This looks to have been resolved below, and discussion has died out over the last few days, so I am closing this. If anyone is still not satisfied with the compromise wording that Steven Zhang suggested below, then I suggest talking it out some more on Talk:Thanksgiving, and if necessary bringing it to the Mediation Cabal or an RfC. Best regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There is a months long dispute in this article about the lede. The very short lede, in the opinion of several editors over the months, is deficient in not summarizing the content of the article. Apparently, there are some editors (Glider87 and Fnagaton) who are adamant that nothing remotely religious be in the lede. The problem with that is the article mostly discusses the origins of this holiday, including religious origins. See, Talk:Thanksgiving#Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution for the most recent discussion. Anupam is accused of pushing POV in the opposite direction. Generally, odd policy rationales, threats of dire wiki consequences, obsessive focus on the history of the dispute instead of moving forward, etc. seem to be employed in the service of preventing progress. In addition, recently, Smallbones has suggested that Glider87 and Fnagaton are single issue editors.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Thanksgiving}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Lots of talk on the talk page. There was an RfC by Anupam, where no conclusion was reached. I most recently requested mediation to no avail.
How do you think we can help?
Provide guidance on relevant policy, and help restore reasoned discussion, in the service of making progress on the article.
A part of this discussion has been archived. The discussion is still active below—please add your comments there. Click "Show" to see the part of the discussion that has been archived.
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
OK, there's a lot to read through. My initial thoughts after reading the article at present is that there is minimal mention of the religious aspects in the article at present, so it doesn't make sense to me to add that information in the lede of the article. A lead section summarizes the content of the article, it shouldn't add detail that's not already in the article further down. I did come across this version of the article from 2010 which may be suitable, however. It does detail the historic religious aspects of Thanksgiving, which is cited to a few references (and if troubles occur there, you can always be super formal and phrase it along the lines of "X source says that Thanksgiving initially was a religious thing" or something of that structure (X source says Y about Z). Give that a go, see what you can work out. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!10:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. When you refer to the 2010 article, the second sentence of the body of the article reads: "Typically in Europe, festivals were held before and after the harvest cycles to give thanks to God for a good harvest, to rejoice together after much hard work with the rest of the community." citing, Morill, Ann "Thanksgiving and Other Harvest Festivals" Infobase Publishing, ISBN1-6041-3096-2 p.28. Apparently, that has been edited in the present article by at some point deleting "to God" but not the citation. The rest of the first paragraph discusses transfering that thanksgiving tradition to the "new world" using the same source. Can we tell when that was done to see if there was any discussion about it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If you have a look through the history of the article, you'd be able to find it eventually. I'm at work today, so I unfortunately don't have the time to find the edit myself. If you do find it, poke me and let me know. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like there should be an easier way but this is it [1] done by an IP last August without explanation or disussion. Also, btw, another user named User:Kenatipo reinserted it sometime today. I don't recognize the User. At any rate, it seems this edit at the top of body of the article makes explicit what may otherwise be implicit about historical associations of "thanksgiving." Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
To add to what Steven said, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the article. This means it should cover all of the important facts, but avoid going into too much detail. There is very little mention of the religion origins of the holiday in the article, so it should probably not be in the lead. However, if more information (reliably sourced) about religious origins can be found, there may be scope for its mention in the lead. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)11:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I had thought there was (still) enough about religiuos tradition in the current article to give brief mention in the lead but perhaps the focus should be to discuss restoring some of the information that was deleted, as Steven suggests above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't made an edit to the actual article until 3 very short edits this week. But I had noticed a very bizarre thing about the article and pretty nasty stuff on the talk page a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving and since. The bizarre thing about the article was that its obvious religious origins were almost completely missing - folks do know that it is named after a religious service, don't they? On the talk page it was all about bullying behavior and an RfC that was used only to confuse matters and bully further. In any case I've included a couple of very reliable sources under further reading and will get around eventually to including the material in the body of the article and then the lede. Please don't be complete sticklers though - sometimes it's a bit easier to organize things by editing the lede then adding material to the body! And just to underline the facts - there is no doubt that the holiday has religious origins. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User:Smallbones on this issue. A small group of individuals are pushing for the complete removal of the religious origins of the holiday as well as the modern practices associated with the holiday. The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 7 states that:
Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer. It is celebrated in the United States and Canada.
Similarly, the Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 states:
Thanksgiving Day is the day set apart for special services in the churches for expression of the gratefulness of the people for the benefits bestowed by the Almighty: it is the day, too, of home-comings and family reunions in the genial warmth of the spirit of the season; the day of bountiful feasts graced by turkeys and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pies, in deference to a custom almost as old as the coming of the pilgrim fathers, for it was with them that it originated.
It makes no sense to remove information a critical piece of information from the lede when other reliable sources explicitly mention the religious origins of the holiday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Steven Zhang, thanks for your suggestion. Many individuals still observe Thanksgiving by saying Thanksgiving grace and attending prayer services and masses. Moreover the official presidential proclamations still pay homage to God. As a result, I think it would be more accurate to state that the holiday involves a mix of religious and secular attitudes and observances; another option would be to remove the third sentence from the introduction you suggested altogether. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that some form of religious roots are all but implicit in the name itself. I have never encountered anything in reliable sources to the effect that the Puritans were being "thankful" to the Indians for their help. That being the case, and the rather obviously religious nature of the Plymouth colony itself, it strikes me as being an all but unarguable reference to their being "thankful" to their god. I grant that, over time, the religious element has to some degree been downplayed, and perhaps, given the secular nature of modern society, rightly so, but that is a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Anupam and John. To eliminate the historical religious origin and present day religious context of Thanksgiving does a tremendous disservice to the reader. Is this more Wiki-correctness or just foolishmess? The sources substantiating the religious nature of the holiday are plentiful. – Lionel(talk)10:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your follow up comments User:Geremia, User:John Carter, and User:Lionelt. It seems like we have agreement here on the issue at hand. How would it sound if we used User:Johnlumea's sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday."? I look forward to all of your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I might tweak the sentence a little, saying something to the effect of a variety of traditions and activities have developed, both secular and religious, but think the idea in general is a good one. John Carter (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:John Carter, your suggestion sounds fine to me. Would you mind proposing the exact sentence you had in mind below? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Generally agree with John and Steven and I would consider keeping the present first sentence of the lede and inserting "secular" before holiday. Then summarizing the history sections in the lede like a variation on Johnlumea, including religious, and then go to present day observance, but as of right now there is relatively little in the body of article about the present day that is reliably sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Alanscottwalker, since the word "secular" is mentioned in the sentence that User:John Carter proposed, I might suggest we use the adjective "civil." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would not recommend the word being used twice. But the problem I see is the article still does not much discuss the present. So, the focus for the lead would still generally have to be on the history, after the introduction of it as an at present officially secular holiday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments User:Alanscottwalker. Exactly, if we use the adjective "secular" as an adjective before holiday, then the word will be used twice as it will already be used in the sentence that User:John Carter suggested. This is why I recommended the word "civil." What User:John Cater, User:Lionelt, User:Geremia, and I seemed to agree upon is that the holiday in its present form incorporates both religious and secular traditions. The article about Thanksgiving in the United States includes a section on the religious practice of "Giving Thanks" as is practiced today. Moreover, all the official presidential proclamations to date acknowledge "Almighty God" (see reference). As such, we must not christen the holiday as being "officially religious" or "officially secular." In actuality, the holiday incorporates both aspects for many people (Thanksgiving grace, worship services, family reunions, parades, etc.). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying all along. The holiday is BOTH religious and secular. Moreover it originated as a religious holiday. WP:DUE requires that this be represented in the article. I think Anupam's proposal is reasonable. – Lionel(talk)00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the same kind of miscommunication plagued the talk page. Again, I'm not suggesting it be used twice, only once. The holiday is legally secular in both the United States and Canada because that's what their laws require. No government official in those countries is going to tell anyone they have to pray or otherwise observe the holiday in any particular manner. Anupam then refers to another article and other things that are not in this article, but because they are not in this article they cannot be in the lead of this article. Is that clear? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly why we are not labeling this a secular or religious holiday, but rather, a civil one. The holiday incorporates both religious and secular customs as I demonstrated above and therefore, as User:Lionelt and User:John Carter suggested, the sentence will state something to the effect of "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." (Yes, the word, secular is included). On a side note, were you aware that the United States has a government holiday called the National Day of Prayer? Is that secular or religious? This example illustrates why the word "civil" might be a better adjective to use before the word "holiday." I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you ask about the National Day of Prayer. That has nothing to do with Thanksgiving (let alone, Thanksgiving in the United States and Canada) and it's also secular in that its not requiring anyone to pray or do anything at all. It's also not a legally secular holiday because its not a holiday. Finally, where are "approaches, practices and responses," discussed in depth in the article? The article discusses origins and history in depth but little else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you comments Alan, but I do not perceive an objection to Anupam's proposal. On that note, we should go ahead with the change we have heretofore discussed. – Lionel(talk)03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As long as edit warring doesn't break out as is currently the case, for which I primarily blame Anupam for reverting and not raising the issue on the talk page, after doing so. Reasoned compromise is what is really needed here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If you read my edit summary, it stated: "please take part in the dispute resolution and wait until consensus is reached & administrative closure before making contentious changes." However, User:Glider87 did not make any comment here regarding the modification of the lede. Instead, he chose to edit war and was correctly reverted by User:Lionelt. User:Glider87 did not offer even one comment here despite the fact that he was notified of the DR discussion on 28 January 2011. Who should be chastised for reverting? I've been discussing the introduction here for days, and User:Glider87 has not made even one comment to try to compromise or reach consensus at DR and so he's now allowed to freely modify the lede to suit his own wishes? If that's the case what's the point of even having a Dispute Resolution? I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work. I hope this clears things up. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to talk on the article talk page not here because it keeps involved editors aware of the situation. Anupam you did blanket revert some better changes instead of talking about it. You quickly reverted twice then Lionelt quickly appeared and also reverted twice. Your reverts and Lionelt's were then correctly reverted by someone else with the comment "rv religious POV pushing per talk page -- this is getting ridiculous people, I thought you guys would have given up this nonsense by now". I'm not the only one who sees religious POV pushing, per the talk page many people do. Anupam you started a RfC pushing a religious point of view and were correctly told that it was against policy. Even now after many weeks you are still pushing the same religious point of view here and that is not in line with policy about neutrality. Consensus does not have to wait for people who always push the same point of view in an article. This is not a forum for anyone to push a religious point of view and get their own way. If you want to talk about productive changes that are within the scope of Wikipedia policies then I think talking on the article talk page is best. You can find me there. I agree with Alanscottwalker about inserting "secular" before holiday and also agree with Alanscottwalker that using the word "civil" instead would be confusing to the reader. The modern holiday is secular so the lede should definitely contain that word. Glider87 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think to get some productivity out of this discussion, and to allow the editors affected to go back to editing Wikipedia positively—I will hold a straw poll below where you can vote your opinion on key topics. Whenaxistalk·contribs00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Break
Sorry, I'm going to be a bit extreme here, but I don't think a straw poll is the way to go here (hence why I have removed it). All significant points of view should be proportionately represented in an article, as covered by reliable sources. The article does detail the history of Thanksgiving, which according to the reliable sources presented both in the article and here indeed had religious aspects. It's therefore my opinion that this information shouldn't be cut out of the article, just because some don't like it. Detail that it originally had religious aspects, but has become more of a secular holiday, but I think it would be unwise, and indeed inaccurate, to state that it's always been just a secular holiday. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that Anupam won't agree to the lede detailing Thanksgiving "has become more of a secular holiday". He objects to anything that correctly points out this fact. He only wants to add religious history to the lede in a way that implies the holiday is still religious when it isn't, clearly against neutrality. For examples of this look at the option 1 he proposed in the RfC which was correctly called out as being far too pointy. Glider87 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No, you're incorrect. I proposed a sentence here that points out both aspects of the holiday, fulfilling WP:NPOV: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." Thus far, User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia have agreed with this statement. I look forward to the comments of others on this matter. With regards, AnupamTalk03:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The version you proposed did not use the wording "has become more of a secular holiday" and it failed to give due weight to the modern majority secular nature of the modern holiday and by doing so gave undue bias to the religious aspect. Your version reads like this "Societies over time developed a mixture of beliefs that the Earth is flat or round" without giving the reader the correct due weight about the current situation. As said before to push the religious point over and above the modern majority secular position is not neutral. To make your proposal begin to follow the policy about neutrality would have to read more like this "Modern Thanksgiving is more of a secular holiday, however in the past societies that celebrate Thanksgiving developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday". That version begins to give due weight where it is due. Glider87 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like you remind you all to keep things focused on the dispute, rather than the editors involved. I stand by my recommendation, to use a variant such as "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." or something similar. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!04:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A point, not all countries that celebrate Thanksgiving had religious origins, some give thanks for labor and production, some give thanks for liberation of their country etc. To reflect that it would have to be something like "While Thanksgiving in some countries originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today it is primarily identified as a secular holiday". Glider87 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that could work, yes. But you could incorporate the rest in as well. Say, something like "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." I'd also advise against removal of aspects relating to the religious elements in the history section of the article. How does that work? (Might need a bit of a c/e though) StevenZhangJoin the DR army!04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Steven Zhang, I can accept most of your sentence. "Religious deities" seems like a nonsensical term to me; why not just say "God"? Therefore the sentence would read "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to God, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." If you accept this, you can add it in the lede of the Thanksgiving article and then make a note on the talk page saying that this dispute was resolved at DR. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that quite gets to it, Steve. So, to "ce" (ie. total rewrite), I would rather suggest keeping the current lead and adding to it: :::::::
"Thanksgiving has roots in religious traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances."
