonsensical. To be frank, if a reader doesn't know what "Spanish Grand Prix" means, a) he isn't going to be on that page anyway, and b) Seeing "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014" is certainly not going to make everything clear to him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So to guide the discusion back to the rails, the only demonstrated reason is to educate random users as to how some races are marketed? If that's the case, I think that at this point the discussion is fairly obvious, so I'm going to propose a solution

Pending a significant justification, including a successful challenge to consensus, as to why we should have the formal name for the race in the calendar section of the Formula One season pages, there exists a consensus that the Race Title column should be removed for the 2014 Formula One season article. This consensus may be extended to other seasons existing prior (or going forward), but should be discussed (as it is a significant change) prior to removal of the column. A discussion for forming a standard for what the calendar should include is remanded back to WikiProject Formula One. The the consensus should not be challanged while the Formula 1 season is underway so as to not be disruptive to the stability of the page.

My justification is thus:

  1. The only thing we get from having the marketing title of the race in the calendar block is pushing ad speak and non-english typography in a already content dense page.
  2. I could have seen a justification for links to the race articles from the column to be removed, but we already have those links in the "Results and Standings" table, so we don't really need a second reiteration of the content. Furthermore the individual race articles are titled in the simplified form (ex: 2013 German Grand Prix for Formula 1 Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland 2013) so having the extra descriptive text serves only to make the page more complicated.
  3. If a random reader/editor comes to the page, they're coming to get information in general about the Formula 1 seson, not to learn how to read the promotional title for the individual races (including the corporate sponsor).

I ask, therefore, if this is a reasonable solution that the parties to the dispute can agree to. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe it to be so. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GM - it is very reasonable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am just going to tag User:Tvx1 and User:Joetri10 again so that they know a proposal has been put forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I cant exactly say no so sure. *JoeTri10_ 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to address the arguments first, because the moderator hasn't understood the correct purpose yet. It's to inform and educate the English meanings of the titles.

I dispute the idea that alternative methods have "proven to be inefficient". If the Hungarian Grand Prix is known as the Magyar Nagydij in Hungarian, and if it is the only race with a title in Hungarian, then the best place for that Hungarian title is Hungarian Grand Prix
— User:Prisonermonkeys

We've discussed this already on the talk page. Proposals were redirects, which has proven to be inefficient, or those languages' wikipedias, which wouldn't work because the random, English-only speaking reader would have to know which Wikipedia to search on beforehand, which we can't assume, and would have to understand those languages, which we are assuming they do not. The same applies to the argument of putting it at Hungarian Grand Prix. The general reader would have to know beforehand to go and search on that article, which we can't assume either.

If the reader doesn't know what they are in English, how on earth will seeing them in a foreign language help them? It's utterly nonsensical. To be frank, if a reader doesn't know what "Spanish Grand Prix" means, a) he isn't going to be on that page anyway, and b) Seeing "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014" is certainly not going to make everything clear to him.
— User:Bretonbanquet

a)We can't assume by rule that they won't, whe should consider and cover the possibility that they will. b) The Race Title column by itself won't make everything clear no. The combined presence of the "Race title" and the "Grand Prix" columns will.
So to sum up I reiterate that the purpose is to convey their English meanings and not the other way round as has been claimed here. I sincerely hope Hasteur will take this into consideration. Tvx1 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1 When the barn is on fire, does it matter that the cows have fled? You're "objection" is that the descriptions in the calendar help convey the meanings where the linkages to the individual races are already covered in the Results sections lower in the article. Frankly that's like saying "We need to have a hose for the pool because the rain has already filled it". Since your position constitiutes the only objection, I am going to close this DRN thread in 24 hours with the consensus proposed above. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That has the same problem as the other solutions. It assumed that the random user knows beforehand which article to be linked to, which we cannot assume. Furthermore, these individual links and the corresponding pages only appear when the season has begun, which is long after the official titles are normally added. To say it with your metaphor. It's like saying: "Get the hose to fill the pools, but with the problem that we don't know which pools have been filled and which have not been." Tvx1 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the titles for the individual races are created using the shortened, english, non-sponsored version as redirects (Ex: 2014 United States Grand Prix or 2014 Australian Grand Prix). Once the window is close, the redirect becomes a full article which does contain the local language and corporate name of the race. If a random editor comes in and starts creating new articles/links, then the normal maintenance activities will clean the cruft correctly. I'm still not seeing a really compelling reason for why we need the titles. I see a 4 to one consensus supporting the current position, and one editor exhibiting behavior reminiscent of "I Didn't Hear That". Hasteur (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (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.

