Revision as of 14:15, 5 October 2013

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:RealClearPolitics

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:RealClearPolitics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TParis (talk · contribs)
• goethean (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
• DD2K (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute concerning whether a source supports the statement that the article's subject was founded by conservatives.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, offering an alternative.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by TParis

After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.

Summary of dispute by Goethean

It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.

The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....

...

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:

This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....

The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.

A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.

The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arzel

There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.

McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".

This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.

I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DD2K

RealClearPolitics discussion

• Any volunteers yet? We're all reasonable people, there hasn't been any name calling by the parties, this should be an easy case.--v/r - TP 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, I'll take this one on. I'll need to look over things and comment in the morning. Steven Zhang 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, did you ever get a change to review this?--v/r - TP 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bumping again so this isn't closed, we still need this addressed.--v/r - TP 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, this week was flat out. I'll comment in the morning. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I've had a read of the talk page and think I have a clearer understanding of the situation. Can someone please send me a copy of the source ""Conservative Spotlight: Real Clear Politics". Human Events 59 (11): 16.". Thanks. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. — goethean 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will read over it and comment tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• @TParis:, @Goethean: (and please notify others), sorry for the delay. Thanks for sending it through. From what I gather, the dispute is whether to call RealClearPolitics "conservative" based on a quote from the source, which says "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." Now, looking at this, if this is the sole basis for referring to RealClearPolitics as "conservative", I wouldn't. I would consider Having a frustration that all conservatives have is not saying we are conservative. I agree with TParis, for us to write that the subject of the article is conservative requires us to infer the meaning of their statement, which is indeed original research. I would ask the participants here to consider the value of this addition, and if there are any other sources where the subject, or others describe RealClearPolitics as conservative, but until that time, it shouldn't go in. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the question is whether the founders can be referred to as conservatives. — goethean 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request for clarification, I won't bicker about it. @Steven Zhang:?--v/r - TP 12:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. My comments still stand though. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: So does that mean the founders can or cannot be described as conservatives?--v/r - TP 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• pluto2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?

There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement. I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).

He does not agree. He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. As of today, I reminded him in his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Summary of dispute by pluto2012

To Steven : Ykantor is a problematic editor who is involved in many conflicts and nobody wants to lose time with him any more. All this is a basic NPOV issue. Ykantor claims the right to edit only for what he calls "one side" and not to comply with WP:NPOV.

The topic he opens here was already discussed in length on the article about the 1947-48 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. External contributors who read and commented were against him.

See here the way he answered to Aua

He now has opened the same topic on the 1948 Palestine War article (which covers the same period). I answered him that it had already been discussed but he refuses the result. So he brought the topic on the help desk and there he was not followed again. So he rejected the avdices and come here.

Look at also at this dispute he had with Nishidani (and to which I had added myself.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war discussion

• I believe that it was indeed the arabs who started the war, as they were against the creation of Israel, and even today. OccultZone (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Pluto2012:, are you able to make some opening comments so we can get started? (Other volunteers, please close this thread in 24hrs if there is no further response). Steven Zhang 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reading user:pluto2012 comments, he is doing his best to avoid the issue, while blaming me personally and trying to complicate the issue which is limited and simple: to write 1 concise and supported sentence which summarize his view. Unfortunately, I can not write it, because in my opinion his view is mistaken.
• This is not a content dispute. My view is well supported and concise. The question is whether he can write his view. Ykantor (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The content is debated on the talk page of 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.

The policies managing this issue as well as your unappropriate behaviour are discussed on your talk page, on different article talk pages, on this talk page and no later than today here again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions to the parties

Hi;

I'm so sorry that this case hasn't been attended to by a volunteer for the past fortnight. This case turns on the interpretation of the "NPOV" policy. To kick off, how would parties respond to the following. PLEASE, these questions are important - they give me material to work on when considering how to resolve this dispute. These questions MUST be answered in full - they are not designed as simple "yes" or "no" questions:

1) If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter, what effect would this have on the dispute?

2) Considering that NPOV doesn't mention editors' personal opinions regarding proposed entries anywhere, how should this dispute be reconciled with NPOV?

3) How do the parties define the word "balance", as mentioned in NPOV, considering the aims of wikipedia, and the provisions of NPOV?

4) If it were possible, would parties agree to merely stating "Some people are of the opinion that the Arabs started the war", rather than stating outright "The war was started by the Arabs"? If so, does this - in the honest opinion of the parties and coonsidering the aims and principles of this project and the NPOV policy - meet the requirements of NPOV?

Addendum to questions I've gone back through Misplaced Pages history, to find anything else on the subject that may be of use. I've found an old Arbitration case from some 5 years ago that decided on user conduct on Arab-Israel articles IN GENERAL, without naming any specific article. By virtue of motion to amend the case adopted unanimously 1 year ago, the following finding of fact is relevant to this dispute: "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.". By my interpretation, this case falls under the "Arab-Israeli Conflict related" heading. As a result, I want to add a question to the list of questions:

5) Considering that arbitration committee determinations are considered as binding precedent, what effect does the quoted determination have on this dispute, and, applying the aforesaid provision, how can this dispute be resolved, without incurring discretionary sanctions per the determination?

I would like your answers ASAP, though by the end of next week at the latest. --The Historian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. @1 If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter than I will accept it. I guess that Pluto would accept it as well.
2. @2 I have received a good help desk advice, to which I fully agree:" It is not your responsibility to make a statement with which you do not agree, but it is your joint responsibility (you and the other person) to make sure that all significant positions taken in reliable published sources are mentioned". However, as it seems now, Pluto's opinion is mainly supported by 1 source, which has yet to be checked for its significance. He states other sources as well, but those are my sources too. This does not make sense, so either he or myself does not understand those sources. Once those are verified, it might set the dispute solution.

#@3 The Misplaced Pages definition of balance is excellent: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This is the reason that I proposed to write 2 sentences, one by me and the other one by Pluto. I am not sure if I fully replied, since the question is not so clear for me.

#@4 The question is not clear. It could be mentioned everywhere, but probably, it will not be interesting for other people. Ykantor (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased the question. I've also put a strikethough through User:Ykantor's answer, since the question has been rephrased and, in all fairness to all parties, I would like User:Ykantor to answer the same question that User:Pluto2012 has to answer. The original answer is also redundant because the question has essentially changed, and the answer provided is no longer relevant. I am NOT discounting opinions just by inserting a strikethough in place of the original answer.

As for question 3, Ykantor, the question is asking how would you yourself define the term "balance". I don't want a regurgitation of the Wiki policy - I can find that myself. You are welcome, however, to use that as your starting point, to be built on. Your answer to question 3 will be replaced by a strikethrough, so you can replace it.

Finally, in question 1, please don't presume answers for other parties - for the sake of fairness, I don't want parties to try and say "I think this party would say X", or anything of the sort. That part of your answer to question 1 will also be replaced by a strikethrough. So, for the questions (or parts thereof), please remove or rewrite the bits that are covered by a strikethrough. I hope I've provided enough clarity. --The Historian (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. @1 I have read the question few times, and I could not understand what for I have to reply for what effect would this have on the dispute? rather than what effect would this have on your opinion. It seems that eventually I understood the wrong meaning. Sorry.
2. @3 i AM SORRY, BUT i CAN NOT FIND A BETTER DEFINITION THAN Misplaced Pages's definition. Anyway, I will try: Misplaced Pages should be balanced i.e All wp:rs opinions should be represented, in proportion to the significance of the RS. I hope that this is an acceptable reply.
3. @4 Yes, of course, for both questions. Moreover, the helpdesk excellent advice clearly said so. The assumption is that both views are well supported.

• I am sorry if my reply is not comprehensive. If so, please let me know, and I will try to re-write it. Ykantor (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The sentence is not considered authoritative by every source and that is the reason why there is problem with it. If every reliable source would have the same analysis, there would be no problem, of course.

2) As you say, our personal opinions are not assumed to prevent us to complying with NPOV. It is understandable that an Israeli editor doesn't fell at ease with an article about evolution (and vice versa), but it doesn't offer them the opportunonity not to comply with WP:NPOV.

3) Generally speaking, "balancing" just consists in stating that A thinks A* and B thinks B* (at the condition that both A and B are reliable source of equivalent notoriaty on the matter). The due weight of each point of view must also be taken into consideration and may justificaiton the rejection of point A or point B. Note that in the current case, it is a more complex situation. The fact to know who started the '48 war is a very complex matter that cannot be solved in 2 lines and that would certainly deserve several paragraphs. Adding these paragraphs in the article to talk about this would certainly unbalance the global article. I mean that the controversy about the fact to know who would have started the '48 war is unrelelvant and undue weight. That is what was explained in the talk page of the article and supported by all editors who commented.

4) You talk about "parties" as if it was Ykantor vs Pluto2012. There is no reason to start again and again a discussion that reached a conclusion because it is not the conclusion that Ykantor wants. The matter was discussed here and a conclusion achieved. It was endorsed (before) by Nishidani and during the discussion by Visite fortuitement prolongée and LuA. Ykantor opened a DRN. Then he opened the discussion again on another article : 1948 Palestine war where I refered to the former discussion. Now, he comes here and all that was said and written should be forgotten to get some sort of weak consensus ? What about his WP:POINT and what about all that was discussed and endorsed by different contributors ?
To answer to Historian's question : I am not a representative of all parties who gave their mind and cannot decide for them and what you suggest is of course not acceptable for the reason that was debated on the talk page and lead to a consensus.
I confirm to you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA. Ykantor was already warned of this here and also here again whereas he archived some of these warnings and removed them from his talk page.