This proposal embodies the major thrust of the current article,and applies in major parts to all countries mentioned. The focus and almost ALL of the article, as it currently stands is Canada and the US and their history of "thanksgiving" celebrations. There are a small group of other countries, with tiny entries. Liberia, a majority Christian nation, (and by its article account, it is still very religious legally and culturally) was a U.S. colony and was run by emigrants from the United States; Japan, (which has practically no entry currently) has its roots in Shinto/Buddhist/Emperor worship religious harvest festival and was in present form, "Labor Thanksgiving," adopted during the occupation by the United States, after WWII. Even, the almost uniformly Christian majority nation of Grenada (whose entry is very short sentence or two) adopted its holiday in response to a US invasion. There is also a church worship service in the Netherlands, commemorating the history of the U.S. thanksgiving. That's basically it. Thoughts Steve? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think that works. I used "religious deities" covers pretty much all possibilities. Not all are Christians, even if it's the majority, I would think a neutrally worded term like religious deities would be most appropriate here. The fact that the Thanksgiving article at present concentrates on the United States/Canadian perspective does not mean that we should do the same with the lede. We should try to write all articles in a worldwide perspective. Normally the lede would be written after the article is complete (read: Information on other areas that celebrate Thanksgiving) is entered into the article, but in this situation I don't see a major issue with writing up the lede first. I can help with finding reliable sources later, but this issue is focused on the lede, and I think that the lede I proposed would cover all aspects adequately. Regards, StevenZhangJoin the DR army!01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that comment makes much sense. We're talking about a holiday in a few countries, primarily in Canada and the US called Thanksgiving. If you want to write an entirely different article go ahead but you've lost the topic completely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede states that "Several other places around the world observe similar celebrations." I only have access to limited internet at present so cannot find reliable sources, but I stand by my comment that a term like "religious deities" is preferable to "God". It's more inclusive. Thanksgiving originally had religious connotations, that has been demonstrated by reliable sources, but the lede shouldn't be about Christianity vs other religions. For example Japan, as you stated above, "has its roots in Shinto/Buddhist/Emperor worship religious harvest". Not everywhere that observed Thanksgiving in the past as a religious holiday were Christian. That's all I'm saying, and is why I think my proposed lede may be the best solution here. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!03:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, then we should wait to see what you come up with on all these other supposed Thanksgiving holidays but if you reread my proposal it doens't mention God or Christianity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Note to new DR clerk: Looks like we need buy-in from, at least, Glider87, if possible, for my last proposal. Also, is there a way to append this to the talk page whenever it's done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Y I'll take over this DRN discussion for you, Steve, since Steve will be taking a much needed break from Wikipedia. To the parties: Just let me review the DRN discussion and I hope we can all resolve this dispute soon and bring closure. For starters, I will immediately address Alnscottwalker's concerns above. Whenaxistalk·contribs21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This proposal is nearly there but I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much, according to the article there is some controversy about how widely accepted the religious roots are. For example some of the sources I've seen reject the idea that the original Thanksgiving in the US was even religious. Glider87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The sources are already in the article. The article sources already mention that the Canada and US versions of Thanksgiving might not even be relgiious. So I find myself leaning towards something more like Steven's version to be honest, I don't think it needed copyediting. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Section break 2
How about another suggestion: "Thanksgiving has significance for both religious and secular aspects, as it is recognized in that way across the World." And then after, a one-sentence explanation on the religious aspects and a one-sentence explanation on the secular aspects. How does that do? Whenaxistalk·contribs01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that's too open to interpretation, it doesn't make the due weight obvious enough. As Steven said Thanksgiving "today is primarily identified as a secular holiday".Glider87 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But for the sake of compromise, I would suggest using a neutral version between both points-of-view. Who knows—maybe there are people elsewhere in the World who celebrate Thanksgiving as a religious holiday. I'm going to make an assumption that the parties to this dispute are telling from their own experiences and how they were raised knowing about Thanksgiving. So, even though, Thanksgiving is primarily identified as a secular holiday, there is still a visible minority that celebrates it as a religious holiday. For example, to a greater extent, Christmas is a religious holiday for Christians but is a secular holiday for the rest of the population, we can adapt to the lede provided there: Christmas. Whenaxistalk·contribs02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Whenaxis, I agree with your approach - your sentence is brilliant and I support it. I offered the sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." This is very similar to the sentence you offered. In this way, both the religious aspects (giving thanks, worship services) and secular aspects (reunions, football games, parades) are acknowledged. User:Glider87's suggestion is incorrect because it does not acknowledge that for many individuals, the holiday is still a religious one; to fulfill WP:NPOV, we need to acknowledge that Thanksgiving has both religious and secular aspects. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anupam you are incorrect because your version doesn't apply due weight and I pointed out why before, I ask you to not keep on repeating the same already refuted arguments. For me Whenaxis's approach is moving away from something that is workable rather than towards it. Moving back towards Steven's version would be the way forward. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing the archive again, Steven's suggestion "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is even closer to WP:DUE than the other version. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I prefer User:Whenaxis' version better as it fulfills WP:NPOV, both neutrally mentioning that the holiday has both religious and secular aspects. User:Whenaxis, your version also resounds with information from Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 on Thanksgiving:
Thanksgiving Day is the day set apart for special services in the churches for expression of the gratefulness of the people for the benefits bestowed by the Almighty: it is the day, too, of home-comings and family reunions in the genial warmth of the spirit of the season; the day of bountiful feasts graced by turkeys and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pies, in deference to a custom almost as old as the coming of the pilgrim fathers, for it was with them that it originated.
User:Whenaxis, I am looking forward to the comments of other editors on your version. Thus far, it is the most concise and most neutral version proposed! With regards, AnupamTalk03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I note that it would be unwise to try and play us off each other. We're here to help and work as a team. Glider87 prefers one version, Anupam prefers another version. So we need to work towards a verson that works for all involved. Feel free to use User:Steven Zhang/Proposals to come up with something that works for you. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anupam I already explained why your proposal doesn't follow the policy about neutrality. The policy about neutrality doesn't mean "neutrally mentioning" it actually means giving due weight. That's why Steven's version is much better. Again I must ask you to not keep on repeating your old refuted arguments. Glider87 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis' proposal seems like a way to make it past this impasse. We cannot be stubborn. Compromise is an essential part of consensus. You see that, don't you, Glider? Whenaxis' suggestion is a compromise I can live with and should be implemented post haste. – Lionel(talk)07:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You cannot compromise on interpreting policy. The proposal violates policy so it is a policy issue, not a simple content dispute. I've explained at great length why it violates policy. So far not a single counter arugment has been made on the basis of policy, only comments saying "I like it!" which frankly isn't good enough for generating a good consensus. This is because consensus has to be arrived at by making good choices not "I like it!" choices. Bad choices would be, for example, repeatedly proposing things which do not address the previously mentioned concerns about policy. I would point out that repeatedly proposing things which do not address valid policy concerns is not compromise either. Glider87 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This proposal by User:Steven Zhang "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is the least biased version so far so I would go with that. The two recent proposals in this "Section break 2" do not represent the article so are not suitable. Christmas is not similar enough to Thanksgiving for a comparison to be made. Fnagaton07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I'll read over this and discuss tomorrow. Just shows what one day off does :-p. Will comment tomorrow (like in 10 hours) but I would note I think comments like "I prefer this compromise" and "I prefer that compromise". A compromise is something you all can agree on. If you can't agree on it, then it's not a compromise then, is it? I also note that we are not obliged to contravene policies in order to settle a dispute. Not saying that's happened here, just noting it. I've also seen very few reliable sources presented. The one referred to above may be reliable, but it doesn't appear to be an impartial source. Now, don't kill each other while I sleep :-) 60.242.141.102 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that Thanksgiving has more of a secular aspect to it nowadays, but it still may be as important to those who recognize it as a religious holiday. I respect both parties' point-of-view, and those of you who keep pushing your POV, should look at it from the other's perspective. Christmas was just an example of how compromise would look like between religious and secular. It's impossible to come to a consensus or move further from a dispute without having compromise. Compromise is something that is acceptable by all parties, not necessarily something that all parties want. Whenaxistalk·contribs21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with the characterization "those of you who keep pushing your POV" because it isn't pushing a POV to insist that policy about neutrality and due weight is followed in the article. It is pushing a POV to insist that the religious claims should be inserted into the lede without due weight given. It doesn't matter if someone religious thinks religion is important to add to the article lede because of their version of Thanksgiving, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be produced with that kind of personal bias. I'm religious and I am still able to logically see that what Anupam proposed is contrary to Wikipedia policies. I also realise that Wikipedia policies are there for the benefit of everyone, not just the religious. Anupam and others needs to separate the religious beliefs with what the facts actually say. Wikipedia articles report the world how it is and not how religious people want it to be. Respecting the other parties' point-of-view does not mean automatically allowing their biased point of view into the article lede. I respect Anupam's beliefs but his beliefs are still not allowed to be forced into the article lede just because he believes them. If you allow "respect both parties' point-of-view" thinking to mean inclusion of beliefs into articles then you would end up with the article on Earth mentioning in the lede that the Earth is still considered to be flat, just to please those who still believe such things. Which is no good for an encyclopedia and also contrary to policy. The article on Christmas is not a good example to use for this article since the two subjects are not the same. As I said before, many times, Anupam's proposals do not include due weight and allow the reader to incorrectly assume that Thanksgiving is religious, some of them are obviously pointy in the extreme as was mentioned on the article talk page and the RfC. His proposals therefore fail Wikipedia policy tests which is why I disagree with them. My disagreement is only based on Wikipedia policy and isn't based on anything else. Glider87 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that all realize that there are many ways to phrase an article that complies with policy, not just one way. Also, rigidness in maintaining that there is only one way to apply policy to an article is not going to achieve anything worthwhile because it is not an accurate statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Glider87, what ideas do you have on making the lede acceptable by policy and encompasses both points-of-views? Maybe then we can find a compromise between my suggestion, Steve's suggestion and your suggestion. Whenaxistalk·contribs21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion would be Steve's suggestion, I cannot think on how it could be improved beyond what it currently says and also have it within policy. If you cannot suggest something that is better and also follows policy I suggest we use that proposal. Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I prefer User:Whenaxis' version because it takes into account that religious traditions (such as giving thanks, the presidential proclamations which reference God, and church services) are still commonplace. At the same time, it acknowledges that Thanksgiving has a secular aspect as well. User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia supported this assertion as well. Not to single him/her out but, User:Glider87, found mention of Jesus in the lede for the Christmas Eve article to be "against policy" as well and his position was soundly refuted when an RfC was held (the RfC was closed, with the administrator stating "anyone who disagrees, please go get your vision checked." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Anupam as already explained what you prefer does not give due weight so it is not up for consideration. What you "prefer" is also not an objection based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday."? By the way you didn't tell me you had called for an RfC to allow me to argue my case instead of misrepresenting what I wrote. So your RfC is invalid since it did not follow process. You also completely missed the point that I was teaching you about reliable sources. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
My take on the lede I proposed is that it details that it is primarialy identified as a secular holiday, though other aspects remain. Alternatively, you could use something like "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. In modern times, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday, though to an extent other observances remain" or something similar. How's that? StevenZhangJoin the DR army!04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
What country has a holiday called Thanksgiving that celebrates its Independence? Who or what was being thanked for the harvest you talk about? What are you talking about? You are either being unaccountably vague or strangely obscure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the harvest, see Labor Thanksgiving Day which is detailed in the article. Also see this portion of the article as an example, Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages. As for the independence bit, I was sure I read it in the article at some point, but can't see it anymore. That portion can always be removed. At this point, it seems you are starting to argue with the mediators here as well. I don't think that's a wise course of action to take. We're here to help. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, we are here to come to reasoned consensus that's generally done by relying on sources and presenting them faithfully in the article. And with sticking with what you have previously said is reasonable. So, questioning what you don't find in the article or sources is bound to happen. We are agreed then that independence is not mentioned, which is why I asked the question. With respect to Labor Thanksgiving, as I pointed out to you above, yes it has a religious analog. Who or what were the Europeans (god), voyagers (god) or Indians(great spirit) thanking? That's why I proposed this to cover all of that.
"Thanksgiving has roots in religious traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances."