Mindfulness meditation

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.


– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

Disagreement over the External Links policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions over WP:EL til we went around in circles.

How do you think we can help?

Please resolve it according to the spirit and letter of WP:EL. Thanks!

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

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

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

Too soon for this, discussion has barely begun. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

The Frogmen

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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.


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

The Frogmen is a completely fictional movie from the 1950s about a group of US Navy divers during WWII. Anthony Appleyard wrote an "Errata" section describing historical inaccuracies and anachronisms relating to the use of scuba equipment during WWII as depicted in the film. He did not provide any sources that specifically addressed the film making historical inaccuracies. I deleted the section on June 27, 2012, and explained that the section was inappropriate and cited WP:FILMHIST as my reason on the article's Talk page. Anthony Appleyard reverted the deletion that same day, giving a reason in his summary and on the talk page. I redeleted the next day, providing my reasons again in my summary and on the talk page. Appleyard re-added the section on OCtober 26, 2012, renaming it "Plot Faults", his only comment being "Restore, or please discuss" in his edit summary. I deleted this section again on November 19, 2012, giving my reasons for doing so in my edit summary and on the Talk page. Appleyard re-added the section on January 16, 2013, his only comment being "This is relevant to some; or please discuss" in his edit summary. I have redeleted and left a message on his talk page, but given his insistence on re-adding the section despite my repeated citation of Wikipedia policy (WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:FILMHIST) and precedents for arbitration on such sections, I have to assume that he will do what he has done before, which is wait a couple months and then restore the section while ignoring Wikipedia policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have repeatedly explained the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:FILMHIST) and precedents for arbitration on such sections to Appleyard on the talk page, in my edit summary, and have now left him a message on his own talk page.

How do you think we can help?

If uninvolved editors could provide their input on the appropriateness of an "errata", "errors", or "plot faults" section on this work of fiction per Wikipedia policy and precedent, hopefully this dispute would be settled once and for all.

Summary of dispute by Anthony Appleyard

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • OK, OK, sorry, point taken, I will leave it deleted, unless I find a secondary source for it, as stated at Wikipedia:FILMHIST#Historical and scientific accuracies, as has now been pointed out to me. I have been into scuba diving including rebreathers for many years. I was under the impression that it had been re-deleted as trivia, but some things are trivial to some people and not to others. Regretfully I did not see Mmyers1976's later edit comments; some time after the edit I saw that the section had disappeared again; I thought that it was casual removal by miscellaneous editors. Now I know that there was another reason to delete it. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In his first edit comment mentioned here (00:24, 28 June 2012‎ Mmyers1976), the purpose of the link in that message was missed because it was a redlink: wp:filmhist. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Frogmen discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Oscar López Rivera

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

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

Oscar López Rivera is an incarcerated prisoner convicted of crimes including: using force to commit robbery[1], which is considered a violent crime. [2]. Mercy11 continues to insist that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. The available evidence finds that false. Mercy11 continues to revert my edits despite the simple, verifiable data, and using unreliable sources. Other editors such as Lerdthenerd, NickCT, Neosiber, and Froglich have experience similar problems.

We don't discuss conduct here at DRN. Please refrain from doing so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Comment - I'm only very peripherally involved in this debate, and don't have an opinion on the specific content in question. That said, I'd like it noted that a brief review of the article history for Oscar López Rivera immediately brings WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:N questions to mind in relation to User:Mercy11's conduct. I'm thinking this dispute might best be referred to RFC/U. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can file an RFC/U. Go ahead - be my guest. There is a difference between WP:OWN and WP:WATCH which you don't seem to understand. But, please, knock yourself out and be my guest. As for WP:N, you can follow the intructions HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My response to MERCY11 is that he ignores WP:BLPCRIME, which sustains that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery.[see US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.] and then I add: which is considered a violent crime. [which is substantiated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.]

Again, I am trying to keep this simple. Remember, the article now states. López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. Again this is false, untrue.

MERCY11 claims that this violates WP:SYN putatively because it recreates the "A and B, therefore C" construction referenced in that section. He is committing a logical fallacy. My argument is that A did A1, A1 is entirely equal to B, therefore it can be said that A did B. The example used in WP:SYN differs in that it does not link logical statements like this. It would be like saying: that even if I can source the follow two statements:

  • The marathon race in city X is 26.2 miles long.
  • 26.2 miles is the identical length as 42 kilometers.