5) I don't know (but don't think) that this dispute is covered by WP:ARBPIA but it The dispute is covered by Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT and it could be brought in front of the ArbCom to ask for discretionnary sanctions to solve the issue. Ykantor has launched at least 4 DRN and he is in "so-called" disputes"in different articles with different editors. He never insulted anybody but he refuses to comply with advices that are given to him and always bring the same matters at different places. Several editors already complained about the fact they don't have time for such a game.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

sources : "he who asserts must prove"

Right. The point of those questions was to get parties thinking, and to see if they agree on anything. Now, there is a principle that states that "he who asserts must prove", so I want Ykantor to provide at minimum five valid sources that support the idea that the disputed sentence SHOULD go into the article, and, conversely, Pluto2012 should provide a minimum of five valid sources that support the idea that the sentence should NOT go into the article. Parties need to provide detail on the specific parts of the sources that support their assertions --The Historian (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• the sentence is:"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
• The supporting sources:

1. book|author1=Edward Alexander|author2=Paul Bogdanor|title=The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=oEGEBjk-6CkC&pg=PA107%7Caccessdate=13 August 2013|date=31 December 2011|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-0933-7|pages=82, 107 | quote="p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35); p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948."}}</ref>
   1. The same Jamal Husseini quote, appears in http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html citing: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19. -----------------------------------------
2. book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ%7Caccessdate=20 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|
   1. p. 79 ,"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated" , "during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive." ,
   2. p. 98, "In January 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham assessed that “official Arab policy is to stand on the defensive until aggression is ordered by the national leadership. That widespread assaults on Jews continue and are indeed increasing illustrates the comparatively feeble authority of most of Committees and of the AHC. . .
   3. p. 98, "armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods.
   4. p. 101. "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs" ,The Arabs "planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads" , "The first organized Arab urban attack was launched against the Jewish Hatikva Quarter, on the eastern edge of Tel Aviv" ,
   5. p. 117 , "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense"
   6. Benny Morris, refugees revisited, "On 8 January, Ben-Gurion said that so far, the Arab countryside, despite efforts to incite it, had remained largely quiescent. It was in the Yishuv’s interest that the countryside remain quiet, and this depended in large measure on the Yishuv’s own actions. ‘We mistakes which would make it easier for the Mufti’ to stir up the villages, he said. Regarding the countryside, the Haganah’s policy throughout February and March was ‘not to extend the fire to areas where we have not yet been attacked’ while at the same time vigorously attacking known bases of attacks on Jews and, in various areas, Arab traffic.75 This policy also applied to the Negev. The JNF’s YosefWeitz, the chairman of the Negev Committee (the Yishuv’s regional supervisory body), put it this way: ‘As to the Arabs, a policy has been determined: We extend our hand to peace. Every beduin who wants peace, will be satisfied. But if anyone dares to act contrariwise – his end will be bitter.’76 A few weeks earlier, on 12 February, the commander of the Negev Brigade, Nahum Sarig, instructed his officers:
      1. Our job is to appear before the Arabs as a ruling force which functions forcefully but with justice and fairness.
      2. We must encourage the Arabs to carry on life as usual.
      3. We must avoid harm to women and children.
      4. We must avoid harm to friendly Arabs."--------------------------
3. book|author=Yoav Gelber|title=Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC%7Caccessdate=13 July 2013|date=1 January 2006|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-84519-075-0|pages=3| quote="the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians’ campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Only in the wake of their military defeat did the Arabs make UN resolutions a cornerstone of their case and demand their strict fulfillment. Any study describing solely Palestinian suffering is one-sided and incomplete without properly weighing this plain truth: As victims of war, the Palestinians’ own conduct gives adequate cause to deny them the adjective “innocent”. Truly, they have paid a heavy price in this and ever since. They have been victims. But to a large extent they are the victims of their own follies and pugnacity, as well as the incompetence of their Arab allies."}}</ref>
   1. Jewish Transjordanian Relations: 1921 - 48, Gelber, p.243, "in mid december 1947...the Arab league determination to embark an organized anti Jewish terrorism in Palestine instead of the sporadic disorders"------------------------------------------
4. An internet site, quoting "middle eastern studies" ,Moti Golani, middle eastern studies, Apr 2001, 37,2 , p.93? , The “Haifa Turning Point” The British Administration and the Determination of the Civil War in Palestine, December 1947-May 1948, Golani p 105 :"Cunningham was aware that the Arabs had triggered the violence, but he was dumbfounded by what he thought was the Jews’ eagerness to retaliate------------------------------
5. A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami, books.google.com/books?isbn=9004175342, M. Cherif Bassiouni, ‎Shlomo Ben Ami - 2009 - ‎p. 24 ; "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan decided by the General Assembly (Resolution 181), which the violently opposed. This immediately developed into a civil war between the two communities in Palestine"--------------
6. Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East, By Michael Curtis, books.google.com/books?isbn=1412851416, 2013 -ch. 5.6, "At the London Conference, September 1946—February 1947, the last attempt by Britain to reconcile the conflicting points of view, the Arab League strongly rejected any plan for partition of Palestine or for any Jewish state. ... In October 1947 the Arab League set up a Military Committee ... this Committee was given weapons, money, and authority to dispatch a force of three thousand volunteers to Palestine, who then crossed into the area and began attacking Jewish settlements. ...In March 1948 the mufti, al-Husseini, stated that the Arabs would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated by a holy war and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state. At best, this might include Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1914 or 1917."----------------------------------
7. Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel, books.google.com/books?isbn=0520245571, Dan Rabinowitz, ‎Khawla Abu Baker - 2005, p. 31, "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute...The resolution by the U.N in favour of partition on November 29, 1947, triggered an immediate wave of Palestinian guerilla warfare against Jews, with hits and skirmishes in various parts of the country."----------------------- Ykantor (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Historian,

See the section material and next one "Proposal" in the article. These are not just quotes sometimes taken out of context but long and global excerpts.

Again, I remind you that I am not the representative of the Party of a dispute and that this analysis was endorsed.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria Syria diversion plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• dailycare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

user:dailycare deleted my edit. During weeks of discussion, he raised content objections of all sorts, sometimes returning tp previously discussed issues. I spent a lot of time in order to reply and have the proper RS quotations, but to no avail. Eventually he stopped with the content disputes and return (again) to the editing size issue. I do not like endless discussions. We have to stop and compromise somewhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed it in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To assist us reaching a compromise

Summary of dispute by dailycare

Hi guys, we've had a three-week discussion on the talkpage during which we've ageed on some changes to the article text. YK seems to persist in wanting to additionally introduce some quite specific material to a summary section in the article, the problem being in the main that the connection to the subject-matter of the article, and to the summary section in particular, is tenuous. Further issues with the proposed texts have been undue weight and selective simplification. In the past few days however a few previously uninvolved editors have weighed in in the discussion, so things seem ok. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I still feel that the talkpage collaboration has worked quite well since changes have been agreed, and the new editors have brought more perspective into the process. I'm not sure what the aim of this DRN process is over and above what's been discussed on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The content which was deleted by Dailycare is still missing, and results in an article with rather important inaccuracies. e.g. As is, it seems that Israel was unilaterally diverting water for its needs, creating the wrong impression that it might have been not legitimate.
• It is quite frustrating for me, that Dailycare does not refer to the argument itself ( was it incorrect to delete it?) but each time is raising a new indirect claim e.g. whether it was quoted from the same source, the need to concise the section, What Israeli region would be irrigated with the diverted water etc. I feel like climbing a never ending ladder. Ykantor (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan discussion

Hi there, sorry about the delay. Is our assistance still needed here? Steven Zhang (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to have your assistance. Ykantor (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

Filing party indef blocked. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad

This one has chilled down on the talk page. See closing comments. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations

Listing editor has now filed a RFC on this topic and DRN does not handle disputes pending in more than one forum. If the RFC does not resolve anything after its 30-day run, another filing may be made here, but not much can be gained here if major disputants choose not to participate (as is their right; participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

List of current world boxing champions

Claudevsq has been blocked due to edit warring. If this continues, I'd suggest going to WP:ANI, as they don't seem interested in discussing. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Z07x10 (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Eurofighter maximum speed was originally released as 'over Mach 2' (which was listed in various places as Mach 2+, Mach 2.0+, Mach 2 and Mach 2.0). However more current information became available.

This link from the Austrian Airforce very specifically states '2,495km/h (1550mph) at 10,975m http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. By simple calculation this was found to be Mach 2.35. Furthermore BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer) states '1521mph' http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon, which also calculates as over Mach 2.3. EADS (other manufacturer) states 'Mach 2.0+' http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html. Furthermore Airpower Austria shows the speed to be over Mach 2 from 28,000-55,000ft http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm.

All these sources are roughly consistent with a maximum speed of Mach 2.35 as agreed by consensus earlier on English wiki and still agreed, by entirely independent consensus (without my involvement) on German wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon.