I don't approve of that, I approve of Steven's version that I quoted earlier on. I ask that you try to improve Steven's version without loosing the message it conveys. With regard to labor day Thanksgiving it isn't thanks to God or some other "great spirit" it is thanks to one another, it isn't religious, it is entirely secular.Glider87 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is starting to become rather long. The Thanksgiving article at this point states, in the history section "Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages." The Labor Thanksgiving article says in the second sentence of the lede The law establishing the holiday cites it as an occasion for commemorating labor and production and giving one another thanks. I think this details that there is more than one reason for thanksgiving apart from religious concerns. I also note my concern about points of view here. When this issue first came to DRN, there was very little religious detail in the article, and now it's changing to the other end of the spectrum. I think my lede section is a fine balance based on the reliable sources presented in the article. I don't think continuing to discuss the same points over is going to be productive, either. If we cannot come to a resolution then I would recommend mediation be pursued so the issues can be analysed in detail. Regards, StevenZhangJoin the DR army!00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker you are wrong to claim Labor Thanksgiving has religious roots, it doesn't, it is a 100% secular event. In relation to your proposal I did say why I disapprove of your proposal in my comment starting with "I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much" at 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)". Later on I came to think Steven's version was better and I still think Steven's version is the best option.Glider87 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what I was referring to with respect to Labor Thanksgiving Day. Almost the entire History section says: "Labor Thanksgiving Day is the modern name for an ancient cereals (rice, barley/wheat, foxtail millet, barnyard millet, proso millet, and beans) harvest festival known as Niiname-sai (新嘗祭?). The Nihon Shoki mentions a harvest ritual having taken place during the reign of the legendary Emperor Jimmu (660–585 BCE), as well as more formalized harvest celebrations during the reign of Emperor Seinei(480–484 CE). Modern scholars can date the basic forms of niiname-sai to the time of Emperor Temmu (667–686 CE).[1] Traditionally, it celebrated the year's hard work; during the Niiname-sai ceremony, the Emperor would dedicate the year's harvest to kami (spirits), and taste the rice for the first time." Kami are spirits in the Shinto religion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker I will ask you the same question I asked Anupam, do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal?Glider87 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong on two counts. First you don't say what specifically, you just made a vague claim without proof. Secondly as Steven already showed every point in the proposal includes information from the article. Glider87 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I could go with:
"Thanksgiving has roots in religious and other traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances." [adding "and other" before "traditions" in the first sentence.]
That works, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I do think I detailed where the other aspects of thanksgiving was described, mainly, the last paragraph in the section below the lede in te article. I feel we are going in circles. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You've also admitted it had things not in the article. I will also point out that nowhere does that section mention deities. So, are you insisting on your sentence? Because if you are then this DR has failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I am suggesting a compromise. I am not insisting on my sentence, but I do think it is a well-formulated sentence. It doesn't say deities, it mentions God as well as other religious beings, so deities is the correct term I think. I'll see what other DR users think we should do here. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are interested in compromise, I find it quite odd you don't directly address my proposals. The first time I made one you talked about God and Christianity, when my proposal said neither of those things. Until finally you said it is acceptable. This time you just ignore it, altogether. So, we appear to have communication failures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
How about this? "Thanksgiving has roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is often celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." StevenZhangJoin the DR army!22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Just phrasing-wise I would substitute "various" for "other." But looks fine to me. Although. I was particularly interested in tying capital "T" Thanksgiving with small "t" thanksgiving for etymology reasons, that can slide, if necessary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say this "Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." It gives beter due weight. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
How about, Historically, Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions. ? StevenZhangJoin the DR army!01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions in a sort-of incidental manner that the original roots are from harvest festivals. Perhaps the Pagan roots of these festivals should also be included as well, for example some mention of Greek festival Thesmophoria and the goddess Demeter; or if we look to the Wiccan Lammas or Mabon. In either case, it may actually be appropriate to mention the intention to give thanks to the "Goddess" as well! Norbytherobot (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Or more likely, since it is now primarily (when capitalized) a US holiday - start in Plymouth - where the settlers were certainly not as "religious" as the later Puritans - and did, indeed, treat it as primarily "secular" (heck - they even used "civil marriage ceremonies" and not religious ones.) Certainly they did "thank God" during it, but that was not a particularly dominant part of the party, and the Indians who attended were pretty certainly not church-goers. Modern "Wicca" is, indeed, modern. And the Plymouth ceremony-party was heavily focussed on venison and turkey and not on the corn harvest. Collect (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Requesting attention to Viriditas' (V) redirect contribution [2] leading to a dispute at Talk:Purpose#Redirect_roll_back. Despite previously offering to host the article in user space, V has made no real effort to improve the article content. V closed a previous RFC and then implemented a redirect, after the long standing article was re-written with new sources. V's redirect does not meet redirect guidelines, nor does it appear to benefit the Wikipedia reader with useful educational information (see [3] ) which is why we are here at Wikipedia.
In this recent dispute, V contented without sources, that the re-written article was POV bias because of a source's 1916 date [4]. Even thought the re-written article has 12 sources from 1290 to 1997 included, and over 6 additional sources have been proposed during the talk discussions. V then demanded tertiary sources, and one was presented in V's scientific area of concern.
To justify the redirect, V then contented the article is a wp:coatrack. Despite that What Is not a coatrack guidance says: "An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition".
The article title is a widely applied term, and content can clearly say so. With fair editorial judgment an NPOV article can be made. It is a term which has taken on slightly different meanings in different fields of study, particularly in scientific history. When presented in a NPOV, the sources verify that the term has a notable and significant role in science, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, religion, psychology, machine intelligence and possibly nihilism. Wikipedia is not a directory (or re-directory), it publishes balanced reliably sourced and notable information.
The word is found in the dictionary and the thesaurus, which are considered tertiary sources. It has had notable scholars research and apply it within their specific fields of study, each taking a slightly different view to the term, which is why a NPOV article on the term is justified. Despite the term's wide application and important meanings, V contents it's not possible to frame an NPOV article on this term, without embarking into OR grounds. V contents that only by finding a encyclopedia entry or some tertiary source, which V can accept in strict interpretation, can V allow a Wikipedia entry. V is ignoring Wikipedia:WINAC and a reasonable editorial approach, that primary and secondary sources can be fairly attributed to present the term in a properly framed NPOV article. V also rejected a proposal to WP:hatnote the article with sensible editorial judgment, which would assist the Wikipedia reader. Hatnotes are supported by WP:R#PLA, when as in this case, redirecting doesn't make sense.
The fact is that Wikipedia has many articles based on terms which have taken on meanings in different field of study, for example: existence, truth, logic, infinity, goal. Each having none to little tertiary support. The common sense editorial approach has been to present the etymology and the historical evolution into fields of study, relevant applications and links to other main articles which deal with the specific applications in detail. This is similar to a disambiguation guide, but with sectioned paragraph content, where careful attention to the sources treatment of the term, and relevant perspectives are presented in NPOV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor, is it a publisher of original thought. As a community of diverse contributors, NPOV articles are made which balance the verified sources without presenting new analysis.
V also incorrectly proposed an alternative redirect, based on their synthesis of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, and the absence of an entry on the specific term. Reference sources treat the term as a word that is distinctly different then V's proposed redirects. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia project, and unlike paper encyclopedias, it has presented terms which are then expanded with verified educational content.
Without citing adequate sources indicating that a redirect would be appropriate, V has been unable to support the redirect. Likewise, V has been unable to articulate precisely why the specifically written article content presents POV original research, except for attacking me personally as an OR contributor and demanding more sources. Looking closely at WP:Redirect, V's proposed redirects have not served the redirect purposes stated in that guideline.
Simply put, the article term has been the specific subject of reliable sources and scholarly research, and an article is justified, as long as it does not present new analysis. NPOV means that when the sources are fairly presented, the reader can decide.
If an NPOV article can not be created, then I propose the article should probably be deleted; because, the proposed redirect targets are off base to what sources present for the term.
If the common sense of the Wikipedia community will prevail, the article can be made in NPOV state with educational content, and expanded with the proposed sources and as new sources arrive. In this example, it is possible to write a NPOV article, without original research.
I am concerned that V is biased against religious interpretations of the term being presented in the article.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Purpose redirected}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
There was an RFC, a 3PO and a Wikiquette clarification.
How do you think we can help?
Help interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
That was not a "quick explanation", nor have you noted that that the previous RFC, 3PO and Wikiquette clarification went against your position. Further, you were asked several times to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards, such as RS, NPOV, or OR. What it seems you are doing here, is continuing your own personal dispute rather than seeking to resolve it. On Talk:Purpose you were presented with multiple avenues for resolving this, from multiple editors and you refused to accept all of them. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you please rewrite your complaint up above and summarize it per the instructions? It's too long, and it is basically unreadable, not to mention bordering on science fiction (which I enjoy btw, so that doesn't bother me). I am not "expressly incorrect". The dispute on the talk page has to do with your refusal to accept consensus around RS, OR, and NPOV issues. That's why those noticeboards are more relevant. You even acknowledge this when you requested help "interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers". That's what those relevant noticeboards are for. However, you don't seem interested in resolving this, as you're trying to make this about editors rather than editing. Tell you what, why don't you summarize the results of the previous redirects, the RFC, the 3PO, and the Wikiquette clarification. That way we can get back on track and address the editing, not the editors. The more you focus on the facts (supported by diffs) rather than your opinion of the facts, the easier it will be to resolve this and move on. For example, you neglected to mention that there is consensus for a redirect (to multiple targets) and that you are the only editor who is against it. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I was going to suggest simply making purpose a disambiguation page, but then I saw this comment by R'n'B in the RfC that says the guidelines don't support doing that. On reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation again, it looks like making a broad-based article per WP:CONCEPTDAB might be the correct thing to do, but it doesn't look like there's any consensus to do this with the article as it stood pre-redirect. Veriditas, would you be able to cope with a broad-based article if it fulfilled all our content criteria, and you were satisfied that it wasn't a coatrack? And ZuluPapa5, I notice you mentioned a userspace draft in your overview - have you considered making this draft yourself and getting it up to an acceptable standard for inclusion? I think you would have a lot less objection to what you are proposing if you could provide a reasonable alternative to a redirect. Let me know what you both think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks WP:CONCEPTDAB is a good approach, I hadn't seen it before, but that is what was intuitively aimed to achieve. The article was totally re-drafted [6] to an acceptable standard before it was redirected, since then, additional sources have been found and a new WP:CONCEPTDAB standard too. It should be reworked again; however, this should be done in the main space, like Wikipedia was intended to be; where, folks collaborate together to draft articles to make a NPOV. User space article just don't make it so. As V seems to indicate, I can't make a NPOV article alone. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't left anything, ZuluPapa5. As someone who has consistently said that he will support anything that is reliably sourced and accurate, I would be happy to see you create a CONCEPTDAB in your user space and bring it to the attention of the community. Unfortunately, based on past results and our extensive discussion at Talk:Purpose, I am not optimistic about the outcome. If Mr. Stradivarius (what a wonderful user name) wants to act as a mentor/helper/whatever in this regard, his participation is welcomed and encouraged. I would invite him, however, to review our past discussions on this matter for a good summary of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, there was a rewritten article after the RFC, then you redirected it. Following CONCEPTDAB, I would like to post and another re-written article in the main space. It's been very difficult to find a way to satisfy your interpretations of an acceptable article. You've said you don't believe there's an encyclopedia source to support a wikipedia article. I would be comfortable with a Peer Review, Editor Assistance, another RFC, even a AFD, after it's posted. Since you've asserted it's my original research and despite that there are over 14 sources covering this concept, how should we proceed? The community feedback would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see an RFC that came to a consensus about a redirect, with editors agreeing that your version of the page didn't work; it was reduced to a dicdef.[7] I also see you ignoring consensus and recreating the problematic material with absurd content like "Defining purpose is often relatively vague and almost meaningless; however, the concept is valuable and therfore retained."[8] I have no objection to you working closely with a mentor to create a new topic in your user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Zulu Papa, I don't think creating a concept dab page needs to be difficult at all, and I can help you with structuring it if you like. Neither does it need to be perfect; it just needs to be reasonably well-sourced and reasonably good at outlining the different encyclopaedic topics relating to the concept of "purpose". I think the basic problem is that so far we have been working from the outside in ("I have some material that discusses purpose in some form, let's put it in the purpose article"), rather than from the inside out ("What are the main aspects of the concept of "purpose" that should be outlined/disambiguated in an encyclopaedia article?"). Viriditas is right when he says that there are no sources to support a Wikipedia article - there simply aren't any modern sources that deal with "purpose" as an overarching concept, because it is so vague. There are only sources that talk about "purpose" in a specific context such as teleology in philosophy, goals in goal-setting theory, etc. The only reason that we can have an article about it at all is because of the WP:CONCEPTDAB guideline - these different encyclopaedic topics are linked together purely by the general meaning of the word "purpose" as defined in the dictionary. As such, I think a very good starting point would be to think of what Wikipedia articles we would include if we were making a traditional disambiguation page. Once we have a list of articles, we can then work out the best way to link them together in prose. The obvious ones to start with are Intention, Goal, and Teleology - can you think of any others? — Mr. Stradivarius♫12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
V, the material you quoted was referenced from the source and yet you dispute it? If anything, the source justifies the need to retain an article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think your comment here outlines the core of this dispute - as I see it, many of the articles you have listed above are outside the scope of the proposed purpose article. Let me explain. The articles I listed (intention, goal, and teleology) are about purpose as an abstract concept; however, most of the links you listed are about the purpose of a certain thing. To illustrate this, let's look at the difference between purpose in life (which redirects to teleology) and purpose of life (which redirects to meaning of life). Purpose in life is still about purpose as an abstract concept, albeit limited to a specific context. Purpose of life, however, is primarily a property of life, not of purpose, and is an extremely broad subject. You could write about almost anything under the heading of purpose of life, but it would be bound to turn into a discussion of life and morality rather than purpose per se.