That I could not say The marathon race in city X is 42 kilometers long.

MERCY11 is practicing WP:SYNTHNOT or to quote:

  • SYNTH is not an advocacy tool. MERCY11 is using SYNTH to advocate that OLR did not committ violence.
  • SYNTH is not presumed that is that people accusing other of synthesis should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. Here's the problem for MERCY11. The first source I use states OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and the second states, robbery is a violent crime. He needs to establish why this is not verified by the sources. The problem is that these facts make his conclusion as presently stated in the article untrue and false.

In addition, I challenge the reliability of MERCY11 sources and his use of biased sources. For example, the title of the source he cites is a newspaper article that claims: Arecibo clamó por la libertad de Oscar (in English: (the city of) Arecibo clamors for the liberty of Oscar). I rarely consider documents that claim that a "city clamors" to be reliable. I think that article is equally in error to claim that he was never accused of violent acts. As I state, he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. The FBI source I quoted described these as armed robberies, but to make things simpler and only use the language of my source (US Department of Justice) I now only use that phrase of using force to commit robbery. However, he was convicted of a violent act.

Again, I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of whether OLR should be released. However, I do not think that should excuse MERCY11 from obscuring facts. And it is a fact, by this mere conviction for robbery that OLR was convicted of a violent crime. Notice that I am not saying seditious conspiracy and interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, two of his other conditions are violent crimes. I do not know if they are classified as violent crimes. However, using force to commit robbery is classified as a violent crime by the United States, and OLR was convicted of this.

Much seems to made of the false claims that OLR never practiced violence, including by the Arecibo newspaper, but as in that article it is made in order to support a clamor for his pardon. It is advocacy. My statements do not advocate an opinion, the just state the facts. (see WP:ASSERT). My challenge to MERCY11 is to establish that the Department of Justice document does not state that OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and that this is not indisputably equal in the eyes of the US Justice System (in which OLR lived by choice) to a violent crime.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have altered the citations to reliable sources to two simple reliable sources. I have discussed my changes in the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The answer here is fairly simple. If OLR was convicted of robbery & robbery is a violent crime, then OLR was convicted of a violent crime. I accept President Clinton's assertion that FALN members were not convicted on causing "bodily harm or killing", but the violent crime conviction stands. This case has generated some frenzied partisanship. I am only interested in the assertion of this skeletal fact. I am fairly certain that outside intervention will be needed to resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

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

The editor was reverted because he violated WP:BLP. None of his citations (US Parole Commission; Bureau of Justice Statistics) state what he is trying to push HERE, that "While not causing bodily harm through any of his convictions, Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime" . The issue here is his obsession with linking Oscar Lopez Rivera (OLR) with committing a "violent crime" and qualifying the subject's biography with the words "violent crime" when his sources do not use those words. The editor was not content with stating that "Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery" but he then goes on to editorialize that, with the dangling add-on "a violent crime." THIS source, among the other 4 given in the article, states "nunca fue acusado por actos violentos" (Goggle translation: "was never charged with violent acts"). To achieve a re-write of history, the editor resorted to OR via WP:SYN, which is best appreciated in his words:

"the references used to substantiate the statements in the article...fail to address the simple, straightfoward statements I have set forth:

OLR was convicted of use of force to commit robbery.
Use of force to commit robbery is a violent crime.

OLR was convicted of a violent crime."

Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The editor no only failed to do that, but also -conveniently- insists in removing HERE sourced material that states just the opposite of his original research, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. If the editor's claim that the subject committed "a violent crime" was the case, then, per WP:V, "some [WP:RS] would probably already have reported it so". Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". As such, he was reverted. Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sarason

Oscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court transcripts and the court’s own written opinion said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. Ill.).

With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [14]

In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote:

“Oscar Lopez Rivera is imprisoned for the “crime” (his quotation marks) of seditious conspiracy: conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial justice…My Nobel Peace laureate colleagues Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and I expressed our deep concern about the highly irregular and tainted parole hearing that had just taken place. Testimony was permitted at that hearing regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing in the first place.” See: Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, p. iv.