Another user's position is that some sources still say Mach 2.0 and various magazines from ages ago and 'Haynes manual' said Mach 2.0, so the figure should be Mach 2.0.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy conversation on Talk page. Pointed out facts and German wiki agreement. It was ignored. Dispute unreolved.

How do you think we can help?

I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer to this one.

Summary of dispute by McSly

We have a variety of primary sources providing the top speed at high altitude for the Typhoon, essentially air force and airplane manufacturer websites. Some sources show the information in both Mach and km/h, some have only the Mach number, just one (the Austrian Air force) has only the km/h.The values provided by those sources are inconsistent, sometimes within the same source.

For the Mach value, they range from Mach 1.8 to Mach 2.0 to Mach 2.0+ to Mach 2+. No source says Mach 2.35. For the km/h, we have essentially 2 values (with some rounding here and there): 2,125 km/h (1,320 mph) and 2,495km/h (1550mph). The first is consistent with Mach 2.0, the second with Mach 2.35. As an example of problem within a source, the BAE SYSTEMS source that Z07x10 provided for his calculation actually contains both mph and Mach value (Mach 2.0 - 1521mph). Those 2 numbers do not add up. In that case Z07x10 takes the 1521mph value and says that we can calculate Mach 2.3 from it. But obviously doing the opposite would be just as equally valid, we take Mach 2.0 and then calculate 1320mph from it.

I see no indication that any of those sources is any better or worse than the others (we have 4 air forces and 3 manufacturers websites). I also see no indication than any of those values are newer or older than the others. In case of conflicting primary sources, it is not our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must rely on secondary sources to provide the information. In this case we have Jane's All the World's Aircraft. That source is highly regarded publication widely used on WP and actually already used in the article . That source states that the speed is Mach 2.0 at high altitude so we can just use it. Z07x10 on the other hand feels that we should use the primary sources to back calculate the Mach value even when we already have secondary sources providing that information. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here, and I'll be taking this case now that all parties have made opening statements. I'm going to read over the talk page and the article, but one question comes to mind, first. How complicated is the calculation to convert km/h to mach? Divide speed by speed of sound, right? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the sources linked by McSly, it seems to me that 2.0 is the best supported figure, with the Italian airforce, the German air force, Eurofighter's website, baesystems and Jane's all listing mach 2.0 as the maximum speed. None of the other numbers have anywhere near as many source. Compared with rough calculations, I'd be inclined to go with 2.0. Z07x10, do you have more sources that say mach 2.35? Note that these are just my initial thoughts, very much subject to change. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The calculation is: 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6), where 216.65 K is the SI-Standard Temperature in the Stratosphere as used in aviation, 287.05 is R and 1.405 is kappa. — Julian H.(talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I contacted Eurofighter Communications regarding the question, this is the answer I recieved:

Dear Mr. Herzog,

Thank you for your interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Regarding your question:

There should be no contradiction – we quote Mach 2.0+ which is correct – the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure and our official statement on maximum speed is Mach 2.0+.

Kind Regards

EUROFIGHTER COMMUNICATIONS

Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH

The statement that Mach 2.0 is a rounded number is a clear indication for me that it is not the best number to use. — Julian H.(talk) 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Julian. It is also an old number that propagated since the legacy release of information and most of the sources stating it are now out-of-date. An encyclopedia should be open to change when new information becomes available. Furthermore sources from manufacturers who are in receipt of the actual figures are clearly better than sources from magazines/publications who are not and have conducted no independent testing. Aircraft speed is also relative to altitude and the fact the Austrian Airforce (and Airpower Austria) specify altitude makes them a better source. If one were to resort to independent analysis, which I know is discouraged, it should be noted that the Eurofighter has ramped intakes to improve efficiency at high Mach (unlike F-16/Rafale) and has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any operational fighter (1.15 loaded), so a speed significantly over Mach 2 is likely. Furthermore it is commonplace for manufacturers to simply state 'over Mach 2' or 'Mach 2 class' officially even when the maximum speed is significantly above that http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html. It should also be noted that originally wiki never said 'Mach 2' anyway. It said 'Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)' and this can be verified I'm sure.Z07x10 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note. As regards the speed of sound and altitude issue, information about this is available on wiki in an independent article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Speed_of_sound

https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg

From the graph above, at 11km, speed of sound is ~295m/s, which is 1062kph ( * 3600 = 1062). 2495/1062 = Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So the Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, so why can't Z07x10 just accept that number rather than insisting on Mach 2.35? Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, but Eurofighter as a company confirms the correctness of the Mach 2.35 value, which is otherwise only confirmed by one source. I think that sums up the facts. Clearly, the maximum speed varies from configuration to configuration, so I think we could even include 2.0+ as a main value and 2.35 as an additional value to give an example for what "+" can mean. — Julian H.(talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, is your number based off of only one source, or do multiple sources list the same speed (after calculations)? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The BAE SYSTEMS source also states 1521mph. Whilst it also states Mach 2, this is based on the speed class of the aircraft, just as my Lockheed F-22 source above states 'Mach 2 class'. 1521mph is clearly more specific than Mach 2 and is not a calculating error based on the speed of sound at sea level, which is 765mph at ISA.

I don't think that this should merely be about counting sources. I've explained in my original post that the figure of '2/2+' has come from legacy information that has been subject to the mechanics of data propagation over time, so naturally many sources have copied that information, hence why there are more of them but they are not necessarily independent in the true meaning. When you examine McSly's sources it isn't hard to see flaws. For example the German Airforce state 'Mach 2.00', how likely is it that a plane tops out at 2.00 to 2dp exactly? Operating limits and speed classes should not be confused for genuine top speeds. E.g.[REDACTED] states the F-14D's top speed is 'Mach 2.34' and it is under optimal conditions but the official operating flight manuals show nothing above 2.0 (see page 4-6 configuration 1A - no stores):

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf

Another source McSly uses ' Eurofighter.com' have already clarified their position on the matter in Julian H's post above and importantly don't refute the claim of the Austrian Airforce. So far nobody has presented a reason as to why the Austrian Airforce source is unreliable or flawed. The fact that other sources say something different is not a good reason for ignoring it. E.g. you can't ignore the results of a scientific test just because other results say something different (especially if there's reason to believe the other tests are wrong), you have to find a flaw, like Geneva physicists had to when a neutrino appeared to break the speed of light. The Austrian Airforce is a respectable source and specifically states '2495kph at 10,975m'. That only calculates as Mach 2 if the temperature is about 26degC (at over 36,000ft). 26degC is not a standardised atmospheric temperature in any region at any altitude. If someone physically took the plane out and tested it, would that still be dismissed as just one source? As regards using secondary sources (like magazines and publications) for a matter like this, I honestly just sigh. Where have secondary sources like magazines got their information from? A true secondary source has to have seen the actual primary sources, which are the classified manuals. None of these so-called 'secondary sources' actually have, meaning that they are in fact tertiary sources, which conveniently/inconveniently aren't accessible online and therefore can't be verified/appraised by the majority of users. This could be relevant as the sources in question may specify certain conditions which are non-optimal. As you'll see in the F-14D flight manual top speed and what people quote is very dependent on fuel loading and store configuration, hence reasons why absolute limits are hard to come by. See other flight manuals for yourself. E.g.:

F-18E/F (wiki says Mach 1.8, flight manual shows nothing over 1.6 with 60% fuel load and minimal AAM load) Page XI-10-15 http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf

Furthermore, as regards calculations, McSly has now used a Mach number to back calculate a kph/mph speed at altitude on the article page, which isn't supported anywhere. Essentially exactly what I did, except the other way round using the legacy information. He is also calculating the kph/mph speed based on the altitude specified in the Austrian Airforce source that he's chosen to ignore wrt the speed. This kind of pseudo mathematics has no place. My calculation comes from a single but coherent source with a TAS (True Air Speed) backed up by the BAE SYSTEMS source - 2495kph = 1552mph, BAE say 1521mph. Spanish[REDACTED] also quote this speed (1522mph) and a BAE source, Italian[REDACTED] also quote >2450kph and German[REDACTED] quote Mach 2.35 using the Austrian Airforce source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

An interpretation should be able to explain all the figures provided by reliable sources and not simply ignore those that don't fit with a pre-conceived idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

McSly is also quoting the following source on the article page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-273 "Loveless, Antony (1994). RAF Typhoon Manual. Haynes."

This document is clearly not current and almost pre-dates the in-service date by 10 years. It should be removed. I can't, for the life of me, think why he would consider it more relevant than a figure published by an active airforce user.Z07x10 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update Eurofighter.com now list '2.0+' inline with Julian H's reply from them, and not '2.0' as previously stated by McSly. http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/technicaldata.html

To summarise 3 official sources now state '2.0+' (EADS, Airpower Austria and Eurofighter.com) and 2 sources state mph/kph speeds inline with Mach 2.3+ (BAE SYSTEMS and Austrian Airforce). Eurofighter.com have also officially stated that '2.0+' is the official figure AND that the Austrian Airforce's figure is for a specific configuration and fuel load. Z07x10 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note for the drn-volunteer I have protected the Eurofighter Typhoon article pending a consensus as users have continued to edit war while talk page and drn disucussion are ongoing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a reliable set of sources which confirm "2.0+" to be acceptable, has anybody considered adding in a note alongside the references to state that "Mach 2.35" or "higher speeds" are capable depending on height, air pressure and payload considerations as we have a suitable reference for this and confirmation via Eurofighter that 2.35 is possible depending on configuration etc.

