Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati on 14:15, 4 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk · contribs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Most of the suggestions about the Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati are not even replied. To take action for those suggestion is not happening. A lot of Information supported by reliable and verifiable references was even rejected. The subject is a disabled inventor kid fighting against death. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried my level best to avoid dispute by not editing the article and only giving suggestions at the talk page of the article. But now i am helpless as most of the suggestions are not even replied. How do you think we can help? All new sections of the Talk page of the article should be heard/listened and action must be taken as per Wikipedia norms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Opening comments by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translations of The Lord of the Rings

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Prosfilaes on 21:41, 28 June 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Translations of The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) 178.49.18.203 (talk · contribs) 145.226.30.43 (talk · contribs) Butsuri (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Esperanto translation is currently included in Translations of The Lord of the Rings. User:178.49.18.203 is trying to remove it on the grounds that it's unauthorized. That's completely unproven; they've offered not a shred of evidence that would establish that. Even if it is, it's notable enough to be in the article. I'd note the Persian translation, published as it is in a country that does not have copyright relations with the rest of the world, is also likely unauthorized. That doesn't stop it from being the go-to translation for thousands of Iranians. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've had long discussion on the talk page and many reverts on the article page. How do you think we can help? Stop the edit war. Opening comments by 178.49.18.203 About authorization: I know no acknowledgments from either publisher or estate about authorizing the Esperanto translation. The book itself has no ISBN, no attributions, was published by a small editorial. Let people translate things for personal use, and print them on demand, but let's not ascribe to them encyclopedic notability. LotR is notable, Auld is notable, but notability isn't inherited automatically by his bootleg translation. There is a tendency amongst Esperantists to create informational presence beyond statistical limits. WP is not a tool for that, I hope. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 145.226.30.43 The editor has a history of hobbyhorse editing on Esperanto-related articles (like here); in this case he originally deleted the mention of the Esperanto translation--and only the Esperanto translation--calling it a "fake" and a "hoax". After being forced to concede that this was not the case (six chapters are even available online), he has now seized on it being "unauthorized", with no evidence, and again targeting only the Esperanto translation with this accusation, in spite of many others being published without ISBN and having no citations to prove their existence. The remainder of my arguments can be found on the talk page. This is a work that has gone through two editions, in a rare language, making its importance relative to the larger body of literature arguably more significant than that of most translations listed on the page (and its second printing made headlines in the Esperanto press). --145.226.30.43 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Butsuri Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Translations of The Lord of the Rings discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! I'm thehistorian10, self-assigned to mediate on your case. I'm going to wait until ALL parties have made opening statements, otherwise I will probably close the case as a non-starter. What I don't know at the moment is what you actually want me to do. There is a specific question above that asks what you want done about this dispute. Until the filing party answers this question, we cannot proceed any further. --The Historian (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I am also a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm ordinarily a strong proponent of the idea that a request here ought to be closed unless all significant participants in the discussion at the article weigh in here. But I'm not so sure that Butsuri is a significant participant. S/he only made one comment in that extensive discussion and all her/his edits to the article itself are unrelated to the issue here. Moreover, s/he has not edited Wikipedia at all since June 12. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC) So, I see the case is closed; what was the resolution? To keep the article as it stands now (with the translation included), presumably? --145.226.30.44 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2013 (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.

Railway articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Superfast1111 on 06:48, 5 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Surat railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Secunderabad railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jan Shatabdi Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Sinhagad Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Grant Road railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Byculla railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Superfast1111 (talk · contribs) Abhishek191288 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The above list is just a tip of the iceberg.Images that i have uploaded are being targeted by only one editor. Despite the fact that some of the pages have had no images,they were nevertheless removed without good reason.We have two sets of opposite opinions but there has been no factual dispute of information. I for one am tired of repeatedly getting into a edit war. Need this dispute to be resolved once & for all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have been very much at each others throats & i have had my privileges suspended twice because of it. I have tried to talk to the other editor with civility (most of the time) but little has come out of it. I have on separate occasions explained why i edited obviously wrong information but he has refused to agree. Others have also agreed with me.If what i am doing is so wrong then why except him is no one else undoing my work? There have hardly been such instances.I am just tired of it. How do you think we can help? Help decide who is right & who is wrong or why i am unable to resolve this dispute.I do agree that right & wrong is a personal opinion but i request you to look at Mumbai Rajdhani & Surat Railway station,August Kranti Rajdhani,Mulund railway station & his own talk page pages where even factual information has been disputed.Anyone can edit & add info on various pages but 'User blocked for repeating same behaviour' is not a reason for editing especially when the page has no other image. Thank you. Opening comments by Abhishek191288 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Railway articles discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vivint

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Pokey5945 on 23:17, 5 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vivint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pokey5945 (talk · contribs) Oldnoah (talk · contribs) Youngnoah (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Oldnoah and Youngnoah continue to remove material about Vivint's legal problems, and to replace it with corporate puffery. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted on the talk page but received no response. The complaint at first was that the section was too long. I reduced the section's length in response, but the complaint has not changed. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate guidance in dealing with what appears to be a corporate PR office's attempt to sanitize this firm's WP article. Opening comments by Oldnoah Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Youngnoah Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Vivint discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edward Snowden

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Indolering on 05:45, 6 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Indolering (talk · contribs) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor did not care for a change in the formatting of a section. I believe that this change significantly enhances the legibility of the content and reduces bloat. The editor simply seems to not like it, having added vague rational based on loosely related policy and guidelines, and criticizing factual elements and missing references instead of just fixing them. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Pulling in other editors for their opinion, changing the categories to address his critiques, etc. How do you think we can help? Offer alternatives that would summarize the section's content and give a more detailed outline. Maybe give some kind of feedback on how the editor is interpreting the policies he cites. Opening comments by Ohconfucius This request is premature. We are still discussing the issue on the talk page, and none of the other editors of the article have yet weighed in. You don't come to waste time of DR staff over two reverts. I'm pretty confident that in two weeks, the section in question will be down to two small paragraphs without any intervention on my part. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Edward Snowden discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Welcome to DRN. I am a regular editor here. I'm going to take the foregoing response by Ohconfucius to say that he is not willing to participate here at this point in time and close this listing as futile in 24 hours or thereabouts unless he says otherwise. It also appears that several other editors have joined in the discussion and that this listing probably ought to be closed and relisted with them included if it is going to continue, so that they can be properly notified and the listing configured to include them by the listing bot. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (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.

Judith Barsi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by EditorE on 18:42, 8 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Judith Barsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EditorE (talk · contribs) AldezD (talk · contribs) Dispute overview AldezD has been quite one heck of an pain to deal with lately. He has been making unnessecary removals of info on Judith Barsi, in which he thinks all of it violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While I do agree that the mentions about her "starring" in Jaws are not true and that there were a couple of bits in the article that were trivial, as well as mentioning a fan club is not nessecary, it has come to my conclusion that he clearly needs to read some biography featured and good articles here on Wikipedia and see how comprohensive they are, because his edits are preventing this article from becoming even a B-class article, and he has to understand that most of what he is removing has nothing to do with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to explain to him why the edits he is doing are mostly not right, but he just becomes a dumb person as saying they were nothing more than "I don't agree" arguements. How do you think we can help? You can decide on that. Just make it other than blocking me. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Judith Barsi discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hans von Ohain, Frank Whittle

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Completeaerogeek on 01:40, 9 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Hans von Ohain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Frank Whittle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Completeaerogeek (talk · contribs) IIIraute (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The editor of the articles user IIIraute refuses to acknowledge verifiable information regarding the invention of the jet engine. The articles are demonstrably incorrect with regard to von Ohain's prior knowledge of Whittle's work. This is a seminal issue in the aviation world. I have provided evdience of first person quotes from von Ohain saying that he had read and critiqued Whittle's patent prior to filing his own but IIIraute continues to quote outdated myths on the basis that they have been repeated often. Secondly he refuses to modify the description that Ohain produced the first operational turbojet. This is fundamentally incorrect. Whittle'engine ran 6 months before Ohain's and Ohain's engine flew only 3 times before being rejected so it was never 'operational' in any definition of the word. I have provided him with specific references for the word 'operational'. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried repeatedly to discuss this on the talk page but he seems not to understand the rules of evidence precedence/primacy. He has accused me of vandalising the page when all I have done is correct the errors and cited my corrections properly. he has now had the pages locked. How do you think we can help? IIIraute needs help to understand the rules of evidence. Just because something has been repeated often does not make it true. First person interview statements trump non-specific assertions. Just because something is stated in a reliable source does not make it reliable. That 'reliable' source needs to have an original source that is verifiable. In order to refuse cited new evidence you need to prove that it is fabricated or false. Opening comments by IIIraute Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Hans von Ohain, Frank Whittle discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelapstick 2