Perhaps the difference is easiest to explain using a trivial example. (And this is going to be very trivial, so my apologies beforehand.) Let's compare purpose of pencil sharpeners with purpose in pencil sharpeners. It's obvious that the purpose of pencil sharpeners is to sharpen pencils, but I don't think anyone is about to pontificate on some abstract purpose contained in them. Almost everything has a purpose, but purpose as an abstract concept is much more limited. For these reasons, I think the proposed concept dab page needs to be limited to examples of "purpose in X", and should exclude all examples of "purpose of X". Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius♫01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Difficult for me to say; because, it depends on how the sources treat the issue. Purpose is both a noun and a verb. To me, the noun would seem to follow the "in" interpretations, while the verb would be for "of". The verb form is a key issue; because, that's where the sources have discussed consciousness as a pre-requisit for an individual's purpose. Kant had a whole discourse on this, in that he advanced a philosophical thesis where there is no theological commitment required for an individual purpose. He saw it as inherent to the individual organism, not an external source. This thinking supported the theory of types in science. The sources are showing that "purpose" has a regulative action usage. Like a purposeful action to keep something on course toward a target. So purpose as a action verb will be significant to the article, and we might want to keep the "of" usages. There is significant controversy because individuals are inherently subjective, therefor it can be difficult to get agreement in individual's purposes, without creating some written document or organization. Really, NPOV might require us to include both the noun and verb forms. It's really a uniquely special verb, and that's where there is going to be meat for an article. In my personal opinion, its a special case of Subject Verb Subject compared to Subject Verb Object and SOV constructions. Hope I am making sense. Maybe we can section on the Noun and Verb usages, like a dictionary might?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that stuff about including the verb form. We have articles on concepts, not on words; listing the meaning of the verb form is the sort of thing a dictionary might do, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, our article title policy explicitly favours nouns over other word forms - take a look at WP:NOUN for the details. Honestly, rather than having an article on a subject as vague as the "noun and verb forms of the word 'purpose'", I'd prefer to just keep the redirect in place, with a hatnote at intention that leads to purpose (disambiguation). That would solve the worries about navigation, and you could still include all of your content at the relevant articles. Would you be willing to live with this solution? — Mr. Stradivarius♫10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for writing the draft - I can see that it must have taken a lot of effort to make. However, I'm afraid it doesn't address the points that Viriditas and I have raised. Did you write your draft before reading my comment above, by any chance? Best — Mr. Stradivarius♫01:34, 15 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The user Mesconsing added the academic boosterism tag to the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire article. He also made or suggested several helpful edits. However, I felt that the article was disinterested and encyclopedic, not worthy of the academic boosterism tag. A small dispute followed, and eventually Mesconsing accused me of "wikilawerying." I then moved our conversations (which took place on both our user talk pages) to the university's talk page.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I attempted to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation. Mesconsing replied by accusing me of wikilawering. At that point, I decided that an admin should get involved. However, after checking out the dispute resolution guidelines, I felt I should post here first.
How do you think we can help?
I would like to have a third party look at the article (specifically, the introduction and reputation sections) and advise both myself and Mesconsing on the proper way to resolve our dispute. I would also like to make sure the dispute doesn't "blow up" with the parties involved assuming bad faith -- accusations of "wikilawyering," etc.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As your residential Eau Claire mediator (not a UWEC alumni), please do not accuse one another of wikilawyering. It fosters the totally wrong kind of attitude between editors. Consider:
4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves. [88guy88]
Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited. [Mesconsing]
5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked. [88guy88]
Thank you for helping edit this article. 88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is clear as day to most editors. Content wise, Mesconsing is completely right. Conduct wise, 88guy88 gets it.
Self-published sources, especially when they're promoting a positive image, are almost always wrong to use. Accusing another editor of wikilawyering (twice in one reply to one post, so how could it happen "again"? Seriously, that's a little unfair) is also almost always wrong to do. It seems like an out-of-hand dismissal, and doesn't promote reasoned argument.
Thanks for the input. My underlying concern with all of this is not so much related to the sources used as it is to the "academic boosterism" tag. I still feel the aricle is disinterested. The "reputation" section of the article currently reads:
In 2012, U.S. News and World Report ranked UW-Eau Claire as the 32nd best Midwestern university out of 146 public and private colleges and as the 5th best university when only public colleges are considered.[1] Eau Claire is categorized as a "tier 1" institution, and is classified as "more selective," one step away from the magazine's highest category, "most selective."[2] The magazine also named UW-Eau Claire the fourth best school in the Midwest in terms of undergraduate teaching.[3]
The Princeton Review has named Eau Claire a "Best Value College" (one of 50 such public campuses in the country) and a "Best Midwestern College."[4] The magazine described the school as a "challenging, midsize state university that offers an exceptional and very affordable education" and said that "in terms of its array of majors and minors, Eau Claire compares favorably with much larger schools. As one example, more than 700 students are involved directly in faculty research — an honor reserved for graduate students at most universities."[5] The publication added that "one of the more impressive aspects of the university is its inexpensiveness in relation to the quality of education being offered."[6] The Princeton Review also included Eau Claire in its list of the 311 most environmentally friendly campuses in the United States.[7]
In their list of the "100 Best Values in Public Colleges," Kiplinger's Personal Finance has ranked Eau Claire as the 67th best value for in-state students and as the 64th best value for out-of-state students. According to the publication, the "rankings are based on academic quality, overall costs and financial aid availability."[8][9]
The university is one of four undergraduate institutions in the United States to have four or more Dreyfus teacher scholars on the faculty[2] and was among the 141 public and private colleges, universities and professional schools named in the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service.[10] The Templeton Foundation included the university in its list of colleges that "encourage character development."[11]
UW-Eau Claire sends more students abroad than any other master's level institution in Wisconsin, and it ranks 10th nationally among all master's schools in the number of students who study abroad.[12]
I think that this section is disinterested and fact based. If, for instance, the article included phrases like, "Eau Claire's quality is reflected by its rankings in..." or "Eau Claire's value is made evident by...", the boosterism tag would be completely appropriate. However, the article simply reports uncontroversial and relevent information. Perhaps we could switch the academic boosterism tag to some sort of "inappropiate sources used" tag.
It has been awhile since I have heard from anyone, so I am going to move forward with editing. Based on this discussion and Mesconsing's suggestions, the article is flawed on two levels. First, the introductory section of the article contains a sentence that reads "UW-Eau Claire has received high marks from several publications including U.S. News and World Report, the Princeton Review, Money Magazine and Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine." Remedy: I will simply remove this sentence. Second, the "reputation" section of the article uses sources published by the university. Remedy: I will add sources that aren't affiliated with the university to verify all claims made. Once I have done these two things I will remove the "academic boosterism" tag. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Thanks for helping out. 88guy88 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
In the section labelled Criticism and Controversy on this page I am trying to include reference to a recent documentary film 8: The Mormon Proposition which the LA Times called "An outstanding and urgent example of the investigative documentary". This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights.
How could it possibly be deemed inappropriate to include it under a section labelled Criticism and controversy?
This section appears to be very heavily censored by Mormons.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I'm being ignored on the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure? I'm new to this. How can you help? I add it - they delete it. Who decides if it is appropriate or not?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
"This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights". Um, no. Wikipedia doesn't deal in 'indictments', scorching or otherwise - this isn't a court of law. I suggest you start again, with a clear statement of what the documentary is being cited for, and with diffs indicating any objections to such citation. We aren't going to decide here whether Mormonism is right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant, and neither are we going to make a similar decision regarding critics of Mormonism. Instead, we trying to write an encyclopaedia - and if there is a dispute regarding content, it helps to know what this is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
My description of the film is a direct quote from IMDB. I used it only to show that the film is highly critical of the Mormon church. Is it right that a section on this page labelled Controversy and criticism reads more like a well constructed piece of Pro-Mormon propaganda? All the controversy and criticism has been whitewashed out by the team of extremely heavy handed Mormon censors. They are now saying that a consensus is being reached to keep the film reference out. This is not a consensus. This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors.
Please could we have a completely independent unbiased decision on whether reference to this highly critical film is relevant to the Controversy and Criticism section of this page. Light Defender (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. I am not, moreover, affiliated in any way with LDS or any of its various splinters or sympathizers. While I believe that you have already received the "completely independent unbiased decision" you have requested, most recently by AndyTheGrump who is per his user page a self-professed atheist, and by Curb Chain who, like me, regularly serves as a mediator in dispute resolution, let me add my opinion: to add the reference to the film to this article would be to give the film undue weight and would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In your being new to the Wikipedia it is easy to come with some preconceived agendas that you would like to achieve. This may or may not be one of the them; to bring the "real" truth about Mormonism to Wikipedia. That would not be a good position to start from. There are a plethora of pages on the topic of Mormonism. It is impossible to include everything in every article and it would be error to assume we should. Upper level articles should have only a summary of the topic as a whole and then refer to a number of additional articles for readers to read if they are interested.
Prop 8 may be a burning issue for you personally, but in the skeme of church with over a 180 years of history, this documentary is insignificant. However, it is probably worth a mention on the Criticism article.
Additionally, you might want to pull back from the allegations such as, "This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors." I have been around for a few years and I do not censor anyone. One of our policies you might want to read is to assume good faith of our fellow editors. Based upon the tone of your writing here, I can only assume that you have an axe to grind. This is not the place for it, but a personal blog might be an ideal alternative. -StormRider16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
OK! Thank you. (As you probably guessed I'm an amateur at all this) - I would like to point out that the only reason there is a reference to this documentary in the article Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is because I put it there yesterday - not long before putting it on this article. I'm still half expecting it to be deleted from that page too?
I am still wondering... Under the subtitle 'Controversy and criticism' why would the following sentence: "The church expressed support for a Salt Lake City ordinance protecting members of the LGBT community against discrimination in employment and housing while allowing religious institutions to consider lifestyles in actions such as hiring or providing university accommodations." (Printed in a Mormon owned and published paper) - be given more weight than reference to a documentary which provides overwhelming evidence of it's "decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights." There is simply nothing Encyclopaedic about this! It is pro-Mormon propaganda by a religion infamous for it's "Strick taboo on Homosexuality"[1] Cheers anyway. Light Defender (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Be aware that IMDB is not a good source for referencing most things, and film reviews from IMBD should not be cited. The content is user generated, and therefore not subject to the editorial control of a reliable source. Like Wikipedia it can be a great place to start research.
You will find the LDS articles well curated, and I think it fair to say those who work on them regularly, be they partisan or not, are perhaps a little jaded by the perpetual stream of apologists and excoriators.
The citation "The church expressed ..." reads to me as damning by 21st century western secular standards, so I think that it is reasonable to cite it, especially as the we can be reasonably sure it reflects the opinion of the church.
It is a problem, in this area, though, that much of the background research is either attributed to BYU, or published by a "Deseret" imprint.
As I said on the talk page, this edit simply isn't notable enough for inclusion on the page. There are a large number of documentary films that have been created to both praise and criticize the LDS Church – this one isn't any more notable than the rest. Listing one would require listing all of them, and that's not appropriate to the scope of the article in question.
I wasn't aware that User:Light Defender may be a new user. I've found new users often come to Wikipedia with a proverbial axe to grind – I did, albeit in a totally different topic than this – and it takes them awhile to figure things out. Dispute resolution is not an avenue in which to override WP:CONSENSUS when one falls in the minority. Hence my terming of this case as "ill-conceived". End this quickly, please. White Whirlwind 咨 02:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Axe to grind? No... I just saw this documentary the other day and was shocked and disturbed (It appears civil rights in the UK are somewhat ahead of the US). I now think it's vitally important that anyone investigating this religion should know exactly how instrumental it's been in obstructing or removing the civil rights of millions of people over the last few decades using seriously devious and underhanded methods (Something this documentary shows very clearly). A religion that in recent history was prepared to go to war to defend it's right to polygamy which even more recently banned interracial marriage and now is all of a sudden the champion of 'traditional marriage' between 'One Man and One Woman' - 180 years of history riddled with hypocrisy. This "insignificant" documentary's message will stain this religion in the civilised world for another 180. And yet the Wiki page for this religion still reads like a well constructed Pro-Mormon advertising campaign?