The RAF Typhoon Manual was actually published in 2013, not 1994, whoever added that reference needs a whack over the head with the aforementioned manual. http://www.amazon.co.uk/RAF-Typhoon-Manual-Owners-Workshop/dp/0857330756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380049476&sr=8-1&keywords=RAF+Typhoon+Manual but it gets a pretty scathing set of reviews, so it might not be the best of resources anyway. Nick (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

MilborneOne, that note is a very good idea. So as a proposal, we could state:

"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) "Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, you are right on its quality as a source. Haynes do not produce official Typhoon Maintenance Manuals, that book is a novelty item and nothing more, as stated on your link, "An insight into owning, flying and maintaining the world's most advanced multi-role fast jet." Definitely not a reliable source. I'm sure if I wrote "the world's most advanced multi-role fighter" on the article page and listed Haynes as a source, it would be followed by a gigantic sht storm.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a few things to unpack here but I'll focus on 2:

Precision of measure: Z07x10 insists that the value '2495kph at 10,975m' is very precise and specific and that's why we should use it. By doing so, he's making the basic mistake of confusing precision with accurancy. Being precise is no indication of being correct. If I say that the distance between Paris and New York is specifically 2,495km, I would be precise, but wrong. If I say it's about 6,000km, that's a lot less precise but more accurate. I'd like also to point out that when he's talking about the Mach value, suddenly being precise doesn't seem to matter anymore. Mach 2.0 is just formatting or "Mach 2 class" and anything with the plus sign is consistant with Mach 2.35. Well, that's not correct, for example, Mach 2.0+ means less than Mach 2.1, because there is a zero there. If it was more than Mach 2.1, it would read Mach 2.1+

Quality of source: Z07x10 also insists that the Austrian air force site is a good source for the value, but I don't see any indication that that's the case. We have 4 official air force websites here Italy, Germany, Austria and UK. All with different values for the top speed. They all look like 4 generic PR site for the respective air forces with basic information about units, equipment and so on. The Austrian page for the Typhoon is actually pretty bare (it doesn't even list the weight for example). In any event, nothing warranting any special treatment.

So like I said before, we have a bunch of primary sources with different, incompatible values and no way to really evaluate which source is better (4 official air forces sites for example). Now in order to move this thing along. For the Mach value, any mention of Mach 2.35 is out of the question. I would much prefer to have Mach 2.0 since that's what our best source (JANE's) says but since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+. For the km/h conversion, since we have contradictory values and no good secondary source, I'm all for removing that value altogether.--McSly (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

3 Comments from my side:

• Mach 2.0+ doesn't mean that the value is below 2.1 - ist just means that it is above Mach 2.0. Even the manufacturer of the aircraft confirmed that (see above). Why would the "+" be limited?
• Precision is of course not the same as accurancy, I don't think anyone confuses the two. But assuming, again, that the manufacturer of the aircraft is correct, all values except for the ones stating "Mach 2.0" are accurate, and with this knowledge, shouldn't our focus be on using - among the accurate sources - the most precise one?
• Generally: Why do you ignore the official response by Eurofighter GmbH?

— Julian H.(talk) 06:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Julian, If we want this discussion to get anywhere, we need to actually read what the others say. From my comment above, I specifically wrote "since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+" What part of that was not clear? Please reply to this comment to acknowledge that it is indeed what I said. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read what you wrote, and what I wrote reflects that. I referred to your statements describing numbers as inaccurate and the mentioning of Mach 2.35 as "out of the question" despite the official confirmation of that value.

I don't understand why it's not possible (and the best solution) to mention "Mach 2.0+" as the general value and, for example in brackets, add Mach 2.35 as an example for a specific configuration to give the reader an idea of what the "+" can mean. I just think that this would give the reader the most and most precise information, and I think that this should be our aim.

If we can't find consensus towards that, then I guess "Mach 2.0+" will have to do. — Julian H.(talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also do not think that 'less than Mach 2.1' is the correct interpretation. We have two sources (BAE and Austrian Airforce) that state kph/mph figures not consistent with this theory and one of them (BAE) quote '1521mph' together with 'Mach 2.0' showing that '<2.1' is not the correct interpretation of '2.0+' or 'Mach 2 class'. Eurofighter.com have also confirmed this to be the case. Furthermore the initial release of information for the SR-71 stated Mach 3.2+ but there are now several sources stating >3.3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/SR-71_Blackbird#cite_note-92) and this book written by ex-pilots suggests >3.5 http://www.amazon.com/SR-71-Blackbird-Stories-Tales-Legends/dp/0760311420. Mach 3.2 turned out to be the recommended operational cruising speed.
• It has already been explained by Julian, myself and Eurofighter.com why some sources list '2.0' and that top speed will depend on fuel, store configuration and operating guidelines relevant to maintenance planning (MTBOs etc.).
• The precision vs accuracy argument is null and void in this instance, since the precise figure in question has come from an Airforce operating the aircraft and Eurofighter.com have indicated that this speed is for a specific set of conditions (fuel, stores etc.).
• I do not subscribe to the notion that Jane's is the ultimate and best source of evidence for everything pertaining to aircraft. If Jane's had access to the official specifications for the Eurofighter, the specs would also be on the internet, and it's not as if Jane's have independently speed-tested a Eurofighter. Therefore the logical conclusion is that their information has also been derived from official PR releases saying '2.0+' that they have then 'rounded' as stated by Eurofighter.com.

Z07x10 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a big problem with a lot of these sources is that speed can vary a lot with altitude (which I think is why so many of the sources say 2.0+). If we could find two or more good sources that indicate the same speed at the same altitude, that would be a number I'd be willing to accept. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always nice to be able to find extra sources but for something like this it's very difficult. We have another source saying '1521mph' but without an altitude. However, fundamentally it's aerodynamically more difficult for a plane to achieve 1521mph below the troposhere (11km) than at or above it. The air is denser (more drag) and the ambient temperature is higher so the jet engines don't work as efficiently in terms of both the compressor efficiency and the amount of heat that can be added during combustion, because TET (Turbine Entry temperature) is a limiting factor and incoming air is hotter. Hence why top speed at sea level is usually only around Mach 1.2 for modern fighter jets.

At present we have:

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml - 2,495kph at 10,975m (Austrian Airforce)

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon - 1521mph (BAE SYSTEMS)

http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm - Mach 2+ from 28,000-55,000ft (Airpower Austria)

We also have a response from Eurofighter.com indicating that the Austrian Airforce figures are possible depending on fuel, stores etc. "the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)"

And we have several sources stating a Mach 1.5 supercruise without afterburners making Mach 2.35 with afterburner seem plausible: http://www.eurofighter.aero/eurofighter/switzerland/de/eurofighter/einsatzrollen/airpolice.html

It's also worth pointing out that only one source is used on other pages for such matters. The other problem is that if we did find another source saying the exact same thing, it would likely only be copied from the aforementioned source, as is the case with many other sources. Unless we can find flaw with a source we shouldn't discount it IMHO.

In light of the above, what about an edit saying:

"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) "

-**Note reads " 'The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com".

Z07x10 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a fair compromise to me. Anyone else? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really I'm afraid. The Austrian air force source is dubious at best. It is also flatly contradicted by better or equivalent sources and those cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, with all the sources and all the values that we have for the max speed, none of them, none, says Mach 2.35 so adding a value with no source, especially in a dispute context is a non starter. Lastly, there is a good discussion going on the Reliable sources Noticeboard on essentially the same question we have here. In the light of this discussion, I propose to set the Mach value to Mach 2.0+ or >Mach 2.0 (either is fine with me) and since we have contradictory values for the mph speed and no good source providing it, let's remove it altogether.--McSly (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see where this contradiction is and we aren't just stating the word of the Austrian Airforce on their own, we're stating the response of Eurofighter.com on the matter of the Austrian Airforce's quote and presenting the data exactly for what it is (with qualifiers) and nothing else. The statement that none of them say 'Mach 2.35' is irrelevant because that's what 2,495kph calculates as under ISA conditions at the altitude specified by the Austrian Airforce - it would only calculate as Mach 2 at 26degC (299K) so it isn't simply a mistake using the speed of sound at ground level (15degC, 288K --> 1224kph). The mph/kph speed should definitely not be removed because we have very clear sources stating that as 2,495kph and 1521mph (Austrian Airforce and BAE SYSTEMS). As an official airforce user and a manufacturer in agreement that out-ranks all other sources on the matter. EADS and Eurofighter.com also quote 'Mach 2+', which is not inconsistent with this. In fact, plainly speaking, once you remove BAE, EADS, Eurofighter.com and the Austrian Airforce (who have stated a specific speed at a specific altitude indicative of a test or spec reference), there are no other 'good' sources. What remains are only copy and pastes and nothing more. We should definitely not remove mph/kph figures because the ones we have in this case are very accurately specified. I keep hearing that the Austrian Airforce is a dubious source but the protagonist is yet to mention why. Exactly why should we simply cast aside this very specific metric from an Airforce user? Other sources copying, pasting and 'rounding' (to quote Eurofighter.com) a legacy press release doesn't qualify as a good reason. Z07x10 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, where is the source from Eurofighter that says, "The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com"? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it just an email? If so, I don't think it's a reliable source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Julian H as he has the proof but the fact that they changed their figure to '2+' shortly after responding indicates that they looked into it.Z07x10 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I can forward it to any address or ask them to send it somewhere if that helps. — Julian H.(talk) 10:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Farolif (talk · contribs)
• Zoltan Bukovszky (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user (Zoltan Bukovszky) insists that the personal titles of various people be included in lists of state leaders. I have contended that this information constitutes biographical information which is beyond the scope of the articles, as well as being confusing and making some parts of the list difficult to read. Other user ignores my points and continues belligerent reverts of my edits.