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 174.226.192.10.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already Location of dispute Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelapstick 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ponyo (talk · contribs) 174.236.102.210 (talk · contribs) lugia2453 (talk · contribs) rschen7754 (talk · contribs) Dennis_Brown (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An Anonymous user attempted to ask a question on an RFA. The question was removed but was restored. Later two editors protected the page in a deliberate attempt to keep anonymous users from editing the page even though the page permits IPs to ask questions. The block summaries make no sense. The IPs were blocked without warning and for the first time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempts to restore the question citing AGF and BITE were met with blocking. Given the nature of the two editors who locked the page, it appear they're ready to block and revert any IP that edits the page and says something they don't want to hear How do you think we can help? Caution users to assume good faith and be patient. I cannot tolerate snap decisions. Opening comments by ponyo Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by 174.236.102.210 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by lugia2435 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by rschen7754 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Dennis Brown Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Kelapstick Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelapstick 2 discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanniyar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Suryavarman01 on 04:32, 9 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vanniyar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Suryavarman01 (talk · contribs) Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In Historical Status of the page it has only following lines. "In the 19th century the Vanniyar held a low position in both Lower Burma and in South India.[1][2] For example, Dharma Kumar refers to several early 19th century authors who describe the Palli in South India as being higher than untouchables,[1] while Michael Adas says that in Burma the Palli were "socially better off" than the untouchable castes but were "economically equally exploited and deprive" When I try to remove those lines which are not at all relevant to historical status , the editor(Qwyrxian) warns me for BAN .Those lines no where related to historical status of the vanniyars. Then why it should not be removed ? There is already communal violence going on between vanniyars and Untouchables(Dalits) in Tamil Nadu , India . Proof: 1.http://www.firstpost.com/india/dharmapuri-violence-dalit-boy-who-married-higher-caste-girl-found-dead-930495.html 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dharmapuri_violence 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India When there is already communal violence between two communities(Vanniyar and Untoucables(Dalits)) in tamil nadu , India . How come an article will be in such a way to add oil to fire. The lines mentioned in "Historical Status" is just comparing vanniyars and dalits(untouchable) in such a way to trigger huge violence between two huge communities in Tamil Nadu state , India . I have removed those controversial lines in order to maintain the peace in India .But the editor Qwyrxian is not accepting my stand and warns me that he may block me . He is saying those lines are from the reliable source (i.e) from the book "Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century" by Dharma Kumar .When I tried add few lines based on the same book it is rejected by Qwyrxian .The reason being stated as "another editor,one whom I happen to respect a great deal,felt that ur new version is worse" Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have initiated the discussion in talk page. Qwyrxian replies are so biased , he is never allowing any additions in the article even though it is from the reliable source . please involve other editors and administrators to end this vandalism . How do you think we can help? Many feel the Qwyrxian is so biased in this article , please restrict his edit on the vanniyar page and guide some neutral editors for this page . The lines which are mentioned in historical status is no where related to history of vanniyars. Opening comments by Qwyrxian Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. First, User:Sitush, User:MatthewVanitas, and User:Zeeyanwiki should probably all be invited, because they've all also reverted Suryavarman01's removal of sourced content. Second, Suryavarman01's comments about current violence in India are irrelevant; our job is to provide a reference of what reliable sources have said about subjects (it falls under WP:NOTCENSORED if we need to site a policy). As for the one revert where Suryavarman01 added info, the sequence was: Suryavarman01 added the info Sitush, who's read the source in question, said #Suryavarman01 was misrepresenting that source. Suryavarman01 re-added the info without addressing Sitush's concerns I reverted the re-addition, as Suryavarman01 should have gone to talk to discuss rather than trying to force his way. Experience has taught me w/r/t analyzing sources, Sitush is almost always right. Ultimately, I don't think Suryavarman01 is here for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. The warning I issued was because Suryavarman01 has been edit warring on an article covered by the Caste discretionary sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2013 () Discussion does not take place in opening comments. They are for the opening comment of the named user only. Discuss in the appropriate section below once case has been accepted by a volunteer. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I have initiated the talk with Sitush when my additions was removed and still discussing that in the talk page . When my additions to the wiki is removed and when I raised the conflict did any of the the user who have reverted my edit initiated the issue in talk page . If the other users are not following any QUO , it not fair to blame me . You are saying a source is reliable and if I am adding the few lines to article based on the same source , you have removed my edit , stating the reason that editor whom you respect is feeling that my change was worse . If they feel like they could have raised the issue in the article talk's page . but you and the authors whom you have mentioned never raised an issue or conflict or difference in opinion . but directly reverted my changes. This is about the community(caste) who are more than 10 million in population in tamil nadu , India , and about the individual person , so Wikipedia and its editors should be responsible enough that the article should not trigger any communal violence . The book speaks about the Economy of various castes in 19 th century . So in this article we can mention the actual essence of the book , which says that the vanniyars were economically exploited . Instead of that comparing the vanniyar community with the other community(Untoucables) is no where imporatant for this article . If the article is having 300 pages about the vanniyars then are you going to write all the informations ??? No we gonna write only the essence of the book . Ultimately the book speaks about the economical condition of vanniyars in 19 th century . So the essence of that will be "Vanniyars were economically exploited in 19 th century" . But the lines in the historical status just comparing the vanniyar community with other communities . which is no were adds value to the article and no where providing information to the article. The main motto of wiki is to provide the facts and informations about the various artciles , so the article should have the facts and informations not some irrelavent lines which is not going to improve the article (Even if it is from the reliable source.)--Suryavarman01 (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Vanniyar(Vanniyar) discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religious views

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mrlechner on 21:49, 9 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Religious views (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mrlechner (talk · contribs) Dispute overview John Adams was a christian and was not a deist. See his own words reference [126]. The following text is an attempt to claim he was not a Christian and should be removed. and an independent thinker".[116] -- See webster dictionary 1826 "DEIST" Adams was educated at Harvard when the influence of deism was growing there, and sometimes used deistic terms in his speeches and writing.[118] -- without additional comment and only the ones before and after, it appears to be connecting the dots of unfounded evidence. "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.[119] -- see his quotes "search the scripture" Fielding (1940) argues that Adams' beliefs synthesized Puritan, deist, and humanist concepts. -- again see his own quotes, this is not justified. Frazer (2004) notes that, while Adams shared many perspectives with deists, "Adams clearly was not a deist. Deism rejected any and all supernatural activity and intervention by God; consequently, deists did not believe in miracles or God's providence....Adams, however, did believe in miracles, providence, and, to a certain extent, the Bible as revelation."[122] Fraser argues that Adams' "theistic rationalism, like that of the other Founders, was a sort of middle ground between Protestantism and deism."[123] -- anything to try and show he was not a christian? Have you tried to resolve this previously? None, it appears this subject has been brought up before with no resolution. How do you think we can help? The article contents, John Adams quote "[126]" solves the dispute. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Religious views discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/Hadapt,_Inc.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HadoopDB on 17:26, 10 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hadapt, Inc. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HadoopDB (talk · contribs) Zhaofeng Li (talk · contribs) Theonesean (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Hadapt, Inc. page was initially labeled as coming across as too much of an advertisement. I recently made 3 major page edits to remove everything that was "opinion-based" and inserted news article references for anything that might be perceived as subjective information. It is now entirely fact-based but has not been approved. Requests for more specific feedback have not been returned. Based on looking at many other Wikipedia articles of similar companies in the big data industry, I believe the Hadapt, Inc. page is ready to be published. Best, Jon Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for specific feedback and the requirements I need to meet in order for the page to go public. How do you think we can help? I would like to know the specific paragraphs/sentences that need to be changed, or ideally, for the article to be published as is. I believe this is an unbiased representation of the Hadapt company. Opening comments by Zhaofeng Li Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Theonesean Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Jon, I don't know why you called specifically us to the DRN. If you want to discuss the viability of this article, you should have discussed it on the page, or on individual users' talk pages. This is unnecessary. That being said, I shall treat this as a viable case and make my opening statement. I reviewed this article a few hours ago. As I explained in my AfC comments on the page itself, the page doesn't lend itself to an encyclopedia. My reference to "keeping Wikipedia boring" was a joke. I was quoting SarahStierch (talk · contribs), who herself was referring to the "Keep Austin Weird" ad campaign. I laid out my concerns with the article fairly and logically, quoting from the article itself. You, Jon, resumbitted the article three times today without accommodating any of our comments. This is a massive waste of time. Thank you. theonesean 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/Hadapt,_Inc. discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ETools

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Paul2924 on 08:31, 11 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute ETools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Paul2924 (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am attempting to update the e-Tools article to discuss the grass-roots effort and public domain support that has started to revive the orphaned software. MrOllie constantly deletes the edits without citing specific reasons (he is generalized in his comments). Even after I cited chapter and verse as to why the edits meet Wiki standards, he continues to delete the content that has been added. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion has been made on the COI board where MrOllie originally brought the issue. Entry was adjusted to ensure it meets all Wiki requirements and policy. I cut and pasted the actual policy that is claimed to be involved and addressed each element in a discussion to ensure that the other editor understands that it meets all the requirements. In their "opinion" they are still convinced that it doesn't rather than basing their decision on black-letter policy as stated. How do you think we can help? (1) As MrOllie did not originally engage me (the original contributor) when he decided to revert my edits, and he is engaged in an edit-war and has a history of this in the past (see others on his talk page) I recommend that he be banned from making further edits. (2) To prevent him from continuing these changes, can the page be locked so that I manage the edits to it. The software is an orphan software and no activity has taken place in the past few years. Opening comments by MrOllie Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. ETools discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2002 Gujarat violence‎

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darkness Shines on 12:48, 6 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) Dlv999 (talk · contribs) Neo. (talk · contribs) Solomon7968 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two users have decided that the academic sources I am using to improve this article are "biased" "conspiracy theorists" who "always to create sensation to sell their books" This is obviously not in line with our policies on reliable sourcing. Articles on contentious historical subjects need to use the most reliable and up to date sources available. Not newspaper articles from the period in question. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page to no avail, Neo. & Solomon7968 quite simply refuse to allow the article to be rewritten in accordance of NPOV & the views of mainstream academic sources, How do you think we can help? Explain to the users that the use of the best quality sources is not a violation of NPOV but is in fact following it. Opening comments by Dlv999 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Neo. I sense this is trick by user:Darkness Shine. If neutral users say that his so-called 'academic sources' are OK to be used in the article then he gets license to replace whole article with his POV version. Article is written by community over 10 years and DS calls it Shite. He has created his own version of article here in user space and slowly replacing whole article with his own POV version. Articles on similar incidents of violence like September 11 attacks or Iraq war use media sources. But user is removing reputed media sources and has picked up so-called 'academic sources' to support his POV. I don't think this issue is discussed enough on talkpage to qualify for this forum. I request uninvolved users to tell DS to discuss his every source on talkpage first. neo (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Solomon7968 I am a loss to understand how I am either involved or a participant in a dispute. My only statement in this so called "Dispute" is to pointing out to User:Dlv999 that No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources. I do not think my position is at all disputed and neither have I quite simply refuse to allow the article to be rewritten in accordance of NPOV & the views of mainstream academic sources. The Legend of Zorro 13:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Note: Infact I have not touched the disputed article 2002 Gujarat violence once and have edited the talk page once for a reply to User:Dlv999. If User:Darkness Shines agrees with my position that No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources, then I do not think I am a participant in a dispute. The Legend of Zorro 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 2002 Gujarat violence‎ discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi I'm PhilKnight, and I'm a volunteer here on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. There is some guidance about using news sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. The guideline says "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." But then goes on to say "News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." From my perspective, this doesn't go as far as saying they shouldn't be used. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (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.