You're right, this is no place for the fight. (Why would an encyclopaedia represent an unbiased/balanced view of a subject?) I'll get on to the BBC and see if we can't get it broadcast globally - perhaps just before the US presidential election (especially if Romney gets through). LOL
I've not been in a dispute before, so I'm not sure how to end it? Is there a particular method? I thought I'd conceded yesterday.
Cheers Light Defender (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I included and extended invites to recent editors, as well as the editor that created the article
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
This has been discussed, and I thought it was resolved.
How do you think we can help?
I'm hoping for a consenus among the editors of the article as well as any other editor to finally solve this issue.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
First I want to apologize for bringing this here again. I was under the impression that this was resolved, but I was mistaken. This seems like the most logical place to discuss this again.
I brought up here in DRN that as a compromise the section titled "Crime" should be re-named "security concerns" and this was also brought up by another editor that has no connection with the OWS as well during the NPOV noticeboard. According to the discussions, this was accepted as a compromise, along with a reduction of the content that was less notable. Now it seems to me that that's not good enough. I attempted to bring back the title as "Crime" since the issue has started over again, I figured the content of the article should be reflective of how the article was before this discussion began.Racingstripes (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello Racingstripes. Did you have an RfC on this already? Because if not, that seems like the best step to take. With an RfC, you can get more outside opinions on what to do, and then you can have an admin close the discussion to give you a relatively final decision which everyone can stick to. (Just make sure that there is not too much discussion from involved editors in the actual RfC itself, or uninvolved editors might be put off participating.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius♫05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could try and persuade people to undergo mediation at the Mediation Cabal. I think mediation could actually work better than an RfC in this case if all the involved editors are willing to participate. — Mr. Stradivarius♫05:29, 16 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Disputing that the domestic dog which I understand as Canis lupus familiaris is a union of familiaris and Canis lupus dingo. I want to revise as follows:
Canis lupus familiaris or more commonly the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora".[1][2]
He wants: The domestic dog (a union of Canis lupus familiaris[3] and Canis lupus dingo[4][5]
) is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora".
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Dog}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
long discussion on talk page
How do you think we can help?
I feel the information is incorrect. If you think so then I'd like to remove it and replace it.
Clerk's note: Would one of the parties please add the missing references, above. @Chrisrus: Can we take it that Jobberone has properly and, except for the refs, fully stated the matter in dispute? @Both: Here at WP we only repeat what reliable sources say; if the reliable sources disagree or say different things, then we report what both sources say (see the verifiability policy). In both cases, we do so without interpretation or analysis of the sources (see the no original research policy). From which of those policies does this conflict arise? — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at at the IUCN's red list of endangered species [1] and for the dingo it directs here->[2] which is the catalogue of life. You can find the taxonomy for most animals at multiple sites but the above is a good ref. As you can see familiaris and dingo are listed as separate subspecies of Canis lupus which is the consensus of the scientific community at present.
Another problem is not just the scientific fact that the dingo is not familiaris but in the incorrect statement that the union of those two constitutes the 'domestic dog'. There is no reference I can find that states the domestic dog is a union of familiaris and dingo. Chrisus is stretching his point about his references beyond scientific circles, clear verifiability or logic and I don't mean this in a personal way. Additionally that is not the general consensus of the layperson nor the scientific community that they constitute domestic dog. Here is a ref concerning the differences in nomenclature and other things between dingo and dog as well as hybrids->[3]. Here is a ref on the genetics of the pure dingo vs the dog and dog/dingo hybrids as well as distinguishing them morphologically by precise skull measurements, CT scans, and plain film x-rays->[4].
It is plain that Australia is trying hard to preserve the genetic integrity of the pure Canis lupus dingo which has a distinct morphology and genetic structure from familiaris.
These issues can be discussed in the body of the article or in other satellite articles already established in Wikipedia. Let's leave the the dingo and statements about their union with familiaris out of the lead for the dog article. ThanksJobberone (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As you say, "except for the refs", he hasn't provided the citations in question. We're using MSW3, which is the usual standard on Wikipedia about existant mammals. He seemed to question my interpretation at times, while at others seemed to question the authority of MSW3 and held these others as superior. I haven't addressed what these others say or don't say, only what the one we have been using says. Chrisrus (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Chrisus is using WP:OR to create a "union" of two subspecies to make one subspecies, which is nonsense. The article's topic is Canis lupis familiaris, not Canis lupis familiaris∪Canis lupis dingo. Chrisus needs to rethink not about biology but about article topic partitioning. Speciate (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Now that I've found them, I've taken a look at the references and the arguments made by Chrisus in this edit on the talk page. I'm afraid that while I can see how those sources can be read to support the edit supported by Chrisus, the problem is that they must be interpreted or analyzed in order to come to that result, mainly due to the ambiguity of the three MSW3 sources. I do not believe, therefore, that they support either the statement desired by Chrisus in the Dog article or the statement,
"While current taxonomy lists it as "provisionally separate" from C. l. familiaris, the current taxonomy notes that it is legitimate to view the two as united into one subspecies, the "domestic dog", while admitting that this "stretches the subspecies concept."[1][2]"
in the Canis lupus dingo article and I therefore believe that both of those statements constitute prohibited WP:OR. That's not to say that Chrisus' interpretation is wrong, I'm not at all sure whether it is or is not wrong because the sources are so ambiguous. If it is not wrong, however, then it ought to be supported by the scientific references identified in the comment section of the MSW3 Canis lupus article and some light might be derived from examination of those references. Until that light can be observed and cited in support, however, those edits should not be included in those articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What does "Canis lupus contains the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate" mean? Why does it say "domestic dog" on the comments section of both subspecies? You had some trouble understanding that, you say. Well, perhaps we could find an {{expert|biology}} to help us. It's as obvious to me. Do you claim some background in this area? Chrisrus (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
When the source is such that one has to ask those questions then the source must be interpreted in order to come to a particular conclusion. Such interpretation is prohibited by OR. I did not simply say that I did not understand the source; I said that I could not evaluate the correctness of your desired edits for certain because the source is ambiguous. While you may wish for an expert's help here, I fail to see what an expert can contribute; an expert's interpretation of an ambiguous text is still just that, an interpretation, and is still forbidden OR. That, indeed, is the primary reason that the presence of experts as Wikipedia editors is problematic, as discussed in this essay (and is one of the reasons I do not edit in the area of my own expertise, law). The sources say what they say. The purpose of the verifiability policy is to allow encyclopedia users to go to the reliable sources and verify that what is said in the encyclopedia is actually said in the sources. A reader simply could not do that with the edits you want to make and these sources: to support those edits the reader would have to make an analysis or interpretation of the source (in particular, the very analysis you made in this edit) and that's not allowed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
@Transporterman, the text isn't ambiguous. When MSW3 stamp Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo (please click on that, it's not the same as the Australian Dingo) as both being [domestic dog], they mean that both are domestic dog. Any other interpretation would be undue reading into things. I hope you continue to follow that discussion in it's context and invite you to join the discussion there, but please forgive me if I hesitate to repeat everything here. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This editing pattern is tendentious, disruptive, does not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting reliable sources, does not engage in consensus building by repeatedly ignoring other editor's suggestions and explanations, ignoring dispute resolutions and tenaciously holding on to their increasingly isolated POV, and finally by rejecting and ignoring community input as evidenced by resisting moderation and ignoring Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly. I'm not certain where I should proceed from here.Jobberone (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I would invite and welcome other DRN clerk/mediators to evaluate and lend a hand in this dispute.@Chrisrus: I won't argue the issue of ambiguity with you, my opinion in just that, my opinion, and you're free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. @Jobberone: Those are conduct issues which are not appropriate for this noticeboard. The proper way to address them would be to take them to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U for advice, WP:AN or WP:ANI for sanctions, but I express no opinion on whether or not doing so is or is not warranted in this case. — 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I knew this wasn't the proper forum to mediate conduct issues. I was not aware mentioning them was also inappropriate. Again my apologies. This is my first time here so forgive, please. Thank you for your time in this matter. Regards.Jobberone (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than have other DRN clerks weigh in on this, I have listed the OR question at the Original Research Noticeboard for additional opinions by the knowledgeable folks who toil at that venue. If that listing does not resolve the matter, the question can be relisted here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I made revisions to the subject's (Pellegrino's) biographical page to correct what I feel are malicious and untrue statements about the subject, and constitute ad hominem attacks to malign and discredit him. I confined this set of revisions to matters concerning the false accusation that the subject does not possess the credentials he says he has (a Phd. from Victoria University), and other textual statements that imply the same. The discussion supporting my revisions is in item 6 on the Talk page for that entry.
While I was making my final revisions regarding Dr. Pellegrino's degree, I received a 'Wiki Message' from 'Sparthorse' asserting that my remarks were "vandalism" and that he/she was reverting them. I rechecked the page and indeed, my revisions had been removed and the page reverted.
The discussion supporting my reasons for making the revisions I did (first part of Talk, item 6) was made prior to the notice from 'Sparthorse' and provide supportive argument for the changes I made. The second part of Item 6 (and all of item 7) deal directly with 'Sparthorse's interjection into the matter. I refer you to those items for understanding fully what is at issue. I regard the matter as a grave breach of protocol and trust in attempting to maintain Wikipedia's standards for accurate and informative material. At least to avoid unwarranted harm to a living person.
What I will observe here, is that the issue here is not simply about content, but cuts across several serious matters concerning Sparthorse's use of authority as an administrator. In that, his charge of "vandalism" and his reversion of my edits, appear to me to unwarranted and abusive. I believe it appropriate to not only ask that the reversions be removed and my revisions let stand, but that Sparthorse be blocked from any further actions or edits on the subject page. I feel that Sparthorse simply does not understand the gravity of character assassination and impugning the integrity of a living subject to be permitted futher participation in the process of preparing an accurate and informative biography of Dr. Pellegrino.
note: there are other serious issues regarding this particular biography and the management of its text. However, I am confining my complaint here only to matters that arose out of my attempt to correct the record regarding Dr. Pellegrino's degree.
(for all other discussion I refer the reader to Items 6 & 7 the talk section of the subject page.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Charles R. Pellegrino}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes. I discussed Sparthorse's actions on the talk page and invited him/her to reply (#6). They did, and I found the reply evasive and wholly inadequate. I stated the reasons I found their reply deficient in the same item. I also added an item (#7) informing them of my intent to bring this matter to the community of administrators.
How do you think we can help?
I am not certain of the proper forum or authority to address this matter. I feel, as an external editor, I am not equal to the task of further argument with an administrator, and in any case, have no authority to do anything about preventing their inappropriate behavior with respect to a breach of policy on vandalism and reversion of text intended to prevent serious harm and defamation to a living person. Following instructions I found on Wikipedia I came here to be referred to the proper place for resolution, and to receive any thoughts you might care to offer on the matter.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am not an administrator. I have explained my position at Talk:Charles_R._Pellegrino, I believe Redslider has replaced well sourced material with unsourced original research in an article that is a biography of a living person. I believe that it is correct to revert such edits. Any editor, including Redslider, is welcome to edit the article further, if they can provide proper sources. Sparthorse (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see this returned to the article's talk page if possible. However, since this seems to be more of a personal dispute than a content dispute, I would recommend that you take this to the Cabal and seek mediation. Other DRN editors, please weigh in here if you feel differently. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you explain the term "personal" in this context? Using a false charge of "vandalism" to improperly revert someone's edit would seem to me a use/procedural matter. Can you clarify? thank you. Redslider (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
my mistake on 'Sparthorse' status as adm. I thought only adms could block/revert someone's material. Whatever he is, I stand by by charge that he abused his authority.