Issue has carried over into "List of current heads of state and government" and more recently flared up again in "List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Personal titles
Recent edits on List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence
User talk:Farolif#Sir, Dame and Sheikh Forgot abt this discussion, too - in which Zoltan admitted that the personal titles are unnecessary as well ("...they are prime minister or emir nevertheless...").
This is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding, at the very least) of what I said there, as the point I was making was that the inclusion of titles creates no confusion - contrary to your claim. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Explain scope and stay on topic to other user.

Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky

Farolif came up with the idea that the inclusion of 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh' in front of people's names is 'irrelevant', 'confusing', 'out of scope' or 'biographical information' and mass-deleted them from the article. He is ignoring the fact that this is how those people are routinely mentioned in the UN list of heads of state and government (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf), the countries' government webpages and most Google searches for their names. And he keeps mass reverting it whenever I restore them. If that is the way those people are called than - in my opinion - it cannot be regarded either as irrelevant or out of scope, it isn't confusing since the names are links to the articles about them, and as for the 'biographical information' argument since these titles are used as part of the names, it's completely dissimilar to their date of birth being being put put next to the name, for instance. Therefore to me Farolif's staunch determination to to delete them constitue an unreasonable loss of valid and relevant encyclopedic content. ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office discussion

Nobody is asking to see the UN protocol list or the respective leaders' government websites. ZBukov seems to be mixing up "names" with *forms of address*, the latter of which includes titles, while "names" do not. Also, every instance of a personal title used on these pages requires a separate Wikilink to direct someone to the article about the person (ex. - Sir Frederick Ballantyne|Frederick Ballantyne) - which is not the same thing as Zbukov's claim that "the names are links to the articles about them". Farolif (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody is asking to see"? What kind of argument is this? :) If the Governor-General of Saint Lucia is Dame Pearlette Louisy (as evidenced by the above and many other sources like www.rulers.org, www.worldstatesmen.org, the London Gazette (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/56198/notices/1002/all=pearlette+louisy), Archontology (http://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php) rendering the fact undisputed) then why would your unacknowledged personal dislike or some unexplained, nonexistent confusion be relevant enough to say otherwise (only wishing to see Pearlette Louisy)? And what is this argument about requiring a separate Wikilink? They were there, before you started painstakingly deleting them! ZBukov (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I was deleting the Wikilinks; they've been intact through this whole ordeal. The name of the GG of St. Lucia is Pearlette Louisy, who is also styled as 'Dame'. The rest of your diatribe is sheer speculation and assumption that these various external sources apply to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have to diappoint you, but 'Dame' and the other words in question are not styles, in the Dame Pearlette's case her style is 'Her Excellency' which no-one wants to put into these articles - but that's merely a side-note. So to stick to the Saint Lucia case, all of the following sources name the Governor-General of Saint Lucia as 'Dame Pearlette Louisy': the Government of Saint Lucia (http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/profile/her-excellency-dame-pearlette-louisy), the United Nations, http://www.rulers.org/ruls1.html#saint_lucia, http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Lucia.htmlhttp://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php, to name the most evident ones. So you are saying that all this is irrelevant, right? And you have still failed to explain the confusion which you think this might cause. Would you please be so kind as to finally expound? ZBukov (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the case of the List of current heads of state and government, a person could read the office as "Governor-General Dame" if you leave her title dangling on. And her 'Dame' title is shown on her WP article, which does not require same title to link to it - Pearlette Louisy - therefore nullifying all of your myriad sources as being critical to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is the confusion you fear than please rename the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to prevent people from thinking that "Prime Minister Sheikh" is a title... It doesn't seem reasonable to hide facts to make up for a lack of minimal intelligence and/or knowledge about the topic one is reading about: moving the mouse over the link reveals in an instant that 'Governor-General' and 'Dame Pearlette Louisy' are links to two separate Misplaced Pages articles and the boundary between them is not between the words 'Dame' and 'Pearlette'... And anyway this argument is only applicable to one of the two articles from which you keep mass-deleting information, as the names and positions aren't right next to each other in the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office article. I'm relieved to note that you appear to have stopped deleting information from this latter article. ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you suggest a task (changing another person's name) that is not only unnecessary here, but totally beyond the control of a WP editor. Brilliant; or, to borrow one of your phrases - "What kind of argument is this?" Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the titles so that a reader's mind is not required to be constantly flipping between "title", "not a title", "title", "not a title", etc? And you're also assuming that everyone who reads a Misplaced Pages article actually has a mouse to "mouse over" a line and read the preview bar (which they also might not have on whatever device they're using). Though I'm glad to hear I've given some respite to your life by my self-imposed moratorium on editing the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office page - on which, by the way, you are so far the singular minority in favor of keeping the titles. Farolif (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The rhetorical device I used in calling on you to rename Sheikh Hasina is called irony. The two people possibly in point, your sole ammunition for the 'confusion' claim, are Sheikh Hasina and Prince Johnson (I can't think of any other off the top of my head). Sheikh and prince are universally known words as titles, and I believe an incomparably smaller percentage of humanity will be erudite enough to be aware of these as being names in some cultures. Therefore even with the titles omitted from the article, most people will perceive them to be a person named Hasina and titled Sheikh, and one called Johnson of royal heritage. So you will hardly be able to prevent the 'constant flipping' of their minds... And as I said, if the reader is interested, they can always visit the relevant article for more information. As for the talk page and the question of minority, there was a single other person contributing to the debate between yourself and me, and he opined in favour of keeping the titles but deleting the Sirs and Dames, so that was a 'yes' and a 'no' to both of us. Interpreting that as supporting your side sounds like desperate cherry-picking. But your self-imposed moratorium is laudable regardless whether it resulted from seeing the untenability of the 'confusion' claim in light of the article's format, or from fatigue. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that still wasn't irony. Irony would have been if through some great feat I successfully changed Sheikh Hasina's name, and the new name still caused confusion to people, or did not achieve the initial goal of satisfying the person who charged me with such a task. You are also ignoring the opposite problem caused by recognizing "Sheikh" and "Prince" as names - including them as titles can confuse some people to think that Khalifa's first name is "Prince", or Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani's first name is "Sheikh". True, there's no way to phrase a foreign name so that every single person will read it as only a name 100% of the time and not interpret part of it as a title. I suppose we should be thankful no state leaders are named "Don" or "Duke", although we do have currently have a "Baron" :o. But I would say it drastically reduces the chances of such confusion when we don't mix the two by having "Sheikh"s as person's titles in the same list as people with the name "Sheikh".

The only desperation here is from the person dredging up UN protocol lists time and time again along with multiple external sources without explaining how any of it helps the article or resolve the issue at hand, the person trying to explain how a reader can avoid confusion by using technical means they might not have at their disposal, the person trying to discredit their opponent by pointing out alternate definitions of their opponent's word-choice. And the only fatigue I feel comes from dealing with a person who persistently proves themselves incapable of thinking critically about a problem. Farolif (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the President of Nauru is also a case in point. It's worrisome if you have no idea how or why sources are relevant here. Anyway. Would anyone else care to give an opinion? ZBukov (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, if anyone could explain why a reader would expect to see the personal titles of leaders on these pages in question, I'd appreciate their insight. Farolif (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with DRN but I have strong doubts this is what is meant by 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary' or 'Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page' . I would note despite this lengthy discussion, there is still no opening statement by Farolif. If this was intended to be such it was presented wrongly, which of course probably isn't a good reason to have a long discussion involving only extant editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Rushikesh.tilak (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
• Rayabhari (talk · contribs)
• RouLong (talk · contribs)
• Ashwin147 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Which version of the protests conducted by Aam Aadmi Party, can be included in the article:

Version A:

"The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi." with two citations (one for the ads, one for the e-rickshaw stuff). Or some equivalent one liner.

Version B:

In June 2013, Aam Aadmi Party protested Delhi Government's ban on putting ads on rickshaws & contested the issue in court which resulted in Delhi High Court ordering stay on this ban. In September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported demands of e-rickshaw drivers to have a clear guidelines/policy on e-rickshaws & also suggested a subsidy on the purchase of e-rickshaws due to e-rickshaws environment friendly nature.

There is no dispute over sources/citations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed the issue extensively but it appears that out of 7 parties the opinion is split & consensus can not be reached.

How do you think we can help?

Request expert opinion on different claims made & assistance in suggesting the version that could go into the article.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

Placeholder: apologies but I did not get notified of this thread & have only just spotted the notification on another contributor's talk page. I'll replace this placeholder with a comment tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving my note above in situ because it is apparent to me that the notification bot is not working properly, eg: I was named in a recent report for Narendra Modi which was closed as "stale" when it got no responses at all. Like here, I got no notification.