Team Kaobon

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nextgenliverpool on 10:50, 12 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Team Kaobon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nextgenliverpool (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I visit a gym and set up a wikipedia page, after awhile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Kaobon setup their page, edited my page "next generation mma" with a page redirect now my page doesn't appear in wikipedia Have you tried to resolve this previously? I haven't took any other steps to resolve the matter How do you think we can help? I think you could reinstate my old Next Generation MMA page and stop it being redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Kaobon Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Team Kaobon discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wolverhampton#Music

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Keomike on 00:20, 13 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wolverhampton#Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Keomike (talk · contribs) 151.26.122.138 (talk · contribs) 151.26.92.149 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I reverted two edits from an unregistered user special:users/151.26.122.138 which I suspected were vandalism. He/she had removed a photograph and text, both refences to a pop music band member born in the city, stating: 1. "(Non-encyclopaedic person; the member hasn't got an own voice; is already mentioned in the band. Non-encyclopaedic people don't need to be included in a voice.)" and 2. " (Non-encyclopaedic person as precedently said.)" Following my reversion he/she (with a new unregistered user ID special:users/151.26.92.149) has again removed the section stating "no vandalism, you're wrong. The member's city is already mentioned in the band's page; then, according to Wiki's guidelines, he's not encyclopaedic.) I find his argument confusing; if nobody can be mentioned in a location article if that birthplace is mentioned in their main article then thousands of edits breach these unspecified Wiki guidelines. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As the user has not got a fixed IP address I don't see any point in entering into a discussion on the non-existent Talk pages. How do you think we can help? As I am a relatively new editor, with limited experience, I don't feel confident enough to proceed further without help, please. Opening comments by 151.26.122.138 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by 151.26.92.149 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Wolverhampton#Music discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

douglas karpen

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lordvolton on 03:37, 6 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Douglas Karpen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lordvolton (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute relates to the reliability of sources. Although the editor has made wholesale changes to the article beyond the sources and keeps reverting back to their version. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've added additional sources that I felt would address the concerns of the other editor: Dallas Morning News, Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American. How do you think we can help? Clarify for the parties involved which sources are reliable... and separately address the wholesale change to the article that was made under the guise of "reliable sources". I had hoped we could work together to find a common ground, but the editor was unwilling to find a common ground. Opening comments by Roscelese Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I don't think this is a DRN case. The sources Lordvolton is adding - LifeNews, the John Birch Society, Operation Rescue, and so on - are obviously not reliable, even less so for BLP sensitive material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Lordvolton: No further discussion until case is accepted by a DRN volunteer. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Rebuttal by Lord Volton Roscelese made unilateral changes to the article without seeking consensus. However, in an attempt to address her concerns I added several reputable sources: The Washington Times, The Dallas Morning News, The National Review, and The New American. Unfortunately, the article was reverted back to her original edit (multiple times). To the extent she only had concerns with the reliability of certain sources those could have been discussed and potentially removed when four additional sources were added. Instead she imposed unilateral edits and refused to work with me to find a common ground. (see Douglas Karpen talk page, and our talk pages). Thank you! Lordvolton (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC) douglas karpen discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The article has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Karpen. Looking at the way the discussion is going, it seems likely the article will be deleted soon, and this request rendered moot. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (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.

2002 Gujarat violence

Filed by Neo..

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

I have tried in this discussion on article talkpage to solve the dispute. Location of dispute

• 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Neo. (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In this section of 2002 Gujarat violence User:Darkness Shines is telling only one side of the story i.e the fire on train was an accident. He says that he has covered other side of the story that the fire on the train was caused by a muslim mob in following text:

Another investigation, which was commissioned by the Gujarat government lead by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party was headed by G. T. Nanavati, a retired Supreme Court judge. This investigation known as the "Shah-Nanavati commission" concluded that the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals. In a recording by Tehelka Arvind Pandya who is counsel to the Gujarat government, stated that the Shah-Nanavati commission would fall in favour of the BJP, as Shah was their man and Nanavati could be bribed.

This text does not include 'muslim' word at all, but as it points towards muslim involvement, user has done WP:SYNTHESIS by combining two unrelated sources to imply that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt. Hence the whole section makes reader believe that the fire on the train was an accident. Other side about involvement of muslim mob doesn't exist to make the section neutral as per NPOV. To support my argument that muslim mob was directly or allegedly involved in fire, I am citing these sources: Human Rights Watch[1] [2], United States Department of State [3], European Parliament[4], Amnesty International [5], Social Science Research Council [6], United Nations Human Rights Council [7], TIME magazine [8]. But user is not allowing to include other side of the story to make the section neutral.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I hope volunteers will be able to convince him to allow edit to balance the section.

Opening comments by Darkness Shines

I have told Neo. on the talk page more than enough times now, we do not duplicate content, the whole pushing of this "Muslim mob" meme is getting disruptive. It is mentioned in the article three times already. Which I would imagine is more than enough times. Stop beating our readers over the head with "Muslim mobs" Darkness Shines (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Azerbaijani people

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

Filed by Verdia25 on 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Verdia25 (talk · contribs)
• Samaksasanian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue lies in the first sentence of the description of the page. I think the ethnic group should be called 'Turkic-speaking people', while the other person thinks that they should be called 'Turkic people'.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to discus and solve this matter on the Talk:Azerbaijani people page. I also reported the matter on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, from which I got a response that it should be discussed on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure. I tried to discus the matter on the talk page but the other person did not go against my counterarguments. I believe it would be fair if it would be changed to the former description (Turkic-speaking people) if he does not have anything to say to my counterarguments.

Opening comments by Samaksasanian

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

this user complained me and User:Qara xan in edit warring‎ page: in 5 June 2013 [9] and 13 June 2013 [10] But admins Did not accept Complaint him. and please Contributions User:Verdia25→ [11] 40 edit and all of the edit is vandalizing and Complaints and conflicts

I edit by valid Sources, my Sources is a Encyclopædia Britannica → Azerbaijani People Explained → Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran- I explained Talk:Azerbaijani people but this User Does not accept Azerbaijani People is a Turkic people BUT User:Verdia25 say Azerbaijani People is Turkic Speaking people.

I'm editing the source by a Encyclopædia Britannica→ Azerbaijani People--So Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people and Azerbaijani Language from Turkic languages--Thanks--Samək^Talk 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What ethnic group Azerbaijani people? Azerbaijani People are Oghuz Turks-- all of the People in the World Come from Of a branch.

Now I have a question, Azerbaijani People is?

1. Turkic people ??
2. Iranian People ??
3. Peoples of the Caucasus ??
4. NOW, Right now, Up now Any user who can read here, say What ethnic group Azerbaijani people????

I Have a very valid sources and added Azerbaijanis People article;→

in the end→ say to me Azerbaijani People is a Turkic people?? Or Iranian People ?? Or Peoples of the Caucasus ??--Samək^Talk 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello! I am thehistorian10", a volunteer here. Thanks for the opening statements - they are of use. I think we can sort this dispute rather quickly. First, could Samaksasanian please answer this question: Is the Encyclopedia Britannica your ONLY source in this article, or do you use others with the Encyclopedia being your primary source? --The Historian (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also a regular editor here at DRN. The dispute over whether the lede of this article should say "Turkic", "Turkic-speaking", or simply "ethnic group", and what part Encyclopedia Britannica should play as a source in the article for this issue and for other issues, goes back to at least 2006 and involves many, probably dozens, of editors. Discussion of those subjects can be found in all 9 of the talk page archive pages for the article. Resolution of the dispute between just these two editors will be futile, as new participants in the debate will merely come along tomorrow. I am of the opinion that the only acceptable way to resolve this so as to bring stability to the article on, at least, this point is via request for comments. If a RFC closes with a clear consensus as to how this should be worked out (which, admittedly, is anything but certain), then at least a new clear consensus will have to be formed in order to change it in the future. Resolving disputes between the editors du jour is merely assisting axes to be ground further. I recommend that this be closed in favor of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First of, thank you for your comments! I hoped that the dispute would be solved, as this was my third report on this matter. The first two reports were on page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The first report was ignored and in the second one I was asked to resolve this in the 'talk page' which I already tried. I read the 'request for comments' page but I did not quite understand what I should do (English is by the way not my first language). Should I make a similar report like I did here on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board? Thank you. Verdia25 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that this would be suitable for RFC, especially since you have already tried there, so I'm going to keep it open here. Now I've seen Samaksanian's response to my question (I'd prefer that he posted it in the "discussion"), I'd like to ask the same question to Verdia25 - what sources do you use to say that Azeris are not Turkic? By the way, Samaksanian, other than merely citing books, what specific pages do you use from those books? Also, whilst I'm thinking about it, what are the "agreed facts" - that is, what do the Parties agree on? Obviously, if parties agree on quite a lot, this means that our work here won't take too long, and if there is no agreeement whatsoever, this will make this process longer than necessary. It is therefore in Parties' interests to provide information on any agreements between them that are relevant to this dispute. --The Historian (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not have any sources that I used to say that they are not Turkic. I think that the original description used prior to May 31st was better because the new one, Turkic people, could be confusing to some people that the Azerbaijani are of Turkic origin, while in the wikipedia article it is state that they are of mixed origin. With the description 'Turkic speaking people' it is clear to all readers that they speak a Turkic language. I think Samaksanian and me both agree that the Azari language that Azerbaijani speak is, as stated on wikipedia, a language of the Turkic language family. To Samaksasanian, this isn't really a discussion on whether they are Turkic, Iranian or Caucasus people. It is on whether the description 'Turkic people' or 'Turkic speaking people' should be used. Verdia25 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the Ethnic groups Included total Ethnic groups. only write one total Ethnic groups. Personal Argument Prohibited--Samək^Talk 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Samaksasanian is now not making sense, and since the entire dispute is about whether or not the Azeri people are Turkic speaking peoples, I think I know how we can go about resolving this. Azerbaijani language states that the "language family" of Azeri is "Turkic". The Turkic languages page states that Azeri is descended from the Weset Oghuz branch of Turkic. Azerbaijan states that the official language of Azerbaijan is Azeri, and, the articles above show that it is descended from the Turkic family. So, I think that the Azeris are Turkic speaking, and User:Verdia25 is correct in his primary assertion.