Would 'Sparthorse' please specify, precisely what the "well sourced material" and "unsourced...original research" is, so that we may know exactly what he refers to? The source for the claim that Pellegrino's degree is not valid rests with the textual comment of Mr. Brennan (contact with an unspecified party at the university) and his statement about his subsequent distribution of that allegation to the media, which then picked it up and repeated it. No further sources are given in the press articles besides university sources party to the dispute. "The quote of "Pat Walsh" is not sourced to Mr. Rich, in Mr. Rich's NYT article, and for all anyone knows it might have been simply lifted from the email materials distributed by David Brennan. Walsh's claim was that "...Pellegrino was never awarded a Ph.D. from Victoria and therefore could not have had it stripped from him or reinstated at a later date" (Rich,NYT) could not be the case, unless someone wishes to contend Pellegrino just wandered into the library thirty years later, handed the university a thesis published in 1983 to be cataloged as an "awarded doctoral thesis". Nonsense. My primary source is the Library Catalog entry (a document with legal standing in NZ courts), accession and other data clearly showing that Dr. Pellegrino completed the last requirement of a Phd. candidacy - the thesis, that there is a date gap of almost thirty years between publication and acknowledgement by the university of that accession - strong suggestion that whatever happened to his degree, happened after 1983, and well after the acceptance of this thesis. Nothing original or 'researchy' about that at all. It's solid documentation that supports Dr. Pellegrino's account (that the degree was stripped after it was awarded). Certainly enough evidence to contravene allegations that he didn't get his Phd. The burden of proof now falls on the detractors to prove he didn't get it and to offer plausible reason to include such personally discrediting statements in the text. Simple as that. Beyond questions of sources, is a Wikpedia non-administrator who arbitrarily employees a bogus charge of "vandalism" to revert (& without warning) another editor's material. 'Sparthorse' has yet to explain a single item in the revised text that even comes close to Wikipedia's definitions of "vandalism". More important is that doubt has legitimately been cast (sourced or not) on text in a Wikipedia biography that stands to defame and discredit a living person. That, above all other arguments should be a cause for reversing his action and blocking him from further involvement with the biography in question. This goes way beyond a "my-source, "your-source" fight. My question remains, is this the proper place to seek remedy? What proper Wikipedia authority is it that ought be consulted to hear the matter? There are other matters that cast doubt on the assertion of invalid credentials, but it is better to reserve those for the proper forum, than to spend more time here. The argument given should be more than sufficient for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redslider (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello Redslider. Have you checked out the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research? I think it would be worth reading these policies carefully so that you can gain a better understanding of why your contributions were reverted. For example, take the following text you added: "Controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Pellegrino proved to be baseless. Questions regarding the validity of his degree were circulated around the internet and in the news media based upon false and unauthenticated information propagated by some of his detractors, including editors of recent prior editions of this Wikipedia biography." This is cited to an unreliable source (a Blogspot blog), which actually claims the opposite to your text; therefore, your text is not verified. Furthermore, because it is not verified, and also because it appears to be your own interpretation of events, it falls under our definition of original research. For these reasons, I'm afraid that there is no way that we can keep your text in Wikipedia as it is. However, if you can satisfy the verifiability and no original research policies by citing your assertions to a reliable source, the case for inclusion will be a lot stronger. (Having said that, I personally have my doubts that you will be able to find such a source, given the evidence already present in the article.) Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫00:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stradivarius. (I hope I'm making my inline comments here correctly and in the right place. This process is new to me). Thank you. Your pointing directly to the passage that seems be giving trouble is of great help. I did ask Spartahorse to identify what and where the objections were, but he simply reiterated his complaint without citing the exact source. Perhaps that is something for you administrators to look into - At least that when there is an action like reversion, it must be accompanied by some specific identification of the passages causing the complaint as well as the exact reasons for it being judged "inappropriate". Not my call, but I think it would go a long way to clear up some of these matters if that were required. I'll say nothing else about content; I didn't really want to even mention it at all, but Spartahorse was so imprecise in his specification that I felt compelled to cover those bases. On the matter of Sourcing itself, I understand. Indeed I had sourced the passage you quote; but before I saved it with sources, Spartahorse had reverted the page, and I didn't feel it was worth another try without first speaking to him about it, and subsequently coming here with my complaint. To understand better, are you saying that the VUW library catalog entry showing the proper receipt of the thesis and its accession as a "VUW Awarded Doctoral Thesis" as well as other catalog descriptions is a sufficient, or insufficient, source to call into question other parts of the biography that state, by direct assertion or by inference, that the subject failed to get their degree as they stated? That is, is the university library record sufficient source to make the simple statement "Dr. Pellegrino received his Phd. from the University....etc."; and to edit such phrases as "claimed to..." and the like which suggest the matter is in doubt? You know, I frequently see, throughout Wikipedia cautions against writing things that would be "harmful", "derogatory", even "contentious" about a living person. I certainly think that might be the case here, where a persons character and reputation is being impugned both directly and indirectly (and made a central matter of the biography as if it were true based on indisputable evidence or, that the editors would like the readers to think it was still in doubt). So I wonder what the Wikipedia cautions abut defaming living persons mean, and if the Research Library record is sufficient cause/source to reverse the implications? I have other sources, as well; but prefer not to use them at this time for my own reasons. Anyway, is that passage the only one that is giving problems (it was primarily added to try to 'unring the bell' a little, after the present Wikipedia version has for so long been used as a source that has served to spread the doubtful assertion throughout the internet. The damage, of course cannot be undone entirely, but I think the man is at least owed a correction from one of primary sources of its propagation. If you think the source I'm using sufficient for at least correcting the record, let me know and I'll try again. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
From past, personal experience, I can testify that Sparthorse is quick to make strong accusations using derogatory names against users whose edits he doesn't like. While I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic of the article in question to make any comment on the edits one way or another, I do understand Redslider's ire at Sparthorse's apparently unwarranted accusations of vandalism. It would be appropriate to gently remind Sparthorse to tone down his rhetoric and assume good faith, especially in topics where he is not especially knowledgeable and qualified. AugustinMa (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, AugustinMa. Yes, his rather strong and patronizing tone did not help the process. But I was most concerned that Spartahorse seems to be determined to maintain the status quo of an article that continues to unfairly do damage to a man's reputation (and by extension, to Wikipedia's reputation as well.) That part I fail to understand. If it was the passage that Stradivarus suggests needs to be better sourced, then I have no explanation for why Spartahorse didn't simply call that passage into question with a notice that it needs to be better sourced. It wasn't a passage that did harm to the person so I don't even think it needed immediate removal; on the contrary, it was attempting to remedy harm currently being done by the original (and now reverted) text. If Spartahorse had just dealt with or complained about that, I would have understood the matter and either sourced it better, argued the case, or removed it, and that would have been that. But by falsely charging me with "vadalism" as his complaint and reason, and removing all my revisions, he pretty much is saying he likes Dr. Pellegrino being injustly pilloried on shakey grounds at best. And I do think that is serious cause for complaint and still wondering where that complaint should be taken? If you have any suggestions, I appreciate hearing them. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Please look at the concerning edits: You removed huge tracts of referenced information regarding explicit official statement from the awarding university of the university in question NOT awarding Charles R. Pellegrino a Ph.D. You then wrote prose without citations. You state that you were about to provide sources to back up the claim that he did earn his Ph.D. According to our policies, we do not accept original research. You state you have your own reasons not to provide citations. I see no reason why the current state of the article should be changed to your revision.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Redslider's arguments seem to be based upon his interpretation of the holdings record at the University, which he discusses at the talk page. I think he's wrong. I also just looked at Pellegrino's website - he doesn't seem to be claiming there that he has a PhD and there is no evidence that a PhD was 'stripped' from him. Redslider, I really think you should back off right now. If either Pellegrino or the University make more statements about this we can probably use them, but we can't change the article based on your interpretation of the library's web page. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Content dispute on whether to put "Hong Kong" (original version) or "Hong Kong, China" (disputed new version) on the "country" column for buildings in Hong Kong.
114.229.251.187 is probably the same person as 114.229.252.36 since they're from the same IP range and made the same edit. At any rate, 114.229.251.187 has already exceeded WP:3RR.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of tallest buildings in the world}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The reason the user Deryck Chan is bringing this to issue is that Hong Kong by itself is not a country. If you look at the list of buildings the category specifically states "Country" and each other building is listed under it's parent country and not for example "Houston, Texas" which would be equivalent to "Hong Kong" by itself which is just a Special Administrative Region of China. The category listing specifically states "Country" and following the convention of the other countries listed, Hong Kong should be listed under it's parent country of China. Although listing it as Hong Kong, China would also be acceptable. 114.229.251.187 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia with accurate information, the above user Deryck C. unfortunately has resolved to push his POV despite my numerous attempts to explain to him that Hong Kong is not a country and only just a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. He is persistent in trying label Hong Kong as a "country" when that would be inaccurate, the readers of Wikipedia deserve and demand accuracy of the information presented in all articles. Thank you very much! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am broadly sympathetic to the view that Hong Kong is part of China, but not enough to go on an editing spree across Wikipedia to impose my POV on everyone else. It is clear to me that 114.229.251.187 holds a very pro-China POV (see for example this unrelated edit - which I have reverted for being rather pointy). They do seem prepared to aggressively edit-war over this issue. Unsurprisingly, 114.229.251.187's combative editing style has got them blocked for a while.
With all due respect, may I know whether there is any existing policy or convention on Wikipedia regarding dependencies, particularly on their inclusion on lists or in categories? If no, should there be any? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a long-term dispute ranging over a number of different articles and involving many different editors, including a number who have not been included in the parties list, above, even though they have been involved in the current dispute. There is not, currently, a clear-cut policy solution so far as I can tell, and possible compromises such as "Hong Kong, China" or "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)" have themselves been a matter of controversy. In light of the independence and nationalist questions involved, I just do not believe that a decision at this noticeboard (or at MedCab or MedCom) will, in the long run, settle the issue once and for all for either this particular article or for the encyclopedia as a whole. A policy-based solution is needed. What I would, therefore, suggest is that someone create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hong Kong-related articles in the same manner as those listed at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional), but with the sole initial item being the resolution of this issue and then propose it via a policy RFC in accordance with WP:PROPOSAL. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 16 February 2012 (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.
Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles
Now that sources have been provided, I'm going to kick this one back to the various talk pages for additional talk page discussion (of which there was very little, if any, prior to it being listed here, in contravention of the guidelines of this noticeboard). If after substantial discussion on the talk page no resolution has been achieved, feel free to relist it here, but please limit it to specific edits at specific articles. Remember also that this noticeboard is for content, not conduct, matters. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Two users are cleansing articles regarding the Palestinian people and Palestine of massacres/genocides committed. Under the German people article. It says: "Germany had a substantial Jewish population. Only a few thousand people of Jewish origin remained in Germany after the Holocaust"
Thus it should also be said that upon the Islamic conquest of modern day Israel/Palestine the area had a Jewish majority. After the conquest and massacres such as the Safed Plunder. 1660 Destruction of Tiberias, etc. etc. Israel/Palestine's indigenous Jewish population (Old Yishuv) was down to only a few thousand people by the advent of Zionism.
If this cannot be included in the Palestinian people section, then why is an identical historical fact included in the German people section?
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I tried talking to both of them. Malik Shabazz did not respond and Tiamut questioned whether or not these massacres even took place.
How do you think we can help?
The following articles Palestine, Palestinian people, History of Palestine, and History of the Palestinian people should all contain references to these massacres. I find it hard to believe they are being cleansed once again. I can't imagine someone deleting the Holocaust mention in the German people article.
Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment by Zero
A quick look at Special:Contributions/DionysosElysees shows that this editor should stop editing and instead spend some time reading Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. Almost all edits so far are either unsourced or poorly sourced, are expressed in intemperate language, and betray a political purpose not appropriate here. This has been accompanied by repeated accusations against other editors. Zerotalk01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that these genocides did not happen and that genocides carried out within other communities are included across wikipedia but the Palestinians are immune. Can you please explain your logic for claiming these genocides didn't happen and why the Palestinian pages are the ones that are kept white washed of genocides committed within their community while every other nationality's history contains them. Please explain
See what I mean? I didn't make any statement at all about any historical events and this is what comes back. You don't seem to have what is required to be a good editor of Wikipedia. Zerotalk02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I simply do not understand why you and the aforementioned editors work with a zeal to make sure no massacre of the indigenous Jewish people is mentioned on any Palestinian related page meanwhile all other pages of other nationalities mention them with no issue. I think you have an agenda in covering up these genocides for some political view on modern events instead of looking history with out a bias. Clearly these genocides happened, something you have refused to admit as well yet there seems to be a campaign to keep them hidden.
Clerks' warning: Here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors. Stop making judgments, statements, or other comments about one another or what one another should or should not do and limit all discussion and comments strictly to the content of the edits without commenting about other editor's biases or motivations. If you want to seek comments on or sanctions of other editor's conduct, please use WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:AN. WP:ANI, or WP:ARB. This noticeboard is for content disputes, only, not conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, so I'll state my opinion on on the basis of content alone. If text that prima facie satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia policy is introduced into articles or article talk pages, then the form of its inclusion or grounds for its exclusion can be discussed there. So far no such text has been introduced, so in my view it is premature for this noticeboard to consider the matter. Zerotalk05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz
DionysosElysees added some material to the article Palestinian people that constituted original research. After it was removed by Tiamut, DionysosElysees restored it. I removed it and explained why on the article's Talk page.[9] Instead of replying there, DionysosElysees accused me on my Talk page of having "an agenda of white washing [this and similar] pages of any reference to the genocides carried out by the Muslim Arabs upon the indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish population...."[10] It seems to me that DionysosElysees should read WP:Civility. Reading WP:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles would probably be a good idea too. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk04:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved
(Comment from uninvolved editor) @DionysosElysees, why don't you just provide reliable secondary sources for the historic issue you want to introduce? Content such as the one you introduced may be correct or incorrect but it certainly needs to be sourced. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, you just copied the sources listed at Safed Plunder, which as you know, are ghe subject of discussion at the talk page. Specifically, there are concerns regarding their reliability and whether they in fact say what they are being used to say. Furthermore, even if those sources were fine, they do not discuss the issue of events in Safed in 1834 as they apply to Palestinian identity. That is your own WP:SYNTH interpretation, which is why I reverted your edit here at Palestinian people. Tiamuttalk18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The mention of the Safed Plunder in the Palestinian people article is no different then the mention of the Holocaust in the German people article so why aren't you deleting the Holocaust from the German people article?
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 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 informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Acupuncture}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Dickmojo has been politely warnedseveraltimes about name-calling. To be fair, he did (grudgingly - see edit comment) delete at least one of his offensive comments. He has been reminded coutless times by the other users of the policies of WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:PROVEIT and probably others...!
How do you think we can help?
An official notice regarding WP:NPA, WP:FORUM and WP:VANDALISM would probably do it. Dickmojo does not have a leg to stand on policy-wise and simply won't listen to other editors, who have now adopted a policyofsilence.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Ok, this is outrageous. Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to, and know more about than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together, from the vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks it is being subjected to on this website by sceptic fanatics, and I'm the one being attacked now. I didn't revert a single thing, you check the logs, I didn't revert a single thing on the main page, yet I was persecuted for "Edit Warring". What a joke! It said that Edit Warring was when a contributor did 3 reverts in a single day, yet I didn't even do ONE, and I'm "warned" for "Edit Warring".
Then, WLU comes along and says
"the elaborate ceremony of interview, "diagnosis" and selection of points is worthless and education should instead be a brief study of how to maintain sterile procedures and avoid hitting nerves, blood vessels and organs? Of course, for a lot of practitioners that would be like a priest or someone with a PhD in theology becoming an atheist, it would be incredibly hard to admit they wasted so much of their lives on what is really the equivalent of memorizing the chants used by witchdoctors. It would take a lot of courage to abandon the pretense of "ancient Chinese wisdom" and stick with simple safety precautions instead."
to which I replied
"the only really valuable research out there are the Chinese studies (because of the expert skill of Chinese practitioners in general in this regard vis-a-vie Western practitioners), and you'll note that they are all universally positive on the efficacy of acupuncture. But for a zealous rational-skeptic extremist fanatic like you to accept that WLU would be like a Spanish Inquistor suddenly deciding to stop persecuting witches for their "heresy".
which is just tit for tat, and I didn't start it, and I didn't continue it, so I'm not the bad guy here.
On a broader level, its not NPOV for an encyclopedia to sound like one of those amateurish, zealous "quackwatch" websites on a topic of such massive historical and cultural significance and gravitas as acupuncture: a practice thousands of years old that has affected the lives of Billions of people. Sure, you may have your scientific criticisms of it, but those criticism originate from a paradigm completely foreign to the native context in which TCM and acupuncture is understood, and should NOT be given the major weighting in the article that it is currently given.Dickmojo (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Please demonstrate how you can claim that you "know more about (acupuncture) than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together". I am passionate about this subject too, it is part of my profession, at which I also have over a decade of experience. You have been consistently unable to provide reliable sources for the claims you make. Please provide diffs of any "vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks" that have been made upon you by any other editor. The quotation above from WLU is directed at acupuncturists generally, not you personally. Your response was a personal attack, as I have previously mentioned. Famousdog (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Famousdog, I don't exactly know what your profession is, but let me put it this way, if I came on here and loudly proclaimed to everyone and insinuated that what you do was a complete sham, that you were a con-man, that you trick the people you have a duty of care to out of their money and are unethical, in short that your contribution to society was worthless, in fact worse than worthless was in fact dangerous and harmful, that the knowledge you possess, which is rare and hard to acquire, is all rubbish, and used loaded terms like "pseudoscience" and "quackery" to describe your work when its actually very profound and solemn practice that has improved the lives of countless people, then I'm sure that it would be considered a personal attack as well.
Now, acupuncture is one of those empirical practices where hands-on experience matters. To draw an analogy with Kung-fu, you could read a Kung-fu book, you could read a research article which says that using Kung-fu for self defence is completely worthless and a croc and that its ineffective and compare it unfavorably to using a handgun for self defence, but I'm sorry unless you've had 10 years of diligent training and practice of Kung-fu under your belt, you don't know anything about it, and frankly, should just shut up.Dickmojo (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If you did that, I would simply provide reliable sources to demonstrate that what I do professionally is not "a complete sham" and you cannot blame other editors if you take WLU's generalised comments as a personal attack. Regarding your second point. Only 500 people on earth have ever visited space, however there are hundreds of thousands of people who are "experts" in astrophysics and zero gravity - the argument from personal experience cuts no ice on Wikipedia, as well it shouldn't. Famousdog (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Your personal experience is not adequate to adjust any page since wikipedia's articles are based on what can be verified in realiable sources. No editor can claim their personal experience and knowledge is sufficient to change any page, particularly since the Essjay controversy. If you are an experienced practitioner and/or researcher, you should have access to the types of texts, and the ability to interpret them, such that you should have little issue locating and integrating the kinds of reliable sources we demand. Claiming we should just shut up and believe you is not appropriate, and if you continue make such claims it is completely appropriate that you should be page banned for POV-pushing. There is no justification for edits and edit summaries like these:
Edit warring means making the same edit repeatedly despite other editors undoing it (the three revert rule is a marker of pathological edit warring, but any contested edits that are repeatedly undone is in fact edit warring). It doesn't matter if you are convinced you are right and the other editors are wrong - everyone who reverts thinks they are right and justified. Therefore, this sequence of edits are also inappropriate:
first edit which was reverted by me, that you restored, but was again reverted by Mann jess this time, and your final revert with the inappropriate edit summary above (and was reverted by McSly).
Also problematic are unduly promoting edits include this one. That's merely your mainspace contributions, that doesn't include your largely source-free commentary on the talk page. You are free to vigorously defend your profession - using reliable sources. Not your opinion. Claims like "someone else was mean to me" doesn't justify personal attacks like comparing other editors to the Spanish Inquisition, zealots and fanatics.
No editor has any issue with the historical and cultural significance of acupuncture, and much of the page focusses on the history and theory of it. However, when it comes to efficacy, that is a medical claim which rests on modern scientific testing published in reliable sources - not 2,000 year old prescientific claims of efficacy, and in particular not assertions of efficacy not even backed by an actual 2,000 year old source. If you can not separate your personal and professional opinion from your editing enough to adhere to our policies and guidelines, then you really should not be editing the page. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see how dispute resolution is necessary here. We have two users requesting that the article be changed without providing new sources - their argument primarily being that wikipedia is biased towards scientific consensus and peer reviewed publications - and then we have a few experienced editors saying that can't be done, per policy. I don't know how that makes me a zealous fanatic, and I would urge anyone with evidence to the contrary to take the issue to RFCU with diffs showing that I've attempted to "stop opposing consensus from forming", posted "vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks", or "bullied new editors" to get my way. This is not the place for such inquiries, and in no way serve to change the weight of policy against the idea that an editor's opinion, experience, or sensitivities should be considered over scientific consensus supported by peer reviewed publications. — Jess· Δ♥18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Article is not even close to accurately representing current sources and their due weight. I concur with lack of need for dispute resolution - no edit warring that I've seen, just lots of polarised debate on the talk page. Then again I haven't followed it very long.
I've not seen your username before and I'm not accusing anyone here of those characterisations. I am however providing a background for Dickmojo's totally understandable frustration and pointing out major flaws in WP for these protoscience articles. I've no idea if there's any point doing the latter here. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Jess here; I'm not sure that DR is appropriate for the situation. RFC/U seems to be a more applicable venue. If DM continues with personal attacks then a trip to dramaland would be appropriate. NoformationTalk02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) After looking at the article's talk page, one thing I've noticed is that there is an awful lot of discussion about the topic from many editors. Talk pages are not for discussing the topic, but rather they are for discussing how to improve the article. I understand that these can sometimes overlap, but I have found that if editors remind themselves of this and try to focus on artice improvement, the unwelcome rhetoric is less likely to flow. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid that the level of rhetoric continually obscures the real issue with the general assumptions about what the article should look like. I understand that WLU and others post based on reliable sources, and that dickmojo rarely cites sources and posts long commentary. However, that does not mean dickmojo is not making important points (I do not condone his rhetoric and attacks, but I share his frustration). I think both experts on acupuncture and lay people perceive a tone of "debunking" to be too prevalent in the article. Clearing up the facts and stating the true current state of the research (mixed, and troubled) are important, but the article shouldn't seek to answer any particular question as its mission, it should describe the subject.Herbxue (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Do not blame us, it is the sources that fail to support acupuncture's efficacy for anything beyond pain and nausea, and equivocal for both. Supporters and believers in acupuncture seem to want the page to portray it as having multiple, significant effects on a variety of medical conditions. Fine, I will accept this if shown the appropriate reliable sources. It's not my fault if they don't exist. There is a vast amount of research on acupuncture - most of it is negative, particularly the higher-quality studies. That's where the story ends for me. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This board seems to be being used as a stick to beat Dickmojo, who seems to be guilty of little more than trying to correct the highly POV nature of acupuncture and not understanding WP's extremely obscure set of rules and guidelines.
On many of these Fringe/Protoscience articles, there is a resident set of skeptics who will use every trick in the book to deter anyone from even correcting POV, never mind general improvement of the article's dismal state. They instarevert any such changes, misuse WP guidelines and bully new editors in talk pages & on user pages to stop any opposing consensus forming.
There is rarely explanation of reverts, never any partial reversion, never any friendly help for new users.
Ultimately, WP is highly flawed for such articles. If you had enough time and motivation you could probably do something about it. But to new editors, these articles make WP look like a nasty, unfair and broken place. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, having joined Wikipedia six months ago Dickmojo is not a new user. Nor is shortness of tenure an excuse for repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policies (which are not "obscure" at all). And "correct the highly POV nature" is really not a fair characterization of Dickmojo's behavior from my cursory examination of the edit history. It looks more like someone with a "pro-acupuncture" point of view trying to skew what appears to be a fairly neutral article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it seems basic WP guidelines are now at least listed for new people if they ever look at their talk page -- it wasn't that way when I started.
Do you believe that this DR is warranted? If not, do you think Dickmojo feels harrassed or not?
"It looks more like someone with a "pro-acupuncture" point of view trying to skew what appears to be a fairly neutral article." This is not a crime. There are at least 3 people with an anti- POV trying to keep the article POV.
How can you state the article is neutral when acupuncture is heavily criticised with references to scientific research in the lede but there is no mention of the highly reliable source proving efficacy of a certain acupuncture technique? This Cochrane review is in fact characterised as a source for Scientific research has not found any physical or biological correlate of qi, meridians and acupuncture points. The misrepresentation of this source is extreme.
Your assumption that editors who oppose inclusion of poorly sourced material are "anti-acunpuncture" says a lot. That is battlefield mentality, and it's not helpful. If you feel the sources are being so sorely misrepresented, you should create a new section on the article talk page (or here), and lay out every source you have which indicates an alternative view not being given proper weight. Keep in mind that primary sources are less useful than secondary sources. Compare those sources you list to the sources we're currently using, including the publication medium, author's credentials, and reproduction in respected literature. I assure you that if there is strong evidence in the literature that acupuncture is effective for a broader range of problems than listed, or for the existence of qi, or any other part of TCM, editors here would be happy to improve the article by including it. Simply claiming "there's a bias" won't accomplish what you're aiming to. — Jess· Δ♥20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. You've demonstrated many of the problems that NPOV editors have.
Firstly, you accuse me of assuming 'that editors who oppose inclusion of poorly sourced material are "anti-acunpuncture"'. I do not know what poorly-sourced material you are talking about and apparently neither do you. This makes it a doubly strange accusation to make on DRN -- hypocritical too.
I note you don't castigate Scjessey for categorising Dickmojo as a pro-acupuncture editor.
Cochrane [11] is not just a secondary source, it's about the strongest source of medical science there is.
The electromagnetic source [12] is also secondary and listed on Pubmed.
This is the second time I've been contradicted on this DRN topic by someone making wildly inaccurate statements that they should know they have to verify before making.
I note your "we" argument. Sorry if I do not fit in with your "we" purely because of wanting to accurately represent the two sources above.