Regarding this case, I agree with the comments made by Qwyrxian. I further note in relation to Ashwin's opinion that we do not record things that might become significant and then remove them if it turns out not to be in a couple of months' time. For fairly obvious reasons - people's movement, new political party, elections in a couple of months - the article is at present subject to a lot of almost-messianic and usually policy-naive promotional contributions. The party has four main agenda items per its own website and those are covered, along with brief mentions of some of the many other protest pies that it is involved with. If we begin expanding on one particular campaign then we'll have to expand on all the others to avoid imbalance: that is unfeasible and will ultimately mostly be trivial, bearing in mind that the party intends to publish 70 separate constituency manifestos in the coming weeks.

If an issue becomes a part of the post-election psephological analysis then we can include it at that time; until then, we need to be careful not to become a soapbox, especially for an organisation that seems basically to be trying to stand on as many diverse soapboxes as this. Finally, it should be noted that protests and legal applications are two-a-penny in India: most are vociferous, most get some headline-type impact initially and most ultimately fizzle out or are overturned/bogged down in a notoriously slow appeals process. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Binskternet

Like Qwyrxian, I believe that the conservative path is the best for this article. If and when the election results are analyzed such that the erickshaw issue is seen as having been important, we can tell this to the reader. Before the election it is too soon to know. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian

In policy terms, the dispute revolves around WP:UNDUE. Myself and others hold that this protest in question is of a limited duration, and no lasting effects from the protest on either India or the political party in question have been (yet) demonstrated. It is certainly possible that this event will have a lasting effect, but our long-term, encyclopedic approach (encapsulated in WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) is that we need to know first that the event is of lasting significance to give more than passing coverage in the article. Should there turn out to be long term significance (say if a political scientist dubs AAP's connection to the protest a major factor in their polling results, whatever those are), then we would definitely expand the coverage. But until that happens, I (and others) want to take the conservative route, and believe that is what our policies ask of us. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rayabhari

Considering the encyclopedic nature of any article in WP, I prefer option A, which may give brief details of protest activities of the party. As observed elsewhere in talk page by some editors, giving lengthy details of each and every protest and mass appeal activities by the party may result in distorting the article.Rayabhari (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RouLong

Summary of dispute by Ashwin147

I would go with version B, but better phrased and slightly shortened. In the next couple of months as Delhi goes to the polls, the rickshaw issue could have an impact and I assume people looking at the article in the meanwhile would like greater details on AAP and its stance than a couple of one liners about these. In the longer run, as the article evolves if the detailing seems unnecessary, it should get edited out.

Aam Aadmi Party discussion

These are not at all election issues. Election issues are those for which parties put forth their action plan/intentions if they come to power/win elections.

Issue related to ban on Advertisement (June 2013) on auto rickshaws was protested & contested in Delhi High Court by Aam Aadmi Party. Based on the argument, Delhi High Court put a stay on the ban & government has not appealed against High Court order. So In short, this issue was taken to logical conclusion by Aam Aadmi Party.

Issue related to battery operated rickshaws (September 2013) was supported by Aam Aadmi Party. They not only asked government to draft a proper policy but also asked government to give subsidy on its purchase. Till this moment, government was hostile towards e-rickshaws & also banned sale of e-rickshaws in capital(Delhi) a month ago. However post these protests, Delhi Chief Minister constituted the committee to review the situation & asked it to come up with guidelines. So again, Aam Aadmi Party was a catalyst in bringing change in Government's attitude.

So in my opinion these two protests show 1) Work Done by Aam Aadmi Party & 2) views of Aam Aadmi Party & hence warrant inclusion in this article.--ratastro (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Qwyrxian has hit it right on the head; undue weight is the issue here, and upholding neutral point of view is critical. If the impact of the protests is shown later down the road, then it can potentially be expanded, but for now, keep things as brief as possible, so I'd recommend to go with option one. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• • @ Steven Zhang: Thanks for taking this issue up as volunteer. I do not think that Option Two will make it WP:UNDUE. Aam Aadmi Party has conducted many protests. But only few of which have been contested at High Court. And only above two cases, party was instrumental in taking issues at its logical conclusion. Moreover no other party assisted Aam Aadmi Party in this. So how can this issue be WP:UNDUE? Also the article we are discussing is Aam Aadmi Party so how is not including these two protests in the article justified?--ratastro (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can't really add much to what Qwyrxian said. I'd just be regurgitating his words, to be honest. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Cavann (talk · contribs)
• Yalens (talk · contribs)
• Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• TU-nor (talk · contribs)
• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

2 issues. First is the wording of a sentence in the lead. Second is about adding or removing information in the "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. Based on journal articles (5 of em here) and other ones like , and on secondary sources (very reliable ), I have suggested a compromise wording here . However, other editors suggested adding UNSOURCED statements not backed by any of studies . So, the first issue is what this sentence in the lead should be: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,k but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Second issue is adding these relevant reliably sourced material (or similar wording) in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talks here: Talk:Turkish people. Most recent discussion is here: Talk:Turkish_people#So_what.27s_the_reason.3F

How do you think we can help?

Offer us an opinion with respect to Wiki policies, especially Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:OR

Summary of dispute by Yalens

First of all I’d say the key to this for me is sources. At the moment right now the side in favor of mentioning Turkish people primarily descend from natives that the invaders assimilated has a host sources on its side. However, various editors, as some have openly stated on the talk page, disagree with the theory and at least one thinks it is a nationalist concoction (I don’t buy this: Turkish nationalism actually prefers descent from Central Asians- exactly what is being refuted by this study- and not only are the sources varied but the author of one of the studies is Armenian, thus for obvious reasons unlikely to be trying to support that ideology, but whatever).

It’s been claimed that the sources are “controversial”. For the most part, they are actually quite usable academic sources and I have yet to see sources criticizing any of them with regards to this topic. They have also brought up two sources that supposedly “tell a different story”, but neither actually counters the theory. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the studies are “cherrypicked”. I don’t buy this either, as genetic studies are not (yet) huge in number, and the bulk of studies on Turks that cover this topic are already included. They still haven’t produced a paper refuting the elite dominance-cultural assimilation theory.

With all that having been said, some of the complaints are actually legitimate in my mind. For example, the mass inclusion of heavily cited material in the lead. I think compromise is possible, and most editors from both sides have made attempts at this. But the discussion often gets caught up in logistics and attempts to negotiate the whole page at once. There’s also a tendency to argue about things that both sides actually agree on. I personally support compromises such as this one (]. --Yalens (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Proudbolsahye

First off, the way this dispute was filed through this DRN is unacceptable on the grounds that alternative propositions are nowhere to be found in the Dispute overview. I don't feel that the dispute in its entirety is properly addressed and the nomination in itself promotes one side of the argument. If this is how this issue is attempted to be "resolved" and if the Dispute overview is worded in this manner, I highly doubt the resolution board will reach any plausible conclusion. In addition to this, you claim without any sort of context, that I proposed leaving the sentence unsourced, which I felt as a sort of attack against me with the caps locks. On the other hand, I specifically pointed out that WP:WHYCITE suggests that sources in the lead are often discouraged, which leaves us to do some explaining in regards to individual genetic studies and their conclusions in another part of the article. Regardless of that fact, I am not going to contribute to such a noticeboard until ALL viewpoints and propositions are properly addressed in the Dispute overview. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Athenean

Rather than a problem of "sources vs. no sources", as Cavann puts it, the issue here is that sources are being misused and misinterpreted, as well as WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources provided by Cavann do not actually back the very strongly nativist wording that he suggests (see the last sentence of the removed part). Another problem is the repetition of the same material throughout the article for effect, for example a sentence that is clearly about genetics in the history section (see previous diff). Some sources, such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are controversial, yet they are inserted multiple times throughout the article, including the lede. Cavann insists on a very strong wording, that the modern Turkish population are the direct, lineal descendants of Bronze Ages populations, even though the literature is in agreement that the demographic and genetic history of the Anatolian landbridge is extraordinarily complex and the situation is not that clear and simple. There is a lot of WP:IDHT in the talkpage, which makes this issue very hard to resolve. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TU-nor

I'm out traveling with only sporadic Internet connection, so I will not take much part in this discussion. Just a comment: My concern has been to try to find some middle ground. I suggested striking out one word, and the response from some editors was: Yes, we like this. Someone else said that it made things even worse. To meet this last response, I thereafter suggested to change one word. The response (from one of the editors that liked my first suggestion) was that this was completely unacceptable. With that kind of reactions, there is not much hope of building a consensus. I'll come back to this discussion if I can, but if not, I just hope that some of the editors take a short pause to try to understand what the other editors are saying. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jingiby

Summary of dispute by Antidiskriminator

I don't think the dispute has been presented in an objective and neutral manner by editor who filed it here. Its not about well sourced compromise vs. unsourced position of other editors. It would be against WP:NPOV to give undue weight to some controversial genetic studies by presenting them in the lede. This edit (diff) explains why. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the above link I pointed to 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley which explains why it is (still) impossible to support extraordinary claims about the past of the modern social constructions like nations with genetic studies of the past:

• Genetic studies of the past are controversial ("Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...")
• Genetic studies of the past have circular reasoning issue because they contradict themselves.
  • They first emphasized that there is no scientific basis for the concept of the nationality (races...) and that genetic differences between people within the same nationality are bigger than between different nationalities.
  • Then they used "social constructions" like nations to make conclusions beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised.