--The Historian (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people and Azerbaijani Language from Turkic languages. My Persian countrymen in Iran are Persian People is a Iranian People and Persian Language from Iranian languages.Sam?k^Talk 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They may be Turkic people I don't deny that, but the original description 'Turkic speaking people' was valid too and I don't think it was needed to change it. The problem with the description 'Turkic people' is that it could be confusing to some people, as if the origin or ethnicity may be Turkic, while it is only the Azerbaijani's language that belongs to the Turkic language family; origin and ethnicity is mixed. There won't be any confusion if it would be 'Turkic speaking people'.Verdia25 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, Personal Argument Prohibited-Sam?k^Talk 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute reopened, Parties informed. --The Historian (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dougweller I'm not sure where this comment goes, so I'll put it here. I came here because I protected a page for 2 days due to a dispute involving one of these editors and the general subject matter. There is some confusion here about the status of encyclopedias such as the Britannica. As a tertiary source it should be avoided in favor of specialist academic sources for articles such as these. We've discussed this before, eg [12]. (As an aside, we even have Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia although that's not the major reason it shouldn't be used. This seems to have been a factor in this dispute. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is this still an active dispute? I see that there's been no formal RfC that has been advertised at appropriate wikiprojects. Also I read (in a very loose construction) the possibility of reading the WP:ARBAA2 riot act as it's a dispute over Azerbaijan and ethnicity. I strongly advise that editors follow the forms of civil dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Digvijaya Singh

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Soham321 on 21:16, 14 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Digvijaya Singh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Soham321 (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Please scroll down on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh and see the four sections "Hemant Karkare Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Edit on Political Career of Digvijay wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Corruption Allegation Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Views on Religion and Religious Extremism wrongly deleted by User:Sitush". The first three sections deal with edits variation of which had been in place on the WP:BLP of Digvijaya Singh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh ) for a long time spanning as much as a few years as per my knowledge. The reasons User:Sitush keeps giving for deleting all the edits seem spurious to me. For instance, the "Hemant Karkare" edit dominated Indian political news at one time. Just because it is an unimportant topic today does not mean it has lost its relevance. The reason for its importance is that it concerns terrorism which is a subject of national security. Digvijay claimed that before he got killed by Muslim Pakistani terrorists, Karkare--a senior police officer--had called him and complained about the threats he was facing from hindu extremists. This claim of Digvijay was disputed by some people and an effort was made to discredit him. The second section deals with a corruption allegation against Digvijay which involved correspondence between Singh when he was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee in which he eventually came out clean. In view of other corruption allegations against him, it is important to keep this edit in place lest people pre-judge the existing corruption allegations against Digvijay. Regarding the Political career edit, there is one reference (User:Sitush has been claiming there are no references) and certainly more references can be given for this important edit which gives useful information about Digvijay's political career. With respect to the edit "Views on Religion and Religious Extremism", please see the talk page discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There is nothing to discuss because User:Sitush and I seem to have completely opposite views on these edits. It does not help that both of us think the other to be biased. How do you think we can help? I would like you to judge whether User:Sitush is right in removing the edits in question in toto, or whether those edits or variations of those edits can be put back. I will accept whatever decision you take. Opening comments by Sitush Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Soham has not discussed on the talk page. I opened a discussion and they responded by opening numerous other sections and basically dumping the removed statements into them. There are also other parties who have been active on that talk page in the last few months and who have not had a chance to contribute. Finally, while some of those parties have suggested bias on the part of Soham, the fact that I have been accused of bias at Narendra Modi against the BJP/for the INC and am now being accused in this DRN (with no prior intimation) of bias for the BJP/against the INC simply suggests that, in fact, I am neutral. This request for resolution is way too premature. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Talk:Digvijaya Singh discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Anthony Fucilla

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tokyogirl79 on 10:33, 16 July 2013 (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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Anthony Fucilla (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) 86.173.165.62 (talk · contribs) Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Long story short, I came across the article as a speedy & declined it as asserting very slight notability and opened an AfD. I'd made some edits that asserted more notability, but not enough to keep the page. The two sole RS on the article were actually added by myself. Soon after an IP came on the page & tried editing, which removed not only the AfD template, but also the few sources I'd managed to find. Their edits were reverted by multiple editors. The IP in question has been posting repeatedly on the board making various assertions at notability, but never providing anything of any true value that would help keep the article. I've tried nicely pointing things out, but the IP editor has grown more increasingly hostile and has accused me of specifically having a vendetta against the article's subject. Another editor has tried to step in, but the personal attacks keep coming in against me because I was the one who opened the AfD. (No attacks against the editor that initially nominated it for deletion, however, which is a small blessing.) I think at this point we need other people to step in and mediate. I don't think that this is really quite necessary for the admin noticeboard, although I did tell the IP that he can feel free to post there if he truly believes that I am editing with a specific goal to delete the article because I personally have something against Fucilla. I've warned the user about making such accusations, but I don't think it's getting through to him. It's to the point where I've had to warn him that his actions could end up with him getting blocked for making personal attacks. Update: I notice that the page is currently tagged as a speedy, so this may be unnecessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried calmly explaining guidelines for notability and sources to him. Others have as well. How do you think we can help? Getting a third or fourth set of eyes can help a lot, as this user seems dead set in the belief that I'm only saying these things because of some mistaken belief that I want the article gone for personal reasons rather than notability guidelines. I personally think that the user is dangerously close to deserving a temporary editing block, but I know this board doesn't do this sort of thing. Opening comments by 86.173.165.62 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Sam Sailor Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I came across the article and reflinked it, subsequently trying to help with adding an infobox, a bibliography heading etc. hoping that the article creator or other editors could beef up with some references. That has not been the case. IP editor 86.173.165.62 has on the talk page repeatedly claimed that "news papers" and "news shows" exist that can support notability. I have offered to try to work such sources into the article would he simply post the bare URLs on the talk page. He has posted nothing. Tokyogirl has shown great patience and explained procedures and policies for IP editor 86.173.165.62. In return she has gotten very little but rudeness, shouting, and amusingly (or not) a sung quote from Have You Ever Seen the Rain?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Sailor (talk • contribs) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Talk:Anthony Fucilla discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Morgellons

Morgellons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zad68.