The second source has been discussed on the talk page in the last two days and I queried removal of the Cochrane source a few days ago. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I simply pointed to WP:BATTLEFIELD, and you responded by attacking me, and further grouping editors into opposing categories. I'll reiterate: that will not accomplish what you aim to. All your assumptions about me, above, are incorrect. I won't be continuing this discussion until you're able to calm down, address other editors collaboratively, and provide proper sources for your proposal. The cochrane source has been discussed on the talk page. If you feel it hasn't been fairly considered and weighted, then you should say that on the talk page, here, WP:RSN, or in an RFC. — Jess· Δ♥22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I consider myself a neutral party to this dispute (never edited the article) but I see a bunch of personalization of the dispute and attacking the individuals. Let's drop the sticks to beat other editors with and look at the content that is being disputed. Can we all agree to that before moving forward? Hasteur (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone, I'm a regular contributor to this noticeboard, and I have never had any dealings with acupuncture articles before. On this page and on the article talk page I see a lot of frayed tempers and accusations, but at its heart this dispute seems to be over the content of the article. Articles on alternative medicine are a perennial source of controversy on Wikipedia, and because of this we have developed quite detailed guidelines for how to deal with them. The two most relevant pages, which I see have already been linked to multiple times, are Wikipedia's guidelines for how to cover fringe theories, including alternative medicine, and the guidelines on reliable sources for medical articles.
The crux of the dispute, as I see it, is that these guidelines contrast with Mindjuicer's and Dickmojo's reading of the situation. Let me illustrate this. Above, Dickmojo says "Sure, you may have your scientific criticisms of [acupuncture], but those criticism originate from a paradigm completely foreign to the native context in which TCM and acupuncture is understood, and should NOT be given the major weighting in the article that it is currently given." This interpretation runs counter to what the guidelines listed above state, which is that on scientific matters, Wikipedia must weight its coverage according to the perspective from mainstream science.
We can cover the historical importance of concepts like meridians and qi, and this kind of coverage can and should take up a significant part of the article. However, when it comes to scientific claims like whether qi and meridians actually exist, then we must go with the modern, mainstream scientific consensus. Our guidelines on reliable sources in medical articles are very clear about how this consensus is measured, and they point squarely at giving the 2008 literature review more weight than the 2003 review, which it subsumes. Dickmojo's claim that "research into the electro-conductivity properties of acupuncture points and meridians is suggestive" does not seem to be backed up by the 2008 source, so I'm afraid that we can't include it. It is possible that we could alter the article if more reliable secondary sources on the subject are forthcoming, but until this happens there is really nothing that we can do.
I can understand Dickmojo's and Mindjuicer's frustration with this situation, but I'm afraid that however much they try and argue the point on the talk page, their efforts will likely be in vain. I recommend that they back off from this dispute, as continuing to edit against the guidelines may be enough to convince an administrator to block for tendentious editing, especially if the personal accusations and attacks continue.
As a general plan of what to do next, I agree with Noformation's suggestion of holding an request for comment on user conduct on Dickmojo and/or Mindjuicer if their conduct doesn't improve. This means both learning to edit per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and learning to collaborate with other editors. I also agree with Noformation's other suggestion that if there are any more blatant personal attacks, then a trip to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents may become necessary. I hope, however, that Dickmojo and Mindjuicer can improve their behaviour and adherence to policy well enough and quickly enough that this will not be necessary. I will leave this thread open for a little while longer in case anyone has questions, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be a lot that dispute resolution can achieve here. If anything in my post is unclear, please let me know and I will clarify it. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫07:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you've basically cut to the heart of the matter there, Stradivarius. I started this DR in order to find some way to move forward with the acupuncture article and stop the opinionated ranting (from both sides) not, as Mindjuicer alleges, "as a stick to beat Dickmojo with." The only way that I can see to move forward is if Dickmojo and Mindjuicer (and some other editors) put their egos to one side and back up their opinions with evidence and sources. I, and the other editors, will continue to do likewise. As I have said to Mindjuicer elsewhere recently, I also think that the fanciful interpretation of scientific studies and synthesis need to stop. Famousdog (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, a RFC/U or WQA might have been better ways forward. Reliable sources indicating acupuncture is, at best, a means of treating two symptoms with barely clinically significant reusults. When this is pointed out, and the response is "you don't understand acupuncture like I do, plus sources from 2000 years ago validate it", the issue is not with the article or the sources - it is with the editor. Pages are edited according to reliable sources - not editor viewpoints. Claiming I am "anti-acupuncture" because I accurately summarize the sources in proportion to their appearance within the guidelines for fringe theories suggests the problem is not me. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex14:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
First, I still do not see why you guys are lumping MJ in with DM, just because he is defending DM and annoying you? Hardly an issue of poor behavior, just disagreement. Second, Famousdog is warning against synthesis, and yet WLU that is what you do when you take your selected sample of reviews, decide which aspect of their conclusions you wish to mention, and frame them as established scientific fact. As I and Mindjuicer have pointed out, several Cochrane reviews make the conclusion that Acupuncture is likely a valuable treatment, and sometimes superior to conventional care. But you continually perpetuate this myth that acupuncture is of no value other than equivocal for two symptoms. You don't get to just choose which aspects of the sources you want to have presented, and then get pissed when you're challenged on it. If you weren't on such a mission with this page, we would have a relatively neutral sounding lede and a frank discussion of the research issues in the body, and the public would be perfectly well-informed. Look at other encyclopedias - they are generally not on a mission to debunk but rather to inform.63.139.146.30 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Ongoing disagreement that never reaches consensus, does not acknowledge our policies and guidelines and does not introduce any new sources or more accurate summaries of sources is tendentious editing. Consistently I and other have been accused of being "skeptics" who don't understand acupuncture - but no new sources have been provided (including Cochrane reviews). What reviews are missing? The most recent ones have two positive conclusions - neck pain and postoperative nausea. If there are others, please present them on the talk page. It's very easy to criticize other editors for leaving out information, but without a demonstration of a source that is not integrated and should be, the page simply can't move forward. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started a new section on the talk page specifically to list reliable, secondary sources demonstrating acupuncture's efficacy that have not yet been included. Hopefully this will help resolve some of this discussion. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
COI
Above in Dickmojo's first statement he writes "Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to." DM, are you aware of our conflict of interest guidelines that strongly discourage you from being involved with acupuncture articles? Your statement indicates to me that your goal at WP is not overall improvement of the pedia, but rather to push a POV that is dear to you. It also indicates that you cannot edit the article dispassionately. Wikipedia is not a place to defend your profession nor a venue in which to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the crux of the issue here is that you see things from a POV that is not mainstream, and so to you the mainstream sounds extreme. NoformationTalk21:20, 17 February 2012 (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.
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There have been a number of recent attempts to remove information regarding Andrew Cosby, his status as Boom! Studios co-founder and contributions he has made to the company since its inception, despite numerous reputable sources citing the validity of this information, including Boom's own publications, where Mr. Cosby was listed as co-founder for years prior to his leaving the company in 2010, Andrew Cosby's wikipedia page [4] (which was originally established by Ross Richie (Boom's other co-founder and current CEO), various interviews with both co-founders, [5][6], and press from reliable sources both online and in print. [7][8][9] Even Bloomberg's Executive Report lists Andrew Cosby as Boom! Studios' co-founder. [10]. Have tried talk page with both the editor involved and on the site itself. No response. 2 independent editors took a look and make corrections, only to have those correction undone by the part responsible for the continued vandalism. Suspect malicious intent.
I have kindly asked the user to refrain from making these unnecessary changes, but have received no response. Other editors tried to step in to resolve, and their edits were undone.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Boom! Studios}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes. Through talk pages on both Njkaters page and the Boom page. Have provided numerous sources. Nothing works.
How do you think we can help?
I tried to get the page protected, but was told to try dispute resolution. I took the first step by asking other editors to examine the dispute. They apparently did but had their edits erased as well.
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 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I do not believe Buddhism and Jainism are reform movements of Vedic religion, as Fowler suggests with his Catholic-Protestant analogy. Here is my reference: Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN81-208-0815-0 Page 18. "There is no evidence to show that Jainism and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times."
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=India}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Material about Shramana, is proposed to be added (aided with some refs) by User:SAV.
Proposal is rejected on grounds WP:UNDUE by User:Fowler&fowler.
User:SAV expresses the opinion that the following text is objectionable "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism." with the argument that "Buddhism is not a reform movement of Hinduism, but of the extreme aesthetiscism of the Shramana".
Fowler amends the text to "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism,[25] both becoming independent religions.[26]".
This was supported by refs & discussion in good faith by Fowler&fowler & RegentsPark.
User:SAV tries to pin down F&f to SAV's statement "believe Buddhism and Jainism were reforms of Vedism, just as protestantism was a reform of Catholicism". At this point it is not clear whether SAV is delinquent in not suggesting alternate acceptable words to satisfy the nuance that he champions, or it is a case of "not hearing what others say" deliberately.
My opinion:POV trolling by User:SAV. More than adequate response has been given & it is now a case of "don't feed the trolls." AshLin (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is my contradicting reference: Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN81-208-0815-0 Page 18. "There is no evidence to show that Jainism and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times."SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
As a mass market textbook that has gone through five editions, it isn't particularly trustworthy as a representative of the state of the scholarly community's opinion on this matter (cf: publisher's website); additionally, the publisher's website quotes K. Kunjunni Raja, in the "Adyar Library Bulletin" (1991) who appears to believe that the book makes a claim quite different from your own interpretation of the book, "The book aims at establishing harmony among religions and helping people towards the realization of 'God within Man'. Regarding 'Hinduism' the author thinks that if all these religions that accept the fourfold pillar of Karma Samsara Jnana Mukti may be called Hindu, then Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism may also have to be called 'Hinduism'." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. The point being that Buddhism and Jainism are not "reform" movements of Vedic religion. Ask the Buddhists and Jains editors on Wikipedia. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
So you misrepresent a textbook aimed at a mass market, and proceed to claim that personal truth is the form of verification we ought to use? I suggest you read WP:VWP:RSWP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT. They do not support your assertion that we ought to "ask editors," they rather suggest that we ought to seek out the highest quality scholarly opinion on the matter, and determine what (and possibly what variety of) opinion scholars hold. Scholars may very well support your position, but at the current point in time we won't know. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved editor
The references presented by User:Fowler&fowler in discussion in India talk page are far more superior and mainstream than the weak references by user SAV. Also, as an editor brought up and schooled in India, I am aware of the general view (as taught in texts supported by different major schools of Indian history) that Buddhism and Jainism were born as reforms against the orthodoxies and strictness of late Vedic era. So, completely agree with the present version, and completely agree with AshLin that "Don't fed the trolls." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Lal Mani Joshi said "To say that Gautama the Buddha was born a Hindu (as some contemporary Hindus have claimed) is entirely nonsensical. There is no evidence to think that the Vedic religion was prevalent among the Sakyas, Mallas and Licchavis. On the contrary, there is evidence of the progress and influence of several varieties of Sramanic religion and philosophy which had nothing in common with Brahmanic theism, sacrificialism, and world-affirmation. The ideologies of the sramanas cannot be traced to Indo-Aryans...." page 10. The Buddhist Visnu by Holt. 2004. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I am traveling and woefully short of time. I believe AshLin, Fifelfoo, and Dwaipayanc (who is not even remotely Hindu fundamentalist!) have adequately dealt with the complaint, and there is little for me to add. Mr. Saib Aba Venkatesh, who seems to be the kind of SPA we unfortunately see all too often on the India page, will not relent no matter what the response. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment from RegentsPark
Fowler has provided impeccable sources (please see the discussion on the India talk page) and wikipedia relies on sources rather than on what particular editors believe or think may the truth. Both fowler and I have made changes to the text based on the assumption that SaidAbaVenkatesh's objections are made in good faith (though, reading that editor's comments above, that is a questionable assumption), but, clearly, we can't make changes that are inconsistent with what reliable sources say. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (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.
DeSmogBlog Deserves Deniergate Recognition
No attempt has been made at resolving this at the relevant talk pages, as is required before bringing it here. Try that first.--Atlan (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
DeSmogBlog has recently achieved worldwide recognition for exposing the "Deniergate" controversy. I have made several attempts to begin acknowledging this, including the use of 4 references to relevant reputable media articles. Another user, "Squiddy" has twice (so far) deleted my additions, and this seems unfair? I have written on their talk page, politely, and look forward to their response, with little optimism of a reasonable reply. Another user, "166.249.98.29" has attempted to vandalise the page by including reference to "fakegate". Given the topicality of this page, ongoing dispute is lamentably likely to ensue, and the attention of editors may be regrettably required?
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=DeSmogBlog Deserves Deniergate Recognition}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Yes, have initiated discussion on Squiddy 's talk page, and live in hope, but not confidence...
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment from univolved editorSquiddy has started a discussion on the article talkpage, and agrees that the information should be included in the article. His issue is with the non-neutral wording of the current version. Shambala2011, please consider his comment there, and try to draft a more appropriate version of the section on the talkpage before changing the article. In addition, you are on the verge of breaching WP:3RR; please do not revert the article again without first establishing consensus on the talkpage. Yunshui雲水12:56, 17 February 2012 (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.
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.
List of indigenous peoples
Dispute overview
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The list includes "Palestinians" yet leaves out the Old Yishuv being that there was an indigenous Jewish population in the same area prior to and through out the development of the Palestinian people then listing Palestinians as indigenous while NOT mentioning the Old Yishuv implies that the latter must not exist so the former can have its "indigenous" status.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: Could another user active at DRN tie this one off? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