It is obvious that compromise proposal has not been accepted so the "Thracian Turks" hypothesis should not be presented in the lede of this article but in its genetics section and (if it is really important and notable) in separate article about Genetic Studies on Turkish People like in case of genetic studies of Arabs, Jews, Serbs, Sinhalese or Sri Lankan Tamils.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yerevanci

Antidiskriminator makes a very good point. I'd like to add that Cavann does not provide the alternative arguments or proposals that Athenean and Proudbolsahye put forth. This looks like another attempt by him to push his POV. All the sources that he gives to back up the theory that modern Turks primarily descend from Ancient Anatolians are problematic (e.g. that author of a few sources has been involved in several controversies). That theory is only supported by selective articles, which we generally call WP:CHERRYPICKING. Athenean's proposal is much more balanced and better reflects the situation without favoring one conclusion of the study of another. More importantly, this discussion will get us nowhere with such a dispute overview as this one. --Երևանցի 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

I've tried to make a number of specific proposals concerning several sections of the article. What's disruptive in this case and I've noticed that very soon, is the extreme wp:own activity by Cavann. Endlessly reverting various edits by other users, even ones that finally accepts as reasonable (like the Hittite map case in Prehistory section, although after a couple of rvs). In general I agree with Athenean's proposal, since the present form of the article suffers from wp:synth and wp:or, especially the introductory parts need to be fixed in order to get rid of conclusions that are not based on reliable material.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither taking nor opening this filing for discussion at this time, but want to comment about the objections that this is not properly filed. If you feel that the issues were not properly presented by the listing editor, you have (at least) two choices: (1) If you feel that dispute resolution would be helpful you can set out what you feel the proper issues should be and a volunteer will consider expanding the listing or (2) you can simply decline to participate here (participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory). Merely objecting to the way the listing editor presented the matter will be taken to be #2 unless you do #1, and if significant participants in the dispute decline to participate then this request will probably be closed. Remember that DRN isn't a courtroom that will make a binding judgment, but is only a forum for assistance with negotiation and/or neutral third party nonbinding evaluation, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Antidiscriminator's response perfectly exemplifies why we need mediation. S/he seems to think some random comment by Pamela Kyle Crossley (who is a historian) invalidates all reliable life-sciences sources, such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's books and newer journal articles. That is why we need assistance with respect to WP:verifiability and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Cavann (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also say I liked TU-nor's compromise offer. Cavann (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ishtar456 (talk · contribs)
• Technical 13 (talk · contribs)
• Pinkbeast (talk · contribs)
• Begoon (talk · contribs)
• Oanabay04 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor feels that an article is too long and that it should be broken up. This editor has begun to brake the article up. The Article has been through and passed GA and FA review and discussion concluded that it should stay as is, but the editor thinks there was another conclusion. I asked for help using the "help me" template to find out how to get help, and the editor reversed the template twice. I would like some experienced intervention to settle the dispute as I do not want to participate in an edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

mediation to settle the dispute: does the article really need to be broken up or can we let the FA review stand?

Summary of dispute by Technical 13

The bulk of my opinions of this article are on the article talk page. I think that it is too full of intricate details not pertaining directly to the topic that are better suited in spin-off articles. Some of the spin-off articles that would be supporting this topic already exist, and those articles should be utilized. I'm not sure how the heck this article made it through GA and FA status and due to the issues with the article and the fact that this article is now unstable, I've nominated it for a FAR review. 19:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pinkbeast

As far as I can see, leaving aside the conduct issues, the dispute is over whether the page should have a lengthy description of each locomotive, including locomotives which are no longer at the site.

I added my opinion to the talk page, I think originally because of a "help me" template, and expanded on it later; the edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASteamtown%2C_U.S.A.&action=historysubmit&diff=575070851&oldid=575036498 summarises how I feel about the situation. I have not edited the page itself. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oanabay04

The article is too detailed, written in essay format and needs to be shorter by having the excessive detail placed in separate articles.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Begoon

All of the content related discussion is on the article talkpage. I have nothing content related I feel I can add to that, and have removed the conduct related comments I initially made here, which had not been replied to. Apologies for posting out of process comments here, in my anger at the situation. I wish you well with the resolution. Begoon  15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. discussion

Just to clarify something that Pinkbeast referred to: None of the locomotives are currently at the site. The place no longer exists. The article is about a train excursion/museum that was once in VT. It moved to PA and was then nationalized. This article is about the history of and the collection at the Vermont location. The last time I checked there is a Ben and Jerry's ice cream plant at the location. To take out the summaries of the pieces in the collection would be to take out half of the point of the article. They are actually short summaries, not lengthy, in my opinion, and are too short to make articles of their own. I, personally, cannot see them in any other way but as part of longer articles. Since the thing that each one has in common is that they were all once part of the collection on which the article is written, I think that they should be included in this particular article.

The article has been put up for FA review by Technical 13, since this dispute resolution was requested. It is already an FA. I believe that since the article is in dispute it will be rejected by FA. I do not believe that FA review will settle the dispute, I believe it will escalate things, actually. I do not understand why that measure was taken.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HelenOnline (talk · contribs)
• Virgosky (talk · contribs)
• FactStraight (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been ongoing edit warring since August over content related to Goldsmith ancestry which Virgosky wants qualified.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Today I weighed in on the article's talk page after watching the ongoing edit war for some time and now taking the time to review the relevant content and source. I also posted a user warning on Virgosky's talk page after they continued edit warring today without discussing it on the talk page first (they have removed the user warning from their talk page).

How do you think we can help?

Please help to defuse the issue.

Summary of dispute by Virgosky

There is only one source that suggests Carole Middleton is the direct descendent of King Edward IV. There are no other sources to back the claim. The statement 'possible descendent' is not POV as every article which discusses the Duchess of Cambridge in relation to her Fairfax ancestry states 'possible descendent'. I am only suggesting that we find more sources and until then the question of it should be noted. I removed the user warning from my talk page because if both parties are guilty of an edit war why would only one receive the warning? Should not both users? I hardly think that the way to resolve a dispute between two users is to give edit warnings to those you disagree with. Apparently, HelenOnline sees it differently. Virgosky (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FactStraight

Since 7 August 2013 Virgosky continues to revert a statement in the article properly sourced to a journal regularly published by one of the English-speaking world's most respected genealogical research societies, despite failing to obtain any support for his position on the talk page where he declared, "I am through with this discussion", insisting that additional research and confirmation are needed, even though the statement correctly reflects the online journal's report and his edit would misrepresent that journal's finding. Only one reason for ignoring our reliable sources standard is repeatedly suggested: the cited source is "American" rather than British -- an inadmissably biased and elitest objection. FactStraight (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I've looked at the content issue in question (we do not discuss conduct here at DRN) and I'm afraid that I cannot agree with either side. One side wants to qualify the material from the Child article with "possible" and "further research is needed" comments, the other does not, but the actual problem is that the material is inappropriate because it is not from a reliable source and should not be included, whether qualified or unqualified, at all. Reliable sources are, per the verifiability policy: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While American Ancestors may (or may not) be a respected journal from a prestigious society, per its own terms and conditions it does not vouch for the accuracy of its articles. On page 4 of the issue where the Child article appears, this statement appears: "Opinions and statements expressed herein are attributable solely to individual authors and are not endorsed by American Ancestors or the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)." That being the case, the journal is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. The articles which appear there are, therefore, for all intents and purposes self-published and the Biographies of living persons policy strictly forbids the use of self-published materials in articles about living persons, including groups of living persons such as a family. All material based upon the American Ancestors article should immediately be removed from the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan, I have added a secondary source today. Is that acceptable? HelenOnline 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, letters to the editor are also self-published and non-reliable. The section is still inappropriate. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan. Removing that material is what I had suggested from the beginning, but I was still willing to compromise. I am glad that you are agreeable to that instead. Hopefully the issue can now finally be put to rest. Virgosky (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am placing on record that I was unaware of this discussion and have changed the article in question. While I agree that in general letters to the editor should not be treated as reliable, this one is different - the author of the letter is writing about his own refereed article. As such, I believe that Misplaced Pages should either cite both article and follow-up letter or cite neither, but not one without the other and accept that the letter was an early notification to the genealogical community that he was amending the conclusions that he had arrived earlier. Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be one without the other, but the correct answer is that neither should be used. Self-published materials such as letters to the editor may be used in non-BLP articles if written by recognized experts, but may not be used in BLP articles per WP:BLPSPS even if written by a recognized expert. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Erdely Graham

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jorge Erdely Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Casitas del Sur case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)
• BaSoroka (talk · contribs)
• AbuRuud (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created the article for a rather controversial individual named Jorge Erdely Graham. Within a week the article was edited by various IP addresses, AbuRuud, and BaSoroka to remove the same information from the article and making the same arguments. The editors removed information that linked Erdely to the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring. The same edits were made on the Casitas del Sur case article. The problem quickly escalated when AbuRuud reported me to Mark Arsten, BLPN, and AN3. I ended up being blocked without warning for "edit warring without breaching WP:3RR"

As stated in the talk page, the deleted information is well sourced and should remain in the article. Erdely first became famous in 1997 when he "single-mindedly attacked La Luz del Mundo". He kept a low profile after that, occasionally making outrageous claims such as saying that 30% of Mexican priests commit sexual abuse. What really made Erdely famous was the Casitas del Sur case as he was identified as the person responsible for the child abductions. The latter alone justifies the existence of a Misplaced Pages article for Erdely. Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the dispute in the talk page. The issue has also been brought up at BLPN.