4 July 2013

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Morgellons (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Erythema (talk · contribs) Drgao (talk · contribs) TechBear (talk · contribs) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs) Dawn Bard (talk · contribs) Zad68 (talk · contribs) Scray (talk · contribs) Garrondo (talk · contribs) Judgeking (talk · contribs) Sailsbystars (talk · contribs) Brangifer (talk · contribs) 137.111.13.200 (talk · contribs) 198.199.134.100 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Current scientific consensus from large, influential organizations like the CDC is that individuals with Morgellons have a delusional belief that they are infested with parasites. There is general agreement across all parties that this is indeed the scientific consensus. There is a proposal to add new content to the article; the policy cited in support of the addition is WP:NPOV. The new proposed content discusses a new theory for the origin of Morgellons, stating that there is an actual infectious parasite. This issue basically is that many editors do not agree that the sources cited meet WP:MEDRS, the medical sourcing guideline. There is general agreement that if there were WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources supporting the new theory that such content could be included. But many editors state that as the sources are not reliable, and because WP:NPOV only applies to views presented in reliable sources, the WP:NPOV policy cannot be used in support of including the actual parasite theory. Have you tried to resolve this previously? LOTS and LOTS of discussion on the Talk page How do you think we can help? Determine consensus as to whether the sources proposed are indeed authoritative WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources such that per WP:NPOV the mention of the parasite theory is warranted. Opening comments by Erythema Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. In a nut shell. The actual dispute is more complicated than described by the others involved with this dispute indicate. Morgellons is a controversial illness. There are 2 POVs represented in medical literature. This is evident with a PubMed search. 1 POV is that the illness is delusional in etiology. The other is that it is not and there are publications indicating that it is caused by a bacterial infection. This bacterium, Borrelia, is related to syphilis and thus explains the psychiatric manifestations experience by some patients. The predominant POV is that it is delusional, however the POV that it is infectious in etiology represents a significant minority POV and thus it deserves proportional representation. The problems are 2 fold: One, content from the infectious POV has been blocked, even for one paragraph to be included, even while leaving the existing text untouched: Two, there is a great deal of bias in the current article. It has been carefully edited to maximize the opinion that it is delusional in etiology. The references are largely cherry-picked and do not follow WP:MEDRS policy. Over half of the references come from Popular Press, i.e. newspaper articles, TV interviews and the like. One of these is even an interview with an "anonymous dermatologist" in Popular Mechanics magazine and lacks verifiability, as do the rest. These are clearly not appropriate secondary sources. Those that are from peer-reviewed medical journals are predominantly opinion pieces -- again they are not appropriate secondary sources. The remaining few are original research. This is an area of medicine undergoing active research and as such there are not many (if any) suitable secondary sources. I have proposed to add ONE small paragraph from the infectious POV on the grounds that a significant minority view needs to be represented for NPOV. They are original research, but WP:MEDRS allows original research when secondary sources are lacking. The current article has used a few original research papers. WP:MEDRS encourages the use of on-line medical journals as they can be accessed by readers, but I have been told that they are unreliable (and numerous other things). There have been false statements made that are damaging to the reputations of the medical journals publishing papers representing the infectious POV that I find offensive and objectionable. NPOV cannot be achieved as long as double standards of policy application are applied to the two viewpoints. I have repeatedly asked for reasonable and objective justification, but have yet to receive an answer that makes sense. Mostly when I bring up a valid point there is no response at all. I am a new user and WP indicates I should be welcomed and treated with patience. Instead I have been bullied and treated with hostility. If fair and proportionate representation of both POVs cannot be achieved then the current article should be deleted on the grounds that the references used to not meet WP policy.Erythema (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema Opening comments by Drgao This dispute relates to the article on Morgellons disease, a disease involving skin symptoms and mental symptoms. A severe non-neutrality exists in this article, as I now describe. Amongst researchers, there are two competing views on the nature of Morgellons disease: viewpoint (1) says that Morgellons is a real skin disease manifesting body-wide skin lesions and other skin symptoms, likely caused by an infection, and also involving some concomitant mental symptoms; viewpoint (2) says that Morgellons is not a real physical disease at all, but purely a psychiatric condition called delusional parasitosis, in which sufferers self-inflict their skin wounds. This dispute relates to the fact that viewpoint (1) gets almost no mention at all in the article, and viewpoint (2) not only dominates the vast majority of the article, but furthermore, viewpoint (2) is presented as if it is an established fact. WP:WEIGHT requires that articles represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So in order to determine the precise prominence of each of the two viewpoints, I have performed a full scientific literature survey of reliable sources, and by enumerating all relevant studies, I counted that there is 1 secondary study, and 9 primary studies supporting viewpoint (1), and 3 secondary studies, and 15 primary studies supporting viewpoint (2). You can the full details of all the studies I counted up HERE. Thus from these figures which quantify the prominence of each viewpoint, it is clear that viewpoint (1) should be given around ⅓ of the article text space, and viewpoint (2) around ⅔ of the article text space. But at present, viewpoint (1) occupies only a few percent of the text space. Myself (Drgao) and editor Erythema say this severe imbalance in the article completely flouts the NPOV requirements of Wikipedia, but all the other editors disagree with us, and they prevent us from adding new material to the article. Drgao (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC) MInor updates made on July 7th. Drgao (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by TechBear I had gotten involved with the article in late May, in response to one editor trying to bring in sources from journals known to be "pay to publish." Soon after, a new editor stepped in with a different set of references, asserting that they showed the established scientific consensus to be wrong and demanding that the article be rewritten accordingly. I and others pointed out the problems in new editor's sources; rather than seek out better sources, this person fell to ad hominem attacks and accusations that Wikipedia was trying to "suppress important information" (actual quote.) I am willing to concede that the current consensus may be wrong; it certainly would not be the first time that long-standing conclusions fell to new research. However, it is my view that any evidence attempting to overturn an established position must meet a high standard of quality, and that this is especially important with regards to medical science, where the well being and even lives of people may hang in the balance. The evidence must come from reputable research sponsors, be reviewed by research experts in the field who have the skill and expertise to evaluate the methodology and conclusions, and be published in a well respected journal. It is my opinion that the sources this editor wishes to use simply do not meet this minimum standard of quality, and therefore should not be used as the basis for rewriting established consensus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Arthur Rubin I agree with the opening comments by Scray; however I have an objection to the formulation of the dispute. It's not "new proposed content" or a "new theory". The theory was first proposed by Mary, and it's not even new to the article. It was removed from the article when no WP:MEDRS sources could be found. They still haven't been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Dbrodbeck There are simply no good WP:MEDRS secondary sources that say that any of these WP:FRINGE views have any use. If we include this material we would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to these fringe ideas. Many of us have tried, in vain, to explain these policies to the couple of WP:SPAs who want this material included. The ad hominem attacks and personal attacks in general, while they have toned down some, did not help matters. This material does not belong in the article, that is the bottom line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Dawn Bard I think the article is appropriately neutral and well sourced, and I think any objective review of the page and the talk page with WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in mind will support this. Sailsbystars below has presented some excellent points. This odd press release, which essentially alleges a Wikipedia conspiracy to keep the truth about Morgellons hidden, predated some of the contentious editing and discussions that have led up to this dipute resolution. I think what we really have here is a broad, policy-based consensus that the article should stand as it is for now. A couple of very passionate, largely single-purpose editors disagree with this consensus, but their efforts on the talk page have failed thus far to change the larger consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Zad68 My view is that the sources offered to support the "genuine infestation/infection" view are insufficient to rise above WP:FRINGE and it would give undue prominence or legitimacy to a non-accepted fringe view to include in the article. There have been two groups of sources offered. The first included three sources, listed in the discussion here. The comments regarding the unworthiness of f1000research and the Dove Press journals there are accurate: the reliability of the journal articles doesn't meet WP:MEDRS and are not MEDLINE indexed, or even PubMed indexed at all. The list of sources given here is an excellent and comprehensive list of PubMed-indexed articles regarding the subject, and the editor who put it together is to be thanked, but the analysis offered is not in line with consensus interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Per policy, primary sources are not to be used to support a WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) argument. So, looking only at secondary sources, we have three up-to-date MEDLINE-indexed secondary sources stating Morgellons is delusional; we have a single MEDLINE indexed secondary source from 2006 that does not meet WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE. This leaves three secondary sources supporting delusional, zero supporting infection. (This list also does not include other sources like the CDC, which also does not support infection.) As there are no WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources supporting infection, per policy the article should not cover it. (Note I will be away most of the weekend, back maybe Saturday or Sunday night.) Zad68 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Scray I hope that this process will help us move past the current cycle, which consumes energy (and has often included ad hominem attacks) but does not seem to be progressing. The article currently addresses the minority viewpoint that Morgellon disease has an infectious etiology, with due weight considering the strong consensus in high-quality sources that this is a delusional parasitosis (rather than infection) syndrome. Primary reports in low-quality journals should not be used to refute the strong consensus in high-quality secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Garrondo Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Judgeking Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Sailsbystars Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. So I've never been to one of these before, but I think the most relevant thing I can do is quote my comparison of the proposed sources and existing sources for the article, and why the former should not have undue weight in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ... there are some commonalities in all science fields. Dubious research gets published all the time (hence the phrase "publishing in a peer reviewed journal is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for acceptance") in every field. There are several common threads of fringe research that cross all disciplines of research: Fringe research is often published in less well-known journals. The disease associations for Morgellons are published in Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. and f1000research which may or may not have rigorous peer review. The CDC study was published in PLoS One, arguable one of if not the most prestigious medical journal. Multiple other studies have appeared in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the official journal of the psychiatric society supporting a psychological diagnosis. If research is accepted, it will be cited by other people. Hinkle 2011 has 9 citations by other groups. Pearson 2012 (CDC study) has 13 citations by other groups. Middelveen and Stricker 2011("Filament formation associated with spirochetal....") has 7 citations, but of those only two of those aren't self-citations, and those two both disagreed with the conclusion of the study. Lack of favorable external citations is bad. Conversely, excessive self-citation is usually not a sign of a healthy research programme Lastly, when the researchers have to make a press release railing against wikipedia's biases in a desperate attempt to get included in the article, that's usually not a good sign (and that's actually how I came to be interested this article) So that's how I can evaluate, using objective criteria, how accepted an idea is within a scientific field, even one I don't know much about. So how could you convince me this infectious etiology material should be included? Showing me some citations to their studies from outside their research group by other research groups that support their findings would be a good start, and I think would be fairly persuasive to other editors on this page as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Opening comments by BullRangifer An important aspect of this dispute is whether advocates of a fringe idea (that Morgellons is a real dermatologic condition, rather than a form of delusional parasitosis) can use Wikipedia to promote that POV as a mainstream POV, or of at least equal worth to the mainstream scientific POV on the subject (which is that it's a form of delusional parasitosis). They believe that NPOV is violated when they are not given equal due weight. Sorry, but that's not true. They fail to understand NPOV. They constantly use primary studies to make their point, in violation of MEDRS. This is not the place to make cutting edge pronouncements. For one thing, being on the cutting edge means you're on the wrong side of the knife. Yes, that's a joke, but for Wikipedia, it's the way we apply our sourcing policies. We are always supposed to be "behind the curve," never on the leading edge of publishing new facts. IF (that's a big IF) this ever turns out to be proven to be a new dermatologic condition, the major dermatology organizations will state that fact in unequivocal terms. When that happens, and not before then, the POV pushed by these believers will have to remain the fringe position, in opposition to the mainstream one, which happens to be that these editors are pushing a delusional belief. Until then, their POV will be documented, but not given equal weight with the current scientific consensus. The article content and due weight balance will indeed change when large literature reviews that are not affiliated with those who make a living from pushing this fringe POV start to clearly document it as a new disease. Independent replication of research results must happen again and again. Then we'll definitely document that fact, and Morgellons will be presented here at Wikipedia as a new disease. It will happen, but a short time AFTER it happens in the real world. These editors must be patient and stop disrupting Wikipedia. They are a huge time sink and need to be blocked, or, at the least, immediately topic banned. That several of them are delusional happens to be a fact, since several of them have admitted to being sufferers, and even admitted to having mental health issues. Too bad about that, but this is not the place to push a POV based on primary sources, often from "paid to publish" sources, or fringe scientists affiliated with the modern creator of the term "Morgellons". -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 137.111.13.200 The research group that released the content that is being discussed in this section was funded through a foundation that solicits donations ostensibly from Morgellons sufferers. There is therefore a financial interest in the dissemination of this particular group's content. The articles themselves are primary sources, which significantly contradict other primary and secondary sources. This is most likely due to methodological differences which are best judged through secondary sources, and thus we should wait until these become available. The author of the study discussed authored a press release targeting editors on the Morgellons wikipedia page. I am lead to believe it likely that this author is pressuring editors on the talk page to include their work on the main page, under the username "Erythema". The anonymity of wikipedia users is an important dimension, however if someone is trying to insert their own work into an article, especially when that work is challenged as a reliable source, then the potential conflict of interests should be addressed. I don't think avoiding the question serves anyone's purposes in this case.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by 198.199.134.100 At this point, I no longer find it reasonable to assume good faith on the part of the editors favoring the inclusion of fringe research. One of them has now created a sockpuppet account to try and "mediate" the dispute. Erythema shows strong signs of actually being one of the fringe researchers who recently issued a press release decrying Wikipedia's policies (and did not deny it when directly asked). Drgao is operating under the idea that because the concensus of the medical community now supports the existence of some other condition that Drgao suffers from, we should include fringe research about Morgellons; Drgao also repeatedly misrepresents studies or quotes from studies that do not support his views as doing so and even claimed that an opinion piece published well before any modern primary sources about Morgellons (the other two predate the current scientific method, one predates Pasteur) was a "secondary source". Neither has contributed to any other Wikipedia article. There are one or two other editors in favor of fringe research, but they don't appear to be meaningfully contributing to the discussion. I realize the named editors sincerely believe Morgellons is a non-delusional condition, but deliberate dishonesty is not a valid method of seeking editor concensus. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Correction: Drgao does get involved in editing other pages on similar/related topics. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hitherto uninvolved editor who stummbled across this DRN. I've taken the time to read the extensive discussion on the article talk page and examone the sources, and I have to agree that all of the sources proposed for the fringe view fall far short of WP:MEDRS. In short, there is not mention of the fringe "research" in reliable medical sources. Most of it has been published in non-peer reveiwed publication that would never be read by mainstream medical researchers in the first place. The material that Drgao and Erythema would like to add to this article is thus unreliably sourced, and violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. I just see a lot of deadhorse argumentation and WP:IDHT on the article talk page, and I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. I don't see much point in further discussion unless WP:MEDRS sources are produced. Consensus on the talk page is already pretty clear that the sources produced so far are unreliable, and I agree. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Please note the following ANI discussion regarding this DRN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_intervention. Zad68 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Please wait until the problem with mediation is sorted out, and for the process to be formally restarted. We cannot continue this discussion while the disruption continues. 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Invoking mediation controls: For the present time, in light of the controversy pending here, I am assuming the role of mediator here and invoking the rules set out at Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation to exercise the right to edit this discussion as if it were my own user talk page, which includes the right to refactor, strike, or remove any edits which I feel are inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Opening statements: Editors who have not yet made opening statements should feel free to go ahead and make them in their respective sections, above, and are advised to do so as promptly as possible. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Update: It would appear that InLoveNoi has indeed withdrawn as a DRN volunteer (actually, has ceased editing since being told by a sysop to withdraw or be blocked). I have de-collapsed, but left closed, the foregoing discussion and will await further opening statements. I have, further, redacted via strikeout all procedural discussions above so as to leave only discussions about the substance of the dispute. While the remaining discussions are premature and I will not allow them to continue at this time, they are what they are and they should not be removed from the record. If discussion does proceed, then we can give them as much or as little weight as they may deserve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Further update: InLoveNoi is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I have just deleted a comment by Drgao, a party to this dispute, added to the discussion here before this case was opened for discussion. I — reluctantly — retained the one by Dominus Vobisdu, though I moved it into the closed section, because s/he was not a party to the dispute. All further comments of a nonprocedural nature in this "Talk:Morgellons discussion" will be summarily deleted if made before this case is opened for discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I have now deleted all the preliminary edits by InLoveNoi and Rodneye9110 as both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of blocked user Ryanspir. In the process, I have also deleted some response edits by legitimate participants here, but all that were deleted were merely responsive to the attempts by Ryanspir to manipulate this process and did not make any substantive comments on the substance of this case. If anyone objects, please drop a note on my user talk page and we'll discuss working your comments back in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Inquiry to all parties We're waiting for the last two listed editors to give opening statements, but while we're waiting I need to raise this issue: The DRN guidelines say: Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. As long as I've been doing dispute resolution, I have no doubt that I have at least crossed paths with some of the editors in this case. I will represent to you that to the extent that I have done so I have not formed any opinions or impressions which would cause me to be biased either against them or in their favor. Indeed, I don't have any particular memories of any of you except that some of your usernames seem familiar to me. That does not mean that I have not had strong interactions and even confrontations or commiserations with some of you. It only means that I don't remember them if I did. If any come back to mind, I will immediately disclose them here. (If anyone wants to check my prior interactions with everyone here, more power to you: You can use the tool here to do so. Let me know if you find anything.} But my point is this: If you want to lodge an objection to my further participation, do it now, not later, unless I subsequently discuss a connection. Also, if any of you have had interactions with me, good or bad, which might bias me please say so now and I'll specifically check those out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC) PS: Feel free to answer or address this inquiry, below, but do not begin discussing the dispute yet. — TM I have no issue with you moderating. Can we get started? We're only missing statements from Garrondo and Judgeking, and their involvement in this discussion at the article Talk page was minimal. I count only 3 comments from Garrondo, all over 1 month old, and Garrondo has been editing since the DRN notice so it does not look like Garrondo is interested. I count only 2 comments from Judgeking, most recent was 10 days ago, Judgeking hasn't edited since 27 June. And based on their involvement at the article, their viewpoints are already being represented here by many other editors already. Zad68 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I'm inclined to feel the same way. I'm going to give them until tomorrow to weigh in or for anyone else to lodge an objection to my mediation and if neither occurs, we'll probably forge ahead. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Initial ground rules The following are adopted pursuant to Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation, and are subject to supplementation, revision, or revocation at any time. You must check this page every day you edit Wikipedia (and at least once every 48 hours if you don't have an edit during that time) and respond to any inquiries which I make. If you're going to be unavailable for awhile and unable to check this and/or respond, say so and I'll decide whether to put this on hold or move forward without you. At least for the present time, this will move forward in a question and answer manner in which I ask questions or make comments and request you to respond. Some inquiries may be to individuals, others may be to groups or factions. Do not respond to or comment upon responses or answers made by others unless I request it. If you do, I reserve the right to delete those responses. Only answer the question that I ask, do not jump ahead or say anything else. Again, I reserve the right to delete any answers which go beyond the questions that I ask. Be civil. Do not comment about one another. If you wish to comment or complain about another user's conduct, motivations, identity, or anything else, take it to an administrator (I'm not one, by the way), to WP:RFC/U, or to WP:ANI, but don't raise it here (do drop a note on my user talk page that you're doing that, however, as I may want to put a hold on the proceedings here until that conduct matter is resolved.) Listen up: This rule will be strictly enforced. Don't say, "I didn't mean it that way" or "I was just angry", just don't do it. Comments made in violation of this rule will be deleted the first time; the second time, either you or me will be leaving this discusion. Except for Judgeking and Garrondo (who can still make opening statements), the opening statements are now closed. Do not change or supplement them further. I tend to be courteous and say "please" before requests, instructions, or rules. Do not take my use of "please" to mean that what follows it is optional. Indeed, none of my requests, instructions, or rules are optional; if I mean something to be optional, I'll make that unmistakeably clear with a qualifier such as, "You don't have to answer this if you don't want to" or "This isn't required, but" or something like that. The IP editors must keep up with the IP's they're editing from and let us know here if they change. This isn't required, but I would strongly prefer that they create accounts, identify them with their IP, and sign in to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Beginning the mediation Read the "Initial ground rules" section, above. Your continued participation in this mediation constitutes complete acceptance of the foregoing rules. As I understand it, this is a NPOV dispute with certain editors wishing to include material in the article saying that Morgellons is an actual, as opposed to mental, disease or condition. Other editors oppose that inclusion because they claim that the sources are insufficiently reliable to include it. Although one editor, Erythema, also claims that the existing material about Morgellons being a mental condition is also inadequately sourced, I do not see that as the primary matter in dispute in this case except perhaps as a question of what balance to give the competing views if the real-disease theory proves to be includable. From my point of view, to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all is putting the horse before the cart and I do not intend to discuss or allow discussion of that issue until the other issue is resolved, at which time we may go on to the proper-weight issue. Inquiry #1 @Everyone: As I analyze it, Erythema and Drgao support the inclusion of the material in question. All other participants here oppose it due to lack of adequate sources. Please let me know, below, if I've got that wrong. Don't answer at all if I have it right. Inquiry #2 @Everyone: If there any sources whose reliability is in question other than the following, please list them below: The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? (2006) MEDLINE Full paper Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis (2013). Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease (2013). Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease (2013) [www.omicsonline.org/2155-9554/2155-9554-3-140.pdf Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study (2012)]. Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease (2011) Delusions may not always be delusions (2010, Editorial) MEDLINE Full paper Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology (2010) Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series (2009) Myiasis, fillan, and the morgellons (1946) MEDLINE Full paper Inquiry #3 @Everyone: There are three ways we can approach this mediation: Method A (default) — Classic Mediation: A traditional mediation where I try to get everyone to come to agreement. Method B — Opinion: I can read all the arguments and merely provide a third-party neutral opinion, which everyone is free to accept or reject, but which closes the mediation on the point on which I opine. Method C — Arbitration by agreement: Same as #2, but everyone involved here agrees that they will abide by my opinion and quit discussing the issue in dispute until something changes in the real world (for example, new studies or sources being done and becoming available) which renders it inapplicable. We'll use Method A unless everyone prefers B or C, though I reserve the right to use B on my on volition if and when I think it becomes appropriate. Method C would require an affirmative agreement from everyone. So in the space below, just indicate which one you would prefer. Just put in something like ":A — ~~~~" or ":B then A then C, in that order — ~~~~" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Responses to Inquiry #1: The material dramatically deviates from previous studies, and it is questionable whether it would have passed the orthodox peer-review stages of mainstream journals (due to the combination of methodology and conclusions). However, it is incorrect to suggest that this automatically renders the conclusions false. It requires the adjudication of further research and impartial literature review from secondary sources. I believe the material would be suitable for the page if and when that happens. This essentially fleshes out the first inquiry, as I see it.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Your understanding is correct. However, my concerns are, as you mentioned, 2 fold. If the references used to support the inclusion of new material do not meet WP standards for medical references then, few of the references used in the current article do either.Erythema (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Responses to Inquiry #2: I think an additional problem is that some editors are claiming that some studies or portions thereof support the "actual disease" hypothesis when they clearly do not. Where the studies have a "conclusions" section, I'd like to seek agreement that we judge the study as supporting that conclusion instead of quote mining the study. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I realize the WP policy does not favor using original research, but that it does allow for the inclusion of primary studies when secondary studies are lacking. I want to be clear that I do not expect the inclusion of new material to be used in a way that is not compatible with WP policy. I honestly want the article to be a fair and unbiased representation of the medical literature available on this topic, but if primary sources are used to reference 1 POV then they should be allowed to reference the other (or any other POVs). I would like to mention there is a reliable secondary resource citing material supporting the infectious hypothesis. Other editors seem to agree that the F1000 itself is a prestigious group of scientists and doctors, although they dispute F1000 Research. The F1000 (not part of F1000 Research) have cited the paper, Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study (2012), in F1000 Prime as a recommended article, f1000.com/prime/716597867 , and as a must read or very good article. This citation is not the same as the paper itself (it was published by OMICS) and is therefore a secondary source. I would like to see this included as an additional reference.Erythema (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Responses to Inquiry #3: I prefer Method C most, Method B next, and Method A least, but will still agree to move forward with any of them. Zad68 15:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I echo Zad68 in preferring C, B, and A last, but agreeing to abide by whichever approach will resolve the dispute. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC) A (based on TM's suggestion), but C and B are fine, too -- Scray (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC) C and B, then A, in the interest of reaching consensus (and after considering why so many favor this, I agree). -- Scray (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) C is my preference, followed by A, then lastly B. Drgao (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC) C is my preference, then A then B.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Definitely C. A & B wouldn't be a definitive decision on the process and I'd prefer to resolve this ASAP. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Prefer C. Unsure as to preference between remaining options. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC) C,B then A. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC) C, then B then A. I'll participate whichever is ultimately chosen. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I prefer A if it is possible. But if not either B or C.Erythema (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Interim evaluation of the foregoing: Since option C is the first preference of most participants and at least an alternative choice of everyone else, I would use C except that two editors, Brangifer and Arthur Rubin, have not agreed to it (or any other choice) and C must be unanimous to be available. I would ordinarily just move ahead with one of the other options but when the responses already given are evaluated it's very close to a dead heat between A and B. I'm going to poke them on their talk pages and ask them to weigh in here. If they've not done so in the next 24 hours or so, then we'll move ahead. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I prefer C. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC) My apologies for the delay. I prefer C, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Moving forward with C Though we've not heard from Arthur Rubin, I've taken a long look at his user page, user status, and history and believe that we can expect that he will respect any result we reach here even if he has not specifically agreed to option C, so that's what we are going to go with. In that context, everyone needs to understand that with option C that what we have is, essentially, an agreement that you will not dispute this matter further with one another. It does not mean that any third parties are bound by that agreement, so it is entirely possible for a new editor — not a sockpuppet or new account of one of you, but an entirely new participant — to come along and start advocating for one side or the other and this decision will not be binding in any way on them. Because of that, your agreement to this method also implies that not only will you agree to abide by it, but that you will not solicit third parties to come along and reopen it. If a third party does come along and their position is opposite to that decided here, it further means that those on the prevailing side here must be able to oppose that third party without interference or negative input from those on the other side here. It also means that if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side. As part of the concept here, the idea is to end this dispute. You have my promise that I will not decide the matter frivolously, arbitrarily, or lightly or with any bias other than a bias in favor of doing what's best for the encyclopedia in keeping with its policies, guidelines, and customary practices, but what I decide will not be subject to further discussion or appeal. Finally, this agreement is a handshake and obligation of honor, not an enforceable agreement. I'm not an administrator and even if I was there's no provision in policy for enforcing an agreement such as this. So stop and engage in a bit of self-examination for a moment. Let's say I come back with a decision that is to the absolute opposite of what you think is right and with either no explanation of it (I reserve the right to just decide without explanation, though it's not likely that's what I'll do) or with an explanation that you think is dead wrong. What I'm asking of you is whether on your honor you can commit right now to gritting your teeth and living with that result without rejecting it, arguing against it, carping about it, or finagling a way around it. There's no dishonor in saying no, but only if you do it now. Here we go: I've carefully avoided studying the issue until now, just so I could be neutral in setting all this up and in giving the question a fair reading when the time came. From now through next Monday, I'm going to start studying the issue. If anyone either wants to back out on the agreement after the introspection I've just asked for, or if anyone wants to make any comments about any of the specific sources listed above, feel free to do so below, but do it before 11:59 UTC on Monday, July 15, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Sounds great. I'm sure everyone who supported Option C was aware that this was what they were choosing, the description going into it was pretty clear. Are you stating that you will be STARTING your review on Monday? I just want to be sure that the three recent discussions at Talk:Morgellons entitled Talk:Morgellons#Due_weight, Talk:Morgellons#F1000_Research, and Talk:Morgellons#Dove_Press_Reputation are read and considered carefully as part of the review process. Thanks... Zad68 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be sure to consider them; if anyone else has specific discussions to which they wish to point me, please feel free to do so here. I'll be doing my review starting immediately with a view towards issuing a decision on Tuesday, though if I have questions I need to pose here, or unexpected real world issues (which are always possible for me on weekends), it might be delayed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC) @Erythema: At the article talk page you have asserted several times that, "There are provisions for relaxation of the No original research policy when secondary sources are lacking." While I don't think that assertion is going to affect the answer of what I'm considering at this point in time, I'd like to make sure. Please identify the provisions that you're talking about. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC) (Responses copied from my user talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)) Sorry to take so long to get back to your request for information on relaxing policy. I am out of town at a conference and have not had much time for wikipedia. First thanks for volunteering to mediate this heated topic. Whatever way you decide I very much appreciate the attention you are giving this and your neutrality. I honestly do not want to do anything that opposes WP policy and if the addition of new material conflicts with policy I completely understand. My concern is the bias that I feel the current article has, especially because it does involve health of people. The main article is written as though there is no other POV other than a delusional etiology and I feel the patients with this disorder and the public need to know there are other POVs. A Pub Med search on Morgellons does not provide many, if any, appropriate secondary sources. There aren't any good systematic review articles. There is quite a lot on WP:MEDRS on the use of primary sources and how to use them. This was the section where it says that policy can be relaxed when an area is undergoing active research. I believe there is another mention somewhere else and I will look more thoroughly for it. Again, thanks for volunteering. WP:MEDDATE Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published. Erythema (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Hi Transporterman, I cannot find anything in WP:MEDRS that indicates that primary resources should not be used when secondary sources are lacking. In the current article on Morgellons very few references are from peer-reviewed medical journals. Of those that are almost all are opinion peices, and of those that are not there are 2 original research. Here's some more on primary resources that seems to indicate that they can be used providing they are used correctly. WP:MEDRS: Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources. Regards Erythema (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Opinion and call for additional arguments I have reviewed the sources in question, i.e. those listed above in my posting of 15:37, 8 July 2013, and those subsequently mentioned by others. WP:MEDRS says: Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. It also says: After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study. ... If no review on the subject is published in a reasonable amount of time, then the text associated with the primary source should be removed. And says: Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources. While other portions of MEDRS are also applicable, it is my belief that except for two or perhaps three of the sources that none of the listed sources are sufficiently reliable to be cited in the article due to substantial doubt about their publishers having the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:SOURCES. Note that I said WP:SOURCES, not WP:MEDRS. By that I mean to say that I do not believe that they meet even the standard needed for ordinary sources at Wikipedia. When one filters that through the higher standard required by WP:MEDRS, I believe that there is no possibility that they could serve as reliable sources for medical articles. The articles which I have reference to here are those published by F1000, Dove Press, and OMICS. That leaves the three articles published by Springer, BioMed, and British Medical Journal. The publishers of the first and third are clearly reliable and I am uncertain about BioMed. I believe the BMJ article, which is merely a 1946 letter to the journal is, however, both too old and too anecdotal to be of any use in the article except perhaps to provide some historical information if and when the disease theory can positively appear in the article in depth. That leaves the Springer ("The mystery of Morgellons disease", Savely, Leitao, and Stricker) and BioMed ("Morgellons disease, illuminating", Harvey, Bransfield, Mercer, Leitao, et al) articles. I would like to hear arguments about why or why not those two particular articles do or do not qualify as MEDRS-reliable sources and should or should not be used in the article. In that regard, I would also welcome comments about why the CDC study is appropriate for the article, but those two articles are or are not. Any participant may respond below and I'll receive arguments through 23:59 UST on Thursday, July 18. Please do not respond to one another's arguments, simply make your own case. This opinion is final as to the other sources, please refrain from commenting on them; any comments on the F1000, Dove Press, OMICS, and BMJ sources will be disregarded and deleted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC) PS: If you assert that something is determined by a policy or guideline, please provide a link to the specific section of the policy or guideline you are asserting. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Final opinion and closing comments Based on the opening and foregoing arguments and on my own personal investigation into the matter, I find that: The Savely 2006 article is reliable as, and only as, an opinion piece, and generally only reliable as support for what statements attributed to its authors say, if — and only if — the opinions of its authors can be shown to be be both relevant to the article and needed to support, without giving undue weight to, some point which is otherwise supported by relevant sources. I further believe, without holding in a binding way, that such a use, with that limitation, is probably unneeded. The Harvey 2009 article is, on its own, a reliable but very weak source under WP:MEDRS due to the nature of the study and the lack of subsequent positive citations in clearly-reliable sources. The two times it has been cited, once in the CDC study and a second one here have not been to support the theory that there is a non-psychological cause for Morgellons. Similar to the Savely 2006 article, I cannot see what it would add to the sources already present in the article (but I do not hold what I say in this sentence out to be binding). I also note that in the How do you think we can help? section, above, the listing editor says that this request is to, "Determine consensus as to whether the sources proposed are indeed authoritative WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources such that per WP:NPOV the mention of the parasite theory is warranted." I see no support in Harvey 2009 for the theory that Morgellons may actually be caused by parasites, and I do not believe that it is reliable to support that theory. I only mentioned the CDC study above as a foil for examination of Savely 2006 and Harvey 2009, so let me note that I neither express nor imply any opinion about the reliability of that study, pro or con. Though some participants have indicated that they would like this opinion to extend beyond the mere question of source reliability into the issue of what weight and balance to give any sources which proved to be reliable and to the question of whether the existing sources in the article are reliable to support the psychological theory. I believe that would be beyond the scope of this request and that those matters need to be more fully discussed at the article talk page in light of this opinion and so must decline that request. Thanks to all the participants for their cooperation and patience in this matter. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 19 July 2013 (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.

---

Istrian exodus

Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thehistorian10.

Closed discussion

---

2013 in British music

2013 in British music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

---

Luigi di Bella

Luigi di Bella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robertiki.

14 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

2012 Delhi gang rape case

2012 Delhi gang rape case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TransVannian.

16 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Capitals00.

17 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Burzynski Clinic

Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Docia49.

18 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hell in a Bucket.

Closed discussion

---

Ulster Defence Regiment

Ulster Defence Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SonofSetanta.

18 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

OoVoo

OoVoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Giacostone.

Closed discussion

---

– New discussion.

Filed by Tall.kanna.

Aam Aadmi Party

Aam Aadmi Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tall.kanna.

19 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Brett Kimberlin

Brett Kimberlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TMLutas.

20 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Kaaba

Kaaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Capitals00.

22 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Lyoness

Lyoness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Technopat.

25 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Casprings.

19 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Third Perso-Turkic War

Third Perso-Turkic War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HistoryofIran.

26 July 2013

Note to volunteers: This listing may be reopened by any volunteer if both parties expressly agree to the conditions for reopening set out here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion

---

1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ykantor.

19 July 2013

Closed discussion

---

Dominican Republic

Talk:Dominican Republic#Name in French (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Underlying lk.

26 July 2013

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Dominican Republic#Name in French (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Underlying lk (talk · contribs) Gabby Merger (talk · contribs) Enciclopediaenlinea (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user insists on adding the French name of the Dominican Republic (République Dominicaine) next to the Spanish one in the article's lede. The purported motivation for this is to acknowledge the period of French rule in the early history of the country. I argue that this is irrelevant, as today French is not an official or even common language in the DR, and in any case this is anachronistic as the country was never known as 'République Dominicaine' under French rule, and the French historical influence can be highlighted in more effective ways. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page, but we're not any closer to reaching a solution. How do you think we can help? An outside opinion would help to create consensus on whether the inclusion of the French name is appropriate, and in finding a workable compromise. Opening comments by Gabby Merger Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Greetings, to whom it may concern, and to all readers. As you see, I did not start this dispute page, but it was done by Enciclopediaenlinea. Because apparently it didn't seem resolved or resolvable on the article talk page. Fair enough. Here's a problem though. When the user above says that my rationale is "because the French ruled", while leaving out the other part of what I said over and over again, that is dishonest, and could be considered lying by omission. I said clearly that it was not just because French ruled over DR, but because the French were also involved in DR's very formation! I'll say it again... It went beyond also just "ruling" over DR, but the fact that the French were also involved in the actual early DEVELOPMENT of DR in the first place. Was Spain involved in Netherlands' actual formation? No. So the editor's comparison to the Netherlands was weak. main point: French were directly involved in the early development and actual formation of the Dominican Republic...from early on...not simply just that French people ruled over DR at some point. It's deeper than that, and I pointed that out on Talk a number of times now. I hope it's clearer now. The actual point is that there's no valid reason to remove that (even in the lede), given the deep involvement of France with DR from the very beginning, as well as its rulership over it. And this fact is mentioned in the very article body itself, clearly. As to his other point, that during France's rule over DR, the French pronunciation was not present yet...I said that, frankly, though it may be true, the argument there is somewhat flawed. And it's a wrong assumption. Because while the country may not have been known as République Dominicaine WHILE FRANCE RULED over it...that's the name it definitely was known by in French not much later. And it's not the main point necessarily that it wasn't known in French while French ruled there. But as a general point about French connections with it. Again, it's the point about French involvement in DRs early development and formation. Also, as to the point about the article is not specifically about the "history" of DR. And someone could go to the History of DR article...I stated on Talk that the problem with that argument is that most readers (casual and otherwise), if they wanted to look up stuff on DR (past and present, meaning current stuff as well as its history) would generally go to the main Dominican Republic article first...and check for historical things and points there. Not sure why this is such a big deal. I'm pro-Spain...but it's a forgotten fact (even by WP users and editors) that FRANCE ALSO reigned and participated in DR's very early formation also. Not only Spain...though Spain mainly. The fact is that French did not simply just "rule" over DR, but were involved in its very FORMATION!!! That's not something to fluff off as of no account, or to go "so what" about. I already made "an actual argument for its inclusion", that the editor thinks is "not convincing" or keeps ignoring or not caring about for some reason. The French pronunciation is pertinent for historical interest, and to make the point that French (not just Spaniards) were involved (importantly involved) in DR's formation and development. Meaning that it's NOT totally out of left field like he's wrongly implying or saying. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Enciclopediaenlinea Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Dominican Republic discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I would ordinarily wait for Enciclopediaenlinea to weigh in before opening discussion, but I believe that a clear-cut solution exists to this dispute which has been overlooked by the participants in the discussion. Most things in Wikipedia are decided by consensus: If someone wants to introduce something into an article or remove something from an article (at least something that was put there by consensus or has been there long enough that it was there by implied consensus) and someone else opposes it, the Consensus policy says that the burden is on the party wanting to make that change to obtain consensus to do so. If they cannot, then the change cannot be made. But that process does not apply when there is a policy or guideline which says that content should or should not be in an article since the Consensus policy also says that policies and guidelines are the "established consensus" of the Wikipedia community. In this case the rule is set out in the guideline Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names which says that the foreign language alternates following the name of the article in the first sentence are not pronunciations but "significant alternative names for the topic ... [which] ... may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages". In light of that, then the French name should not be included unless it can be shown to be significant as a name for this country. (The fact that there may be other articles which do not adhere to this rule is irrelevant: there are many places in Wikipedia where things have been done incorrectly and simply have not been corrected or challenged or, when challenged, the proper standard was not understood or applied. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE for a fuller explanation.) That being the case, then the inclusion of the French pronunciation is inappropriate unless it can be shown to have been used in a significant way as the name of the country. That cannot be simply presumed from the fact that the nation was once under French control. Since it has been challenged, it must conform to the rule and that conformation (like all other material in Wikipedia) must be demonstrated by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Unless I misread the parties' positions, I believe that only Gabby Merger advocates the insertion of the French version so: @Gabby Merger: Can you provide a reliable source of that nature? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Hello, TransporterMan. Thank you for taking time to go into this matter. I read over what you wrote. Your point, if I understood it correctly, is that there may not be "significance as a name" in this situation. My point was that since France was heavily involved in the very formation and existence of DR...not just that French people ruled it for some period of time...and since DR was soon after (maybe not right at the time of French rule, but soon after) known in French by that pronunciation, and since there's a factual sourced and solid point of fact that French both ruled and helped form DR in the first place, then why not? It seems it's something that could go either way. Not something to dogmatically say "it definitely no way no how should be there". The fact that France both ruled and helped create DR to begin with would seem like things that make the inclusion of the French pronunciation at least a little relevant, noteworthy, or significant. Plus, this pronunciation has been on the article for a while now. Only people who are ultra-pro-Spain or Spanish seem to be opposed to it. (That's not a supposition, but some editors in question have actually indicated that.) I'm pro-Spain myself, but it should be made clear right off the bat (the lede) arguably that the "French" had a big part in it too. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "France was heavily involved in the very formation": my opinion on this supposed fact is that it is both untrue (from the article the French ruled from 1795, long after the 'very formation', to 1808) and in any case it's irrelevant, as 'République Dominicaine' is an anachronistic name, so it should not be included in the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC) @Gabby Merger: I understand your argument, but I'm afraid that it is all pretty irrelevant and nonresponsive to the matters I raised, above. Let me repeat my conclusion: "the inclusion of the French pronunciation is inappropriate unless it can be shown to have been used in a significant way as the name of the country. That cannot be simply presumed from the fact that the nation was once under French control. Since it has been challenged, it must conform to the rule and that conformation (like all other material in Wikipedia) must be demonstrated by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia." (Let me also note that the motivations of your opponents are also irrelevant and inappropriate for discussion: here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors.) Do you have a reliable source which shows that the French version was once used as a significant name for the nation? @Underlying lk: The fact that it is anachronistic is not a reason to exclude it if if can be shown through a reliable source to once have been a significant name for the nation. I probably won't online much for the next couple of days. I'll come back afterwards to see if a reliable source for the name has been proposed. If not, then I'll probably close this request as resolved against inclusion of the French name. If so, then we'll take a look at what's been proposed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Your last post was confusing, it is anachronistic precisely because it was never used as a name (never mind a significant name) for the country, it's just the modern name in French, just like 'Dominikanische Republik' is the modern German name for example. In any case, have a good wiki-break.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC) A similar case to be considered is Australia, where the continent was originally found by the Dutch and therefore got the name "New Holland". This name had very significant usage from the 1600s, up until the mid 1800s (even in government correspondence), after which Australia, which had been an alternative name, became the preferred. New Holland is not mentioned in the lede at any point. And only mentioned in following sections, where applicable. A similar approach may be of use here -- Nbound (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Closing note to other DRN volunteers: This case has been closed, but one of the participants has reverted the closing, being dissatisfied with the result. See closing and closing reasons in this diff. I am not going to revert that reversion, but would recommend that you not deal with this case further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Christian Council of Britain – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by JRPG on 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC). Closed discussion