You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, supported by two more Nobel Peace Prize winners, specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.” Sarason (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar López Rivera discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Thanks Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) and Mercy11 (talk · contribs) for participating. Technically I should wait for Sarason (talk · contribs) to reply, but I am making an exception because the discussion seems to be underway. I will notify this user via talk page. I have moved the comments of Rococo1700 to the opening section of the dispute for clarity. In future, please do not state anything in the discussion section of a dispute before a volunteer has opened the discussion, as it creates confusion. Let me begin with some preliminaries. (1) DRN is meant for discussion about content and not conduct. (2) Assume good faith on the part of all participants. (3) Be civil in everything you say and (4) Please adjust to the pace of DRN. We the volunteers prefer to do some research so that we can address all parties in a comprehensive manner. I have gone through the comments made here and the talk page and the way I understand things, Mercy11 is opposed to the inclusion of the words violent crimes in the description of the conviction of Oscar López Rivera and is accusing Rococo1700 of WP:SYNTH for doing so. At the outset, let me clarify, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury and will focus merely on the inclusion of the content. I have asked for comments from editors of a Wiki Project Criminal Biography in the talk page of the article. As these editors have experience working on such biographies, lets wait for their comments before deciding the next course of action. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. I note that Sarason (talk · contribs) has not replied to the request on his talk page. Technically the statement quoted by Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) (i.e. Oscar López Rivera is convicted of violent crimes) has to be removed from the article, not because of WP:SYNTH but because of WP:PRIMARY. Court documents such as court rulings, US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011, Department of Justice document etc. are all Primary sources of information. Reliable secondary and tertiary sources include books, magazines, journals etc. Rococo do you have any reliable secondary sources that say that Oscar López Rivera was convicted of violent crimes? --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sarason (talk · contribs) for your inputs. Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) we now have a reliable source [3] which states (Oscar Lopez Rivera).. is imprisoned for the “crime” of seditious conspiracy, again the quote is from the original text. I tried looking up the subject and found another [4] source which says that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government of US by force, but again does not include the term violent crime in its description of charges. A book by Joy James [5] adds armed robbery and lesser charges to conspiracy charges but does not include violent crime anywhere in its description. All three authors focus more on the conspiracy angle and stay clear from concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime. This list would not include the Huffington Post article[6]which states López Rivera was convicted on conspiracy charges and was not linked to any deaths or injuries related to the bombings (emphasis is mine). Concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there. Would there be anything I missed, or you would like to highlight otherwise? --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.
  2. ^ Beaureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.
  3. ^ Osacar Lopez Rivera (1 February 2013). Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance. PM Press. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-1-60486-833-3.
  4. ^ Hal Marcovitz (February 2000). Terrorism. Infobase Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7910-5264-8.
  5. ^ Joy James (20 July 2007). Warfare in the American Homeland: Policing and Prison in a Penal Democracy. Duke University Press. p. 159. ISBN 0-8223-3923-4.
  6. ^ Marentes, Luis A. "On Questions of Status: Puerto Rico's Relation to the U.S. and Oscar López Rivera's Fate". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/. Retrieved 12 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
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.

Los Angeles Film School

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


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 mistakenly thought Wiki was accurate an then found myself spreading false information which was contained in the article--I miss informed people that they lost their accreditation. Upon further investigation -- including phone calls directly to the source (the accrediting bodies--links provided), I learned the school NEVER had their accreditation revoked. This is DIRECT from the source. I also added and sources that the school is nationally accredited. I provided sources and they were removed.

This false information is cause serious damage.

Additionally, there is speculation of a class action lawsuit. This lawsuit was "proposed". I dug further to find direct links to a "class action lawsuit by students". While there were blogs of speculation -- all links to credible news sources where broken. Another link led to an irrelevant story about a farmers market.

I only want accurate information. IF their was a class action law suit filed, I need a link to an actual news sources / court documents. Not blogs, or "proposed" lawsuits.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provided links to actual direct sources. Posted on talk pages--this only caused the other editor to become heated.

How do you think we can help?

Accuracy is my number 1 priority. It appears there is malicious intent with the steadfastness to false info.

1)ACCET - never revoked accreditation. I went so far as to call their headquarters.

2)The college is accredideted by the ACCSC

3)No class action suit was actually filed (at least not from research)

4) NOTE: there was a lawsuit from employees - I did not delete this link. The other law suit referenced is what appears false (student class action).


Summary of dispute by

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

Los Angeles Film School discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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_90&oldid=1232500606"