How do you think we can help?

I have been involved in other disputes that have been brought up at DRN, which has been effective in resolving the disputes.

Summary of dispute by BaSoroka

Ajaxfiore (or Ajax F¡ore) recently created an article (BLP) on Mexican writer and scholar Jorge Erdely Graham and stated that he is a fugitive wanted by the Mexican police. The statement was very poorly sourced so I removed it. It resorted to guilt by association or to what seems to be gossip picked up by Mexican media 4 years ago. Not a single authoritative source (The Police or The Courts) was quoted or cited by Ajaxfiore to support the allegations of criminality. The user would just revert my edits, saying that his/her sentence on Erdely's alleged fugitive status were properly sourced and cited more squalid sources echoing the same to try to account for the lack of quality sources.

Controversial or not, Dr. Erdely is a widely respected best-selling author in Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA. His research on human rights and religious abuse, both within Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism, has been published in peer-reviewed sociological journals. His books have been published by Random House, Ediciones B (Spain)and Editorial Unilit ( Miami, Florida). He belongs to a host of professional associations like the American Academy of Religion and the International Association for the History of Religion (funded by UNESCO) and has been interviewed and regarded as an expert by mainstream media like The San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian (London), UNIVISION (USA), The London BBC and The Times (London.) Revista Proceso, one of the most influential Mexican political weekly magazines, regularly quotes him and regards him as a specialist in religions and human rights.

All of these information is readily available on the web and easy to find and link. One would expect to find some of it in a biographic summary. Instead, Ajaxfiore initial BLP on Erdely Graham curiously omits most and chooses instead to focus on poorly sourced highly contentious material that is possibly libelous, or what seem to be outright fabrications. At stake are the meaning of BLP guidelines but also essential neutrality when creating and nurturing an article of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSoroka (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AbuRuud

Ajaxfiore has added the same poorly-sourced allegations on three different pages: Jorge Erdley Graham, Casitas del Sur case and La Luz del Mundo. As I originally wrote on the talk pages of Jorge Erdely Graham and Castias del Sur:

"Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. (http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring."

Ajaxfiore also added this to La Luz del Mundo: Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.

Now, as Ajaxfiore pointed out himself, he made the Jorge Erdely Graham article. He should well know that the Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009, not 2005. I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he clearly and gratuitously added a clause about Erdely being involved in the trafficking ring using a source from 2005. I would assume someone as interested in the subject as Ajaxfiore would figure out that the source doesn't work, especially when someone like myself--who knew nothing of the situation before I stumbled upon the page--figured it out.

Erdely is a living person and therefore information on his page is clearly covered by wp:blpremove. wp:exceptional also should apply. The information Ajaxfiore tried to insert four times is poorly sourced. I'm not sure how I can prove a negative (that Erdely isn't a wanted a fugitive) when there should be an overwhelming amount of reputable sources quoting the judiciary, police, or a tribunal. There simply isn't. user:Bbb23 clear agreed, as Ajaxfiore was banned for edit warring and the very same wp:blp issues I brought up.

I'm incredulous as to what dispute needs to be resolved. Three people agree that the information should not be on the page. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a continuation of the edit war that Ajaxfiore got previously banned for.

Jorge Erdely Graham discussion

Just to clarify, although the Casitas del Sur case exploded in 2009 when the government finally intervened, the accusations were there for a long time (as far back as 2005). The article is titled "Those responsible are backed by the government", because at the time the government refused to get involved, i.e. it took 4 years for the government to finally do something.

I don't think AbuRuud can say that Bbb23 clearly agreed, and I will now request his input. Ajax F¡ore_talk 03:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I determined that Ajax's conduct warranted a block, both for edit-warring and for BLP issues. Since expiration of the block, Ajax opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RidjalA. A CU determined that the technical relationship between AbuRuud and BaSorka (the new account) was "entirely inconclusive". At the same time, the CU admin said there was "a lot of suspicious editing going on here", although they weren't specific. I have no comment on the content dispute except to the extent that it spills over into editor misconduct or clearly affects WP:BLP policy. Here, I thought that the BLP violation allegations were sufficient to at least WP:BLPREMOVE the material pending a resolution of the content dispute. Some of the content issues might better be addressed at WP:BLPN. AbuRuud opened a discussion there on September 30, and other than one procedural note on October 2, there have been no additional comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able to verify all the claims made by BaSoroka in his second paragraph. In 1999, Erdely claims his book Pastores que abusan 1994 is a bestseller having sold "over 40,000 copies". I have not been able to verify this claim with independent sources, and doubt that a book that sells 8,000 copies per year is a best seller. I doubt Erdely "widely respected" in "Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA". Univisión, the largest Hispanic network in the US has a forum filled with the controversy regarding Erdely and Casitas del Sur because there was an user named daxan who actively promoted Erdely in the forum. Revista Proceso also identifies Erdely as the leader behind the Casitas del Sur kidnappings and cites arrest warrants from the Attorney General. Ajax F¡ore_talk 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New York City

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Demographics of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 173.63.176.93 (talk · contribs)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Estimate of languages spoken in New York City. 1. Last September I replaced a sentence in the opening paragraph in the above article that stated as many as 800 languages were spoken, making NYC the most linguistically diverse city in the world. The original sentence was cited to a piece in the New York Times of 2010, where the figure of 800 was attributed to "some experts". I replaced the sentence with an estimate of 200, citing the current New York City Department of Planning webpage. 2. My revision was reverted by 173.63.176.93 in Dec 2012, and a new citation added, to the website of the Endangered Language Alliance, which also features the estimate of 800 languages, again attributed to "some experts". 3. After explaining my motives and inviting input in Talk, I replaced the 800 figure with 200 on 4 Sep this year. It was reverted by Castncoot, who also reverted my language edit of another section of this article earlier the same day. 4. After discussion, I suggested a compromise sentence which included both figures, with citations, on 11 Sept. This was initially accepted by Castncoot, but criticised (although not rejected) by 173.63.176.93. Castncoot then returned to his original position and stated that he considered the original '800' sentence "the truth". 5. After posting an appeal for consensus, with no replies, I posted an intention to replace the sentence in the article with the compromise version, and that I would seek mediation here if it was reverted. I did so yesterday. 6. It was then reverted by 173.63.176.93.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted requests on Bervies, 98.113.136.78, Castncoot and 173.63.176.93's Talk pages requesting them to look at the article Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Read the Talk page "800 Languages?" section, and offer impartial advice, which I for one will accept without question.

Summary of dispute by 173.63.176.93

Nobody agrees with Robocon's sentence but he won't accept it. Continue on the discussion page, please. Does castncoot even know that robocon is pulling people into this?173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Castncoot

Demographics of New York City discussion

Continue on the discussion page, please.173.63.176.93 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• B. R. Ambedkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Premknutsford25 (talk · contribs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss , so that we can contribute the article as per Misplaced Pages policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page, discussed there , tried to improve the article to match the[REDACTED] policy.

How do you think we can help?

Neutral experience administrator can guide to solve this dispute , we are trying to match the[REDACTED] policy.

Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian

As long as the above editor is willing to contribute civilly, without casting aspersions on myself and other editors, I'm willing to continue the discussion. We may as well do so here. But I am not interested in a discussion if it's going to include insults and insinuations that I'm part of some sort of meatpuppet cadre, as the OP has already implied. Also, we need to notify the other people who've already contributed to the discussion (I know Sitush did, I'll have to check if there were more). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar discussion

Marina Oswald Porter

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Marina Oswald Porter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Owl uprising (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Please look at the talk page of Marina Oswald Porter. I have stated my case there. The article contains false information presented as fact. The information is sourced, however the source is a discredited, extremist publication. Every time I try to change it, my changes are reverted as vandalism. Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to fix the article.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the article objectively and decide if the information is appropriate.

Summary of dispute by

Marina Oswald Porter discussion

Bleach (anime)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bleach (anime) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs)
• Erachima (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

During the creation of a page, a team of editors engaged in reverting immediately during its initial creation and improvement. They claim it is a "redundant split" and revert it out of existance after pushing me to 3RR with good faith improvements and during both the "in use" template is present and in Erachima's case a brand new merge discussion. This violates WP:BLAR and subjects that meet N/GNG cannot be precluded from splitting; contested redirects are to go to AFD and this process is not being followed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion prior to the page's creation at WT:MOSAM and on the Talk:Bleach (anime) page until Erachima's reverting.

How do you think we can help?

Resolve the dispute around its out-of-process removal in violation of policy and identify whether the page is "a redundant CFORK".

Summary of dispute by Erachima

Summary of dispute by Ryulong

Bleach (anime) discussion

1. Pardo, Gastón (13 August 2005). "Los responsables están avalados por el gobierno". Voltaire Network. Retrieved 12 January 2013. A lo largo de 1997, una secta denominada Instituto Cristiano de México lanzó ataques en los medios informativos en contra de líderes religiosos, a quienes intentó desacreditar con el empleo sistemático de difamaciones y calumnias.

